AA

[ash11 78]

Ok, so this article http://www.coppernblue.com/2017/1/6/14193634/trade-for-this-guy-andreas-athanasiou?utm_campaign=coppernblue&utm_content=chorus&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter basically sums up that he is under appreciated as a player.  Imo I think AA has a higher ceiling and is better  hen Larkin, and I would trade Larkin if it brought us a top defense-men in the league.  I also think if AA got the mins Larkin did last year then he would of got to 30 goals,  So my question to you is that do you think AA is undervalued and if Larkin or AA got us a top d man would you do it? and who would you pick?  I really think this origination has the wrong look on AA, he is the future of this franchise along with Mantha. 

 

EDIT: Also I think that most of AA goals require more skill then Larkins goals....Larkin is just speed with a decent shot, but hes decent defesivly as well.  AA has a bomb, speed (I think faster then Larkin) and great hands...he just ends to learn to back check all the time, and know when to dump it in or carry it in..  one last thing.....AA should be used for entrys on our pp...he did last night but then someone lost the puck and it was the end of our power play but he was great at the one zone entry he had on the pp

Edited January 7, 2017 by ash11

[kipwinger 8,524]

AA has a little more maturing to do, if Blahill's criticisms are to be believed.  I think there's some credence to them actually.  He's got elite level skill, but may have been rushed along in his development.  I think he's still got the mindset that skill is the most important thing.  But what separates good players from great players at the NHL level is their engagement.  Think about a guy like Alexander Semin.  More skill than 99% of NHL players but the drive wasn't there.  When AA finally realizes that he can be as good as any player in the league when he puts in an honest effort, he will be.  I've said in the past that I think he could be Tyler Seguin level.  I stand behind that.  But he's got to mature.

As for your second question, I do believe he's more skilled than Larkin.  AND I agree he hasn't had the same level of opportunity as Larkin (or Mantha for that matter).  But I disagree with trading any of them.  You need two good centers in the NHL anymore, and moving one out for a defenseman just creates another hole.  As I've said elsewhere, if we want a top defenseman I'd call Calgary and offer Dekeyser, Svechnikov, and a 2nd for Hamilton.  No need to trade any of our future core.

[DickieDunn 2,571]

Elite. People keep using that word, I don't think it means what they think it does.

Sent from my LGLS676 using Tapatalk

[kipwinger 8,524]

17 minutes ago, DickieDunn said:

Elite. People keep using that word, I don't think it means what they think it does.

Sent from my LGLS676 using Tapatalk
 

Well then enlighten us, by all means. 

What I said was, "he's got elite level skill".  I stand behind that.  He's above average in size, his skating is better than all but 1% of the league, he's in the top 5% of the league in even strength scoring per 60 minutes of play, and is in the same percentile in shot generation.  Seems like elite level skill to me.  But as I insinuated above his ability to do that every single shift, against top players, hasn't been proven.  So he's not an elite player.  Just has the skill. 

Edit:  I stand corrected.  He's in the top 1% of the league at 5on5 scoring per 60 minutes of play. 

Edited January 7, 2017 by kipwinger

[kliq 3,755]

2 hours ago, DickieDunn said:

Elite. People keep using that word, I don't think it means what they think it does.

Sent from my LGLS676 using Tapatalk
 

What elite actually means is "a select part of a group that is superior to the rest in terms of ability or qualities."

So that essentially means the best of the best. I think that Tyler Seguin fits that definition and is an elite level talent, and if Kip thinks that AA has a Seguin level ceiling, I think he is using the word in the proper context.

[kipwinger 8,524]

I obviously know what the word elite means.  And I wasn't even saying AA was an "elite" player, like Seguin is.  I was saying that he had an elite skill set.  If he utilizes that skill set each and every shift, against top competition, he'll be an elite player.  It was all pretty clear in my original post.  Dickie just thinks being cynical and condescending masks the fact that he hasn't contributed anything productive or intelligent to this forum in years.  It doesn't, after 2,000,000 snarky "Blashill/Abby/Helm sux!" posts we're all pretty hip to his shtick. 

Edited January 7, 2017 by kipwinger

[DickieDunn 2,571]

The only thing I see elite about him is his speed.  I think he could be a very good player if he had a coach who actually used him better and wasn't constantly bashing him and giving him back handed compliments in a vain attempt to be a Bowman/Brooks like manipulator, but not elite.  Elite is Crosby, Ovechkin, Yzerman, Forsberg.  Best players in the game.  AA won't be that level any more than Larkin was "already elite" 2 months into last season or Pulk had 40 goal potential.

[kipwinger 8,524]

1 hour ago, DickieDunn said:

The only thing I see elite about him is his speed.  I think he could be a very good player if he had a coach who actually used him better and wasn't constantly bashing him and giving him back handed compliments in a vain attempt to be a Bowman/Brooks like manipulator, but not elite.  Elite is Crosby, Ovechkin, Yzerman, Forsberg.  Best players in the game.  AA won't be that level any more than Larkin was "already elite" 2 months into last season or Pulk had 40 goal potential.

Predictably you've decided to argue that AA isn't an elite player.  Something I made clear, TWICE, that I wasn't saying. 

He's been in the top 1% of NHL players in even strength scoring for the last two seasons.  That seems fairly elite thus far too. Again, I said he's got an elite skill set which you seem to agree with as far as skating.  His scoring rate is elite too. 

Did you want to address what I've actually said, or just keep arguing against the strawman you created?

Edited January 8, 2017 by kipwinger

[DickieDunn 2,571]

Scoring rate over a small sample size doesn't mean anything. I was addressing what you said. He doesn't have an elite skill set. He has elite speed. He will never be elite regardless of how hard he works because of that. That's being realistic not negative. Calling him a Helm clone would be negative. Saying he'll be out of the league in two years would be negative.

Sent from my LGLS676 using Tapatalk

[kipwinger 8,524]

48 minutes ago, DickieDunn said:

Scoring rate over a small sample size doesn't mean anything. I was addressing what you said. He doesn't have an elite skill set. He has elite speed. He will never be elite regardless of how hard he works because of that. That's being realistic not negative. Calling him a Helm clone would be negative. Saying he'll be out of the league in two years would be negative.

Sent from my LGLS676 using Tapatalk
 

I didn't accuse you of being negative.  I accused you of masking the essential baseness of your posts under an air of condescension and sarcasm.  I'm sorry that AA hasn't played more games.  I have no control over that.  But it's all we have to judge his NHL career, and so far his scoring rate has been elite.  As is, obviously, his speed. Both of which support my point.

If you disagree that his scoring rate has been elite and is inflated because of sample size you could have said so to begin with, instead of "Elite. People keep using that word, I don't think it means what they think it does.".  But I suspect being patronizing on the internet really just sorta does it for you.

Edited January 8, 2017 by kipwinger

[brett 1,029]

id only trade larkin or AA for a top 20 dman in the league that is young.

otherwise hopefully we get lucky in the draft 

[DickieDunn 2,571]

19 hours ago, kipwinger said:

I didn't accuse you of being negative.  I accused you of masking the essential baseness of your posts under an air of condescension and sarcasm.  I'm sorry that AA hasn't played more games.  I have no control over that.  But it's all we have to judge his NHL career, and so far his scoring rate has been elite.  As is, obviously, his speed. Both of which support my point.

If you disagree that his scoring rate has been elite and is inflated because of sample size you could have said so to begin with, instead of "Elite. People keep using that word, I don't think it means what they think it does.".  But I suspect being patronizing on the internet really just sorta does it for you.

People use that word for every young player that they like.  They're never correct

Larkin is already elite after only a month of NHL hockey.

Pulk is going to be an elite goal scorer

Dekeyser is an elite defender

Mrazek is an elite goalie

Nyquist and Tatar are going to be elite players and replace Zetterberg and Datsyuk's scoring

etc. etc. etc.

 

[kipwinger 8,524]

Just now, DickieDunn said:

People use that word for every young player that they like.  They're never correct

Larkin is already elite after only a month of NHL hockey.

Pulk is going to be an elite goal scorer

Dekeyser is an elite defender

Mrazek is an elite goalie

Nyquist and Tatar are going to be elite players and replace Zetterberg and Datsyuk's scoring

etc. etc. etc.

 

Nice dodge.  I've NEVER said that about any of the people you mentioned.  You're really good at completely avoiding what other people say and turning it into something you can debate.  I said AA has elite skill.  His skating is DEFINITELY elite, and has scoring rate has been elite so far as well.  Again, if you're skeptical based on the sample size then I understand and share your concerns about him keeping it up (I've said this a number of times already).  But you seem to be doubling down on A) AA isn't an elite player (which I've never said), and B) that other people have been wrong about other  players (which is irrelevant).  But again, I suspect that's not the point.  Obviously being snarky on the internet, regardless of what other people are saying, is your end game here.

[DickieDunn 2,571]

I never said you did.  That's why I said people keep using that word.  The stuff about AA is just part of the overall trend of fans pumping up their favorite young kid.

[LeftWinger 4,959]

AA, Mantha, Larkin should never be traded. We must developed our D kids by getting rid of players like Kronwall, Ericsson, Smith and eventually Green.

 

AA should be top 6 for the rest of the season. No question.

[frankgrimes 1,836]

AA, Mantha, Larkin should never be traded. We must developed our D kids by getting rid of players like Kronwall, Ericsson, Smith and eventually Green.
 
AA should be top 6 for the rest of the season. No question.

There can't be too many near untouchables when the team should be on the verge of finally doing a scorched earth move. For me it ends after Larkin and Mantha and even they are available if others are willing to overpay.

AA seems to be the new flavor of the year...just like Larkin was last year.

[LeftWinger 4,959]

I would agree if we were one player away from winning now, but we're not. It looks like the playoffs are a fading goal, so it's time to evaluate our kids and come deadline deal vets for draft picks. As much as I'd love to keep Vanek, someone may be willing to overpay for him as a rental, we could then maybe try to sign him come July. Some team may also pay up for Mike Green and we should be looking at ways to get something for Nyquist and Tatar. Abby and Helm probably will not be traded and Howard has too many injury issues to bring anything, even left unprotected, I feel we are going to have to buy him out or be stuck with his contract. We should also take offers on Ericsson and Smith, I think Kronwall is about done. The OMG line is staying, whether anyone agrees or not.

The best thing to do is trade Green, Vanek, Ericsson, Smith, Nyquist and/or Tatar at the deadline for multiple picks and go with the kids into the office season. Hopefully get a very high draft pick. If we don't get the #1 but still get a top 5, I offer that to Calgary for Hamilton and their 1st and draft Foote (if on the board still.) Of course you take Patrick with the #1. You maybe try for Shattenkirk this July or Fowler next July.

No matter what, I do not trade AA, Mantha, Larkin, Dekeyser, Sproul or Mrazek. I don't even trade Coreau at this point. There honestly, at this point, is not a D man that, to me, is worth trading AA, Mantha or Larkin for. One guy won't save this season.

Edited January 9, 2017 by LeftWinger

[kliq 3,755]

1 hour ago, LeftWinger said:

I would agree if we were one player away from winning now, but we're not. It looks like the playoffs are a fading goal, so it's time to evaluate our kids and come deadline deal vets for draft picks. As much as I'd love to keep Vanek, someone may be willing to overpay for him as a rental, we could then maybe try to sign him come July. Some team may also pay up for Mike Green and we should be looking at ways to get something for Nyquist and Tatar. Abby and Helm probably will not be traded and Howard has too many injury issues to bring anything, even left unprotected, I feel we are going to have to buy him out or be stuck with his contract. We should also take offers on Ericsson and Smith, I think Kronwall is about done. The OMG line is staying, whether anyone agrees or not.

The best thing to do is trade Green, Vanek, Ericsson, Smith, Nyquist and/or Tatar at the deadline for multiple picks and go with the kids into the office season. Hopefully get a very high draft pick. If we don't get the #1 but still get a top 5, I offer that to Calgary for Hamilton and their 1st and draft Foote (if on the board still.) Of course you take Patrick with the #1. You maybe try for Shattenkirk this July or Fowler next July.

No matter what, I do not trade AA, Mantha, Larkin, Dekeyser, Sproul or Mrazek. I don't even trade Coreau at this point. There honestly, at this point, is not a D man that, to me, is worth trading AA, Mantha or Larkin for. One guy won't save this season.

I'm a fan of Sproul, and Coreau has played decently, but those two are far from untouchable.

I wouldn't trade our Mantha, AA, or Larkin for picks as that just seems stupid given the likelihood of the pick being a better player player, I would only consider trading one of them for a #1 d-man which would be very hard to pull off. DD I would prefer not to trade as I think he is a very good top 4 (not top 2) d-man. Mrazek I would hold on to due the ceiling and the fact that his value is so low right now, Coreau and Sproul I would trade for the right player.

1 hour ago, frankgrimes said:

There can't be too many near untouchables when the team should be on the verge of finally doing a scorched earth move. For me it ends after Larkin and Mantha and even they are available if others are willing to overpay.

If AA got us a player like Trouba, OEL etc. sure I agree, but I hope you dont want to trade our really young guys for picks. 

[krsmith17 7,191]

Any player should be available at the right price, but no team is going to overpay for Larkin, Mantha or Athanasiou at the deadline. Players that teams usually overpay for are pending UFA's and sometimes players with a year remaining. For that reason, I would be shopping Vanek, Smith, Green and Ott. Any other player we could trade would have to be a "hockey trade", and I'm not trading low on any of the kids. That's why I wouldn't trade any of Larkin, Mantha, Athanasiou, Jurco, Sproul, Ouellet, or Mrazek. Players I would be willing to trade low on are Howard and Ericsson. Other players I'd shop for the right price are Nyquist, Tatar, Sheahan and Marchenko. If we can get some decent picks / prospects for Vanek and Green, and offload a couple other big contracts we absolutely should. My fear though is that Holland holds on to everyone, or even worse again, decides to buy...

[Richdg 267]

58 minutes ago, krsmith17 said:

Any player should be available at the right price, but no team is going to overpay for Larkin, Mantha or Athanasiou at the deadline. Players that teams usually overpay for are pending UFA's and sometimes players with a year remaining. For that reason, I would be shopping Vanek, Smith, Green and Ott. Any other player we could trade would have to be a "hockey trade", and I'm not trading low on any of the kids. That's why I wouldn't trade any of Larkin, Mantha, Athanasiou, Jurco, Sproul, Ouellet, or Mrazek. Players I would be willing to trade low on are Howard and Ericsson. Other players I'd shop for the right price are Nyquist, Tatar, Sheahan and Marchenko. If we can get some decent picks / prospects for Vanek and Green, and offload a couple other big contracts we absolutely should. My fear though is that Holland holds on to everyone, or even worse again, decides to buy...

Don't forget he resigns Tatar to a 5 year/24 million deal with a NMC this summer........

[DickieDunn 2,571]

You don't trade a kid for picks or prospects. You trade a kid when you have several guys at a position for a kid at a position of weakness

Sent from my LGLS676 using Tapatalk

[LeftWinger 4,959]

I agree, which is why I believe we should sell the vets at the deadline for picks. I don't believe any package of Coreau or Sproul would get us anything that would help us now or later, and I also don't like the idea of kids for picks. Which is why I keep those two, amongst others. I don't mean to insinuate that they're untouchable, but at the deadline we're selling for picks, not one single player. Again, one player will not change this team. Why sell our kids for one player that still won't get us The Cup. Then we're out a Cup AND our young talent. 

Get picks for Green, Vanek, Nyquist, Tatar, Smith, Ericsson, Howard and play for the highest pick you can get. I personally dangle that top 5 pick to a team like Calgary or possibly Winnipeg for Hamilton or Trouba along with their 1st and hope for Foote.

[kliq 3,755]

1 hour ago, LeftWinger said:

Get picks for Green, Vanek, Nyquist, Tatar, Smith, Ericsson, Howard and play for the highest pick you can get. I personally dangle that top 5 pick to a team like Calgary or possibly Winnipeg for Hamilton or Trouba along with their 1st and hope for Foote.

I agree with Green, Vanek, Smith  Howard, and of course E (will never happen though), but you don't want to trade every vet away as that can lead to issues with the development of the kids (see Oilers pre McDavid). Even the Leafs who do seem to be headed in the right direction kept Komorov, Kadri, JVR, Bozak and Polak (re-acquired him). If we keep Z, one of Tats/Nyquist, Abby, Helm, and Kronwall I think that gives the kids some much needed leadership in the room.

Depending on who is available when we pick I like your trade idea. Trading for a guy like Trouba or Hamilton essentially gives us a 1A d-man. Going through the draft for a d-man is like playing the lottery, so many first rounders become busts. Depending on how bad we finish, our first rounder will have value.