No, Helm was not declining last year. He was the same Helm he's been for quite some time.
That doesn't answer my questions. He was, to my eye test at least, significantly worse on the forecheck (to the point that it may as well have not been a part of his game at all, compared to his first few years in the league), and I really don't think he played as fast. If you want to argue that that was an effect of coaching and usage, I could buy that.
And yes, there are people here who think prospects are always better than what I outlined. It's one of the main themes of this forum, and has been for the 9 years I've been around. My apologies if you are arguing for a veteran outside the organization, instead of a prospect, to fill Helm's spot.
Prospects are always better than mediocre players, or it's always better to play a prospect over a mediocre player? I've seen a lot of the latter, none of the former. I don't think I've seen a single person say Mantha, for instance, is definitively better, but I've seen a lot of people essentially saying that he (or AA) would be a better use of the roster spot.
There are 23 roster spots on this team, why does Darren Helm, a player who brings valuable attributes, have to fulfill all the team's needs? While we all want those needs taken care of, you still have to have the things the team does have that are necessary for success. And Helm brings some of those things.
He doesn't have to fulfill them all, but the ones he does fulfill have very little value to a team that's barely going to scrape into the playoffs for yet another year. That's the point: for a team like Tampa Bay (as an example of a team that's close, not necessarily because they have a hole), signing a guy of Helm's caliber makes a lot of sense. They might be a player or so away from contention. Detroit is several players away from contention. Darren Helm isn't the kind of player that has value to a team, in that case, unless you'd really rather have the 16th draft pick and not the 15th, or if, like KH, all you want is to back into the playoffs and the results once there don't matter.
Obfuscation. You said Helm beings nothing to this team. That's ridiculous.
Apologies, then, I was being a little hyperbolic: he adds nothing to this team if the goal is to win a cup. The supporting team isn't strong enough for his skillset to matter at all. If you still disagree, I'd ask this: how many wins does the team end up with last year with and without Helm? How many wins does he add in 2016-17? If the answer is <5 (and I think it's very near 0), then I think we fundamentally agree, even if semantics get in the way.
So let me get this straight.... if you are a mediocre hockey team, then there is no place for what you deem to be a complementary player? What's left that fits the bill? 12 star scoring forwards? Should we jettison Nyquist, Tatar, Abdelkader, Vanek, Athanasiou, Sheahan, Glendening, Miller, Ott, Jurco, and Pulkkinen? No place for complementary players on a mediocre team after all. Or are any of those guys more than complementary forwards in your eyes?
To the first question: it depends on your goals and the rest of the makeup of your team. Nyquist or Tatar might have value, if you think they'll be able to play with Larkin, but I don't really think they both have value for this team (which is why basically the entire board is willing to dump one to bring back a player that would). Additionally, if your goal is just to make the playoffs, then a bunch of complementary players demonstrably help with that goal. However, a group of complementary players isn't really ever going to contend; they're just not good enough.
To the second part, I think we should be
willing to jettison all of them. I love Abbie and think he bring a lot to this team, but I think signing him, for what he is, to a lifetime deal was unbelievably stupid. If we can dump Vanek at the deadline for picks, I think that's absolutely a smart move. I don't know why AA even came up, as he's barely played in the NHL yet. But again, if you're not contending, none of those guys, at the veteran level, are players that should be getting massive, long term contracts. None of those guys are players who should be getting top dollar in FA. I haven't complained about Vanek's deal at all, because like Richards', it's only one year. It sucks that he's another guy blocking AA or Mantha, but for a year, who cares (and he's moveable). Helm's contract is a travesty, in comparison.
I'd add that I'm not pressing for a sell off and a tank-to-the-bottom, but that if your team is going to be mediocre anyways, it might as well be mediocre while you play guys who have a shot at making it not mediocre in the future, rather than signing high priced (in term or AAV) FAs who won't add more than 1 or 2 wins (and 0 in the playoffs) anyway.