News Article: Edmonton Oilers: Wait and See at 2C

[skorf]

Back to the article


The greatest asset of the team is the development within, Taylor Hall, Nuge, Yak and Eberle should all take significant steps this season, and if Hall takes another step, he will be stepping right into the spotlight of the NHL as maybe the best left-winger in the game (he’s already in the mix), so this team has some real potential to be in the mix come February and March.
Isn't that what we said last year and Eakins proved that it isn't so


Also some people are praising MacT for giving our own guys a chance since we won't be competing for a cup and unlikely for a playoff spot, but then those same people are praising MacT for using most of our cap up signing and overpaying some veterans so that we can compete (and taking away opportunities for our young guys).
Shouldn't people be consistent in their arguments

 

[Aerchon]

Sorry to single you out but this is one of the more interesting statements I've seen in some time.

The other option is not to make assumption on limited sample return.

Indeed for the Oilers its a chronic losers game doing so.

ps the next point you make about 7years sample being worse demonstration in your mind is even worse.

The simplest logical deduction that can be made is that a career NHL starting Center for 7yrs that earned such incumbency at age 18 and maintained it is a better player than some career AHLer, multiple years older, that hasn't had anything more than a cup of coffee at this level.

You've somehow deduced the opposite, that its better to have the career Ahler.. An assertion that defies reason.

I could/should just chalk this up to agree to disagree. When two people have perfectly opposite opinions there is no real common ground. But you never seem to get to worked up so even tho we go round in circles the dance has not tired me out yet.

Much as you find my logic interesting I would say the same for yours. A small sample but overall positive sample gives a reason for optimism IMO. A long sample size but overall negative gives reason for pessimism. Just how I see it and I am generally more pessimistic than optimistic.

I also am not sure why you would say he is a career AHLer. He has followed more of a detriot model for his development. Does Detroit just toss career AHLers into the league and hope they stick? It seems to be working well for them.

Also, even tho the Oilers are terrible at bringing in and developing talent from within you can't just give up and never even attempt it again. Lander, Pitlick, and Arco are our guys that "should" be graduating to full time NHL duty... Lol, I said duty. Their play, draft pedigree (for Pit & Land), and age would put any of these guys as "graduating" types from any organization. Whether they take the ball and run or fall flat on their face is the same crap shoot every organization takes.

It will be interesting to see how Arco and Gagner do in their respective roles/teams. We may well both be wrong as both players could fail as the odds are 50/50 at best for either succeeding IMO.

 

[Dorian2]

I could/should just chalk this up to agree to disagree. When two people have perfectly opposite opinions there is no real common ground. But you never seem to get to worked up so even tho we go round in circles the dance has not tired me out yet.

Much as you find my logic interesting I would say the same for yours. A small sample but overall positive sample gives a reason for optimism IMO. A long sample size but overall negative gives reason for pessimism. Just how I see it and I am generally more pessimistic than optimistic.

I also am not sure why you would say he is a career AHLer. He has followed more of a detriot model for his development. Does Detroit just toss career AHLers into the league and hope they stick? It seems to be working well for them.

Also, even tho the Oilers are terrible at bringing in and developing talent from within you can't just give up and never even attempt it again. Lander, Pitlick, and Arco are our guys that "should" be graduating to full time NHL duty... Lol, I said duty. Their play, draft pedigree (for Pit & Land), and age would put any of these guys as "graduating" types from any organization. Whether they take the ball and run or fall flat on their face is the same crap shoot every organization takes.

It will be interesting to see how Arco and Gagner do in their respective roles/teams. We may well both be wrong as both players could fail as the odds are 50/50 at best for either succeeding IMO.

I'm starting to wonder if we, as fans, are getting so used these young 18 and 19 year olds that we forget that a 24 or 25 year old player that has played in the AHL just might be ready to try the big show.

Everyone developes differently. It's all about the natural human cadence.

 

[Replacement*]

Limited samples work both ways Replacement.

You yourself are basing Arco's possibility as a half decent #2C failure on very small sample sizes.

No I'm not at all. I'm stating a guy that is 26yrs old who hasn't had much of a sniff at the NHL while belonging to the weakest NHL lineup in the league hasn't turned any heads. Its laugh a minute stuff that theres actual suggestions that Arco would make the topsix on a lot of teams and get interest from other orgs in that capacity. Man if you can't crack the worst team I doubt theres a role anywhere in the NHL. This is not basing on limited sample. Its looking at the career path of an AHL player.

Personally I saw some really good stuff from him in both the 2C role and the 4C role...not so much the second one. I believe that his playmaking abilities are fairly outstanding, and there are a number of players in the top six that will benefit. It's also a nice factoid that he seems to like to hit a hell of a lot. Unfortunately his size doesn't help him out there....especially against teams in the Western Conference.

hyperbole. he doesn't drive any offense, he was along for a short ride. Before the team expectedly demoted him again.

Having discussions on this player is oddly reminiscent of discussion on someone like Omark. people see some moderate skill set displayed in a lesser league and think that the type of plays made translate meaningfully to the NHL.

Arco does not possess an NHL topsix skillset. At best he would drag such a line down.

 

[Replacement*]

I have an issue with people who use muddy stats like corsi to conclude that since players played better with Arcobello than without him in the first 14 games, that means he can hack it as a 2C.

Given a choice between a "fish out of water" LW Hall, Arcobello, a hard minutes Gordon, or Acton (lol), who might you play better with?

Or, not even play better with, but get more floaty shots on net while you're down 2 goals and your opponent is cruising to another easy win? Let's ignore the fact that Arcobello didn't score a single goal in those dominant first 14 games, or that Eberle carried him in a nice picnic basket most of the way. Those 10 assists remind me one hell of a lot of Gagner (assist leech), yet with praise from HF Oil instead of loathing.

Mindblowing. If Gagner wore 26 when he came back after injury, he might still be starting the season at 2C. Who is that scrappy young mid-20s upstart? I like him!

I can't understand how some guy spent several HOURS with a bunch of stats and homemade parameters to prove Arcobello's worth, while disregarding the team's situation entirely. Seriously.

I'm somewhat comforted that theres still people here that realize detail like this and how impactful it potentially is to advanced stats.

Too many systemic events occur in hockey that are not isolated and do not "equal out with the mix" as Corsicologists like to believe. Of course a player playing a select segment of games in a topsix role where the club was getting blown out and behind nearly all the time is going to result in some strange artifice in the stats. That so much is made of such a weird 10 game sample is mindblowing.

 

[Replacement*]

I could/should just chalk this up to agree to disagree. When two people have perfectly opposite opinions there is no real common ground. But you never seem to get to worked up so even tho we go round in circles the dance has not tired me out yet.

Much as you find my logic interesting I would say the same for yours. A small sample but overall positive sample gives a reason for optimism IMO. A long sample size but overall negative gives reason for pessimism. Just how I see it and I am generally more pessimistic than optimistic.

I also am not sure why you would say he is a career AHLer. He has followed more of a detriot model for his development. Does Detroit just toss career AHLers into the league and hope they stick? It seems to be working well for them.

Also, even tho the Oilers are terrible at bringing in and developing talent from within you can't just give up and never even attempt it again. Lander, Pitlick, and Arco are our guys that "should" be graduating to full time NHL duty... Lol, I said duty. Their play, draft pedigree (for Pit & Land), and age would put any of these guys as "graduating" types from any organization. Whether they take the ball and run or fall flat on their face is the same crap shoot every organization takes.

It will be interesting to see how Arco and Gagner do in their respective roles/teams. We may well both be wrong as both players could fail as the odds are 50/50 at best for either succeeding IMO.

Its the way you stated that you "have to base your assumptions on something" that I found interesting. To me theres a lot wrong with that statement and like I said the choice to "not assume" is perfectly valid.

For instance it takes a large leap of faith to say a career AHler with barely a sniff in the NHL and that we've all seen play is gonna be a valid topsix NHL Player. Logically speaking the probability that a career NHL that has been in that role always is more likely to continue to be.

In that, the bolded is extremely curious. A betting man takes that bet anytime and I have. Gagner has already succeeded and stormed his way into the NHL at age 18. An undrafted Arco hasn't been good enough to break an NHL roster ever and required both of the topsix Centers on the worst club in NHL to be injured to get inserted. We aren't even having this discussion about Arco NHL suitability if both RNH and Gagner weren't injured to start the season.

 

[oilexport]

I feel we are too close to winning with this team to go with all these unproven, shot in the dark centers. Bring someone in, many of us argued to bring in Grabo rather then sign Gagner. The position has been weak ever since all the people argued for Horcoff at #1 C.

If Leon is ready, fine but go with the 3rd line for him. RNH is even iffy at #1 at such a young age.

I'm still glad they got rid of Gagner, but don't tell me there are not deals to make for someone shorter term, until our prospects develop the right way.

As mentioned, I think we are too good a team to let this one spot fall so much.

Arco is crap for NHL.

 

[OiledUp]

I think everyone here would want a more safe bet than Arco, Lander, Draisaitl. The question is just who.
Sure if we're willing to give up potential for stop gaps. Or if we're looking at a big trade including some of our core guys, but in that case you have to find a willing partner and a trade that actually benefits us and it really isn't as simple as it is just posting trading proposals. Or overpay for a free agent, though outside of maybe Grabovski there wasn't much out there, Statsny was never coming here no matter what. I could have lived with Legwand but who knows if was ever interested in us. Thing is we're no free agent hot bed.

Maybe taking on Lecavaliers contract for scraps and hoping he bounces back and keeps his play up until his contract ends could have payed off, but that's one massive gamble, imo a bigger gamble than giving it 10-15 games to see if these guys can at least keep their heads over the water.

There are some possible trades out there, Berglund(who is overrated around here but is a solid NHLer in a middle six role and still has room to take a step or two) might get caught in a numbers game, Detroits lack of right hand shots might open up a trading option and so forth but I think all those teams wants to see what they have in training camp before making any moves.

If we're just looking for a warm body I'd rather throw what we have in the water and see if it floats.

Thing is, unless we're adding something substantial without giving up something substantial, which is kinda tricky, we're at best a bubble playoff team next season(unless the majority of our youngsters suddenly explodes onto the scene) and thus I don't see the point in giving up assets to slightly improve.

In the case of Arco I think just looking at him as a 26 year old AHLer who hasn't established himself in the NHL yet is a bit unfair. He obviously is. But he's also taken steps forward every season since he left college. He may very well have plateaued but if you look at his trajectory season to season it's still pointing upwards. He's at the hardest step to take in his career and this is pretty much make or break for him but just writing him off at this point is still unfair imo. People clearly looks at his performance last year differently, I think he had some things that might suggest he can make it, but he clearly needs to improve further. Also he may have been 25, but last year was his rookie season and he has shown the ability to learn before. Surprising to see you of all people being such an ageist Replacement...

Lander is younger than Arco however his trajectory hasn't been as steadily upwards as Arcobellos. But over the last two seasons he's been improving with every year and last year he mastered the AHL as a twoway center with leadership abilities. I already think he can play in the NHL as defense first #4C who can temp on the 3rd line, he's also a top 3 PKer amongst the forwards on our roster. With him it's all about getting the scoring at a somewhat decent level.

Both these guys have worked their way up and they've deserved to at least get a good look.

Just one more tidbit. I wasn't a fan of letting Gagner go, though I sort of understand that the situation for him was starting to become impossible. But I think we sold when he was on a real low, imo he looked improved in the shortened 12/13 season and also seemed to be quicker preseason last year until Kassian decided to practice his swing on Gagners face, add to that a career low S%, a disaster of a coach and defensive system and you have a guy who likely hit the lowest point of his career last year. That's trading when value is real low.
But whatever the case with Gagner, he isn't on the team anymore so who's better between him and Arco doesn't really matter anymore.

 

[oilexport]

People are already giving up on this year with 2 unproven centers in Arco, Leon, and Lander.

Lord help us with an injury to RNH.

We have many assets (2nd tier) that should be worth a lot in a package for a team that may want to dump salery and get younger. Trade one of Marincin or Klefbom and maybe a draft pick depending on who we get.

Shore up are only weakness and lets start winning.

Don't accept losing please...

 

[Aerchon]

No I'm not at all. I'm stating a guy that is 26yrs old who hasn't had much of a sniff at the NHL while belonging to the weakest NHL lineup in the league hasn't turned any heads. Its laugh a minute stuff that theres actual suggestions that Arco would make the topsix on a lot of teams and get interest from other orgs in that capacity. Man if you can't crack the worst team I doubt theres a role anywhere in the NHL. This is not basing on limited sample. Its looking at the career path of an AHL player.


hyperbole. he doesn't drive any offense, he was along for a short ride. Before the team expectedly demoted him again.

Having discussions on this player is oddly reminiscent of discussion on someone like Omark. people see some moderate skill set displayed in a lesser league and think that the type of plays made translate meaningfully to the NHL.

Arco does not possess an NHL topsix skillset. At best he would drag such a line down.

I think you are starting to be very selective with your logic.

Arco is most certainly weak because he can't break the oilers roster. And the oilers are a last place team.

Using that logic you have to conclude the vast majority of our current line up is not NHL worthy.

Not only is that bleak as hell but just generally untrue. We have many quality players that just need better management.

Putting Arcobello’s usage solely on him with no other factors just doesn't work for me. Very shakey logic.

Comparing Arcobello’s 2 points a game to omarks 1 point per game is not right. Comparing Arcobello’s two way game, faceoffs, hitting, offense etc is just wrong. Those 2 play in the same league but are not "in" the same league.

 

[GirardSpinorama]

Derek Roy or Riberio would have been good in the dark centers for the Oilers. Both came at bargin basement prices too.

 

[Replacement*]

I
In the case of Arco I think just looking at him as a 26 year old AHLer who hasn't established himself in the NHL yet is a bit unfair. He obviously is. But he's also taken steps forward every season since he left college. He may very well have plateaued but if you look at his trajectory season to season it's still pointing upwards. He's at the hardest step to take in his career and this is pretty much make or break for him but just writing him off at this point is still unfair imo. People clearly looks at his performance last year differently, I think he had some things that might suggest he can make it, but he clearly needs to improve further. Also he may have been 25, but last year was his rookie season and he has shown the ability to learn before. Surprising to see you of all people being such an ageist Replacement...

.

Not ageist. Just stating the reality of where Arco has been in career relative to where his incumbent was. Also, just stating this in response to a thread where people (several) anoint, and describe Arco as better player than Gagner in every way which is pure nonsense. As I've responded throughout the burden of proof falls on those making such claims to substantiate, or back off from them.

Fact of the matter is we're worse at Center this year and our 2nd line production will almost certainly drop. I don't know either that Arco is the defensive forward wizard that people are making him out to be. I saw very little indication of that tbh.

If somebody said last season a draft pick, Arco, and Lander were going to be in the mix among our starting centers for this season first thing to do would be vomit, second would be thinking the club has switched rebuild reset button already and are trying to start over again..

 

[Replacement*]

I think you are starting to be very selective with your logic.

Arco is most certainly weak because he can't break the oilers roster. And the oilers are a last place team.

Using that logic you have to conclude the vast majority of our current line up is not NHL worthy.

Not only is that bleak as hell but just generally untrue. We have many quality players that just need better management.

Putting Arcobello’s usage solely on him with no other factors just doesn't work for me. Very shakey logic.

Comparing Arcobello’s 2 points a game to omarks 1 point per game is not right. Comparing Arcobello’s two way game, faceoffs, hitting, offense etc is just wrong. Those 2 play in the same league but are not "in" the same league.

Fair enough, that's valid. But still in looking at a player that had several years of experience in honing his game at lesser levels I'm not seeing the same thing some others did. My take is Arco upped his game last season as a 25yr old. A question could be asked is why did it take so long.
Next, is that indication of upward trajectory or just a relative good year for Arco?

 

[Philly85*]

Who and what is the significance of this blog and why are they allowed to promote this horribly generic "article". Brings nothing new to the conversation, all bases have been covered on HF and the other blogs and forums.

 

[Up the Irons]

Arco hasn't proven a darn thing at the NHL level. You're basing this off of a decent 10 game sample size, lets not get silly here.

I'm well aware of Gagner's shortcomings, have been preaching about him not being an ideal center for this team for years but that doesn't change the fact that he is a PROVEN NHL scorer whereas Arcobello is a proven AHL scorer who had a few decent NHL games. Maybe he proves to be worthy, maybe not. But it is what it is, a MAYBE.

With Arco, there are still tons of question marks. The guy has heart, i'll give him that, but he's not going to grow 3-4 inches overnight and he's not going to be an above average skater overnight. With him being at prime age now, chances are that he is what he is at this point.

you are right. the only thing 'proven' is that Gagner is pretty much useless at a 2C at the NHL level.

Sorry to single you out but this is one of the more interesting statements I've seen in some time.

The other option is not to make assumption on limited sample return.

Indeed for the Oilers its a chronic losers game doing so.

ps the next point you make about 7years sample being worse demonstration in your mind is even worse.

The simplest logical deduction that can be made is that a career NHL starting Center for 7yrs that earned such incumbency at age 18 and maintained it is a better player than some career AHLer, multiple years older, that hasn't had anything more than a cup of coffee at this level.

You've somehow deduced the opposite, that its better to have the career Ahler.. An assertion that defies reason.

again, a useless career NHL starting centre.

bottom line is Gagner had 7 years to prove he was a 2C and all he did was prove he isn't. The only way Gagner works as a 2C is if the wingers are allstars, but you could say that about anyone, including me. in one measely month Arco did enough to convince MacT that he was a better option at C than Gagner. that's all there is too it.

Arco as a 2C = probably not good enough

however, Arco as a 2C > Gagner as a 2C.

 

[Jamie]

Fair enough, that's valid. But still in looking at a player that had several years of experience in honing his game at lesser levels I'm not seeing the same thing some others did. My take is Arco upped his game last season as a 25yr old. A question could be asked is why did it take so long.
Next, is that indication of upward trajectory or just a relative good year for Arco?

It takes some players a while: like Fernando Pisani.

 

[Replacement*]

you are right. the only thing 'proven' is that Gagner is pretty much useless at a 2C at the NHL level.



again, a useless career NHL starting centre.

bottom line is Gagner had 7 years to prove he was a 2C and all he did was prove he isn't. The only way Gagner works as a 2C is if the wingers are allstars, but you could say that about anyone, including me. in one measely month Arco did enough to convince MacT that he was a better option at C than Gagner. that's all there is too it.

Arco as a 2C = probably not good enough

however, Arco as a 2C > Gagner as a 2C.

Explain then why Arco was demoted for the rest of the season then. Gagner had a bad year due to injury. Lets not extrapolate from that that he's useless. Virtually nobody was saying that the year before. I suspect nobody will be saying it in a years time.

If MacT was convinced of anything in such a brief sample he's a worse manager than I had thought. Right now he's convincing me that he's headed into a season with a disaster at Center this year instead of the disaster in net. The common thread being entering into seasons with such obvious lineup flaws.

 

[Dorian2]

Not ageist. Just stating the reality of where Arco has been in career relative to where his incumbent was. Also, just stating this in response to a thread where people (several) anoint, and describe Arco as better player than Gagner in every way which is pure nonsense. As I've responded throughout the burden of proof falls on those making such claims to substantiate, or back off from them.

Fact of the matter is we're worse at Center this year and our 2nd line production will almost certainly drop. I don't know either that Arco is the defensive forward wizard that people are making him out to be. I saw very little indication of that tbh.

If somebody said last season a draft pick, Arco, and Lander were going to be in the mix among our starting centers for this season first thing to do would be vomit, second would be thinking the club has switched rebuild reset button already and are trying to start over again..

I've noticed something here Replacement. I'm sure a few other members here have as well. It seems that whenever some poster or thread takes exception to one of your favorite players, and says a different player is better than said Replacement favorite, you go waaaaay out of your way to absolutely trash that player.

This Gagner/Arco one is not the first. I happen to disagree as well with posters claiming Arco is as good, if not better, than Gags is. But bashing the player that was compared, IMO, is disrespectful to the work and time that player has put into trying to become an NHLer.

Perhaps it is time to look at the good things the player does than basing your argument seemingly on a Gagner comparable that you do not agree with.

 

[Aerchon]

Fair enough, that's valid. But still in looking at a player that had several years of experience in honing his game at lesser levels I'm not seeing the same thing some others did. My take is Arco upped his game last season as a 25yr old. A question could be asked is why did it take so long.
Next, is that indication of upward trajectory or just a relative good year for Arco?

That's the $600 000.00 question Mac T/Ownership is going to pay to find the answer to. Worth the risk IMO because I watched him outperform Nuge in the AHL 2 years ago back when he was 23, no small feat. Arco's scoring pace last year in the AHL was on par with all of the Oilers superstars when they were in the AHL and if he maintained that pace over a full season would of been THE top goal scorer and top point getter by a wide margin in the AHL with no Hall, Eberle, or Schultz to pad his numbers. Late bloomer? Proper development? Flash in the pan? Unsustainable? I want the answer as well.

 

[Replacement*]

I've noticed something here Replacement. I'm sure a few other memebers here have as well. It seems that whenever some poster or thread takes exception to one of your favorite players, and says a different player is better than said Replacement favorite, you go waaaaay out of your way to absolutely trash that player.

This Gagner/Arco one is not the first. I happen to disagree as well with posters claiming Arco is as good, if not better, than Gags is. But bashing the player that was compared, IMO, is disrespectful to the work and time that player has put into trying to become an NHLer.

Perhaps it is time to look at the good things the player does than basing your argument seemingly on a Gagner comparable that you do not agree with.

Really to do this I require some time watching the player now that Gagner is gone. Bias? We all have em.

My concern for the org is really how they devalue their own players that are even remotely good and get rid of them eventually. To wit players like Horc, hemmer, Gagner, Gilbert. Next undoubtedly Petry. This org does this instead of supplanting reasonable players with suitable supporting players.

I'm not comforted either that Arco will not only have to play out of position but he'll likely have to do it with some players that haven't even been playing here either. I guess its hoped that kind of reload will be a freshstart ignition. I think of it more as continued chaos and players looking unorganized not knowing each other and playing for a club with wonky systems.

 

[Up the Irons]

Explain then why Arco was demoted for the rest of the season then. Gagner had a bad year due to injury. Lets not extrapolate from that that he's useless. Virtually nobody was saying that the year before. I suspect nobody will be saying it in a years time.

because Gagner was fed ice-time. they wanted to a) get him going or b) raise his value. Arco wasn't 'demoted'; he lost his position to Gagner due to, let's call it politics (for lack of a better term).

If MacT was convinced of anything in such a brief sample he's a worse manager than I had thought. Right now he's convincing me that he's headed into a season with a disaster at Center this year instead of the disaster in net. The common thread being entering into seasons with such obvious lineup flaws.

agreed. but that environment would exist to almost the same degree with Gagner on the team. All they'd have is one more no-good-enough C. An every-so slightly less dire of a situation, but dire nonetheless.

Wish Gagner luck, but doubt I'll miss him.

 

[Arpeggio]

Hopefully Draisaitl is really good this year. And hopefully Arcobello can at least hold his head above water in a full NHL season. Hopefully hopefully hopefully.

 

[OiledUp]

Not ageist. Just stating the reality of where Arco has been in career relative to where his incumbent was. Also, just stating this in response to a thread where people (several) anoint, and describe Arco as better player than Gagner in every way which is pure nonsense. As I've responded throughout the burden of proof falls on those making such claims to substantiate, or back off from them.

Fact of the matter is we're worse at Center this year and our 2nd line production will almost certainly drop. I don't know either that Arco is the defensive forward wizard that people are making him out to be. I saw very little indication of that tbh.

If somebody said last season a draft pick, Arco, and Lander were going to be in the mix among our starting centers for this season first thing to do would be vomit, second would be thinking the club has switched rebuild reset button already and are trying to start over again..

The ageist thing was obviously tounge in cheek but I do believe NHL teams tend to give up on players too early. Athletes develop well into their 30s and at a different pace for each individual. And we as fans tend to have a certain bias against guys who find their groove later, youngsters usually starts at a position where everything good they do is embraced and everything bad is disregarded. Eventually the honey moon ends and there's a more honest approach. With guys who come in later it's instead a much more questioning attitude from the get go where we look for reasons the player has played at a lower level for so long.
Not saying you're more biased than anyone else, you're sceptical towards most players , it's just a general thought.

 

[CupofOil]

you are right. the only thing 'proven' is that Gagner is pretty much useless at a 2C at the NHL level.



again, a useless career NHL starting centre.

bottom line is Gagner had 7 years to prove he was a 2C and all he did was prove he isn't. The only way Gagner works as a 2C is if the wingers are allstars, but you could say that about anyone, including me. in one measely month Arco did enough to convince MacT that he was a better option at C than Gagner. that's all there is too it.

Arco as a 2C = probably not good enough

however, Arco as a 2C > Gagner as a 2C.

Gagner had scored 40+ points every season of his career and had 38 in 48 games the other year.
Arco had a nice 10 game stretch.

Neither are legit #2C's but at least one has proven to be able to score on a top 6 level while the other has been an AHLer his entire career.

The point is that neither is an answer but at least one has shown that he can score consistently at the NHL level.
Arco might turn out to be a better option than Gagner was but it's not based on anything that he has proven.

Ugh, I actually feel dirty for having to defend Gagner since I have been hoping for him to be dealt for years now but lets be realistic here. One is a proven NHLer while the other is a big maybe.

 

[McBooya42]

Fair enough, that's valid. But still in looking at a player that had several years of experience in honing his game at lesser levels I'm not seeing the same thing some others did. My take is Arco upped his game last season as a 25yr old. A question could be asked is why did it take so long.
Next, is that indication of upward trajectory or just a relative good year for Arco?

Why did it take Martin St Louis so long? How about those Sedin twins? Every player's progression is different, isn't it?