Player Discussion Kevin Fiala

[DeagleJenkins]

How many PP units does a team have?

You don't even know what a PP QB is? Might be time to cut your losses?

youre right im completely clueless what is a pp qb? dont they have 4 different pp units with a roster size of 23 players?

 

[57special]

I can see a spot for Greenway down low and in the crease on the PP.

 

[2Pair]

Considering what we gave up that would be terrible

Starting to look like they dodged a huge bullet by getting out of that deal when they did.

 

[2Pair]

youre right im completely clueless what is a pp qb? dont they have 4 different pp units with a roster size of 23 players?

Now you're starting to figure it out.


They could have 7 PP units, and Ek still wouldn't be the QB on any of them.

 

[DeagleJenkins]

Now you're starting to figure it out.


They could have 7 PP units, and Ek still wouldn't be the QB on any of them.

yes but that 8th one, he has a chance at that!!

 

[Digitalbooya]

Considering what we gave up that would be terrible

Granlund had 1g 4a in 16 games for Nashville. Fiala had 3g 4a in 19 games for Minnesota. With Granlund being a better two way player and Fiala being 4 years younger, I'd say the value of the trade was pretty equal. Who knows how Granlund will do next year, or Fiala for that matter.

 

[BlackBusa24]

Granlund had 1g 4a in 16 games for Nashville. Fiala had 3g 4a in 19 games for Minnesota. With Granlund being a better two way player and Fiala being 4 years younger, I'd say the value of the trade was pretty equal. Who knows how Granlund will do next year, or Fiala for that matter.

Honestly I think you're comparison is looking at things in the best possible case for fiala. By picking only the last 16 to 20 games instead of their entire careers you're kind of missing how good each player actually is. The fact of the matter is granlund was a much higher and proven commodity than fiala ever was. 15-20 games really is nothing. Especially when you compare granlunds mostly center years to fiala being a winger.

Granted I haven't watched anything that granlund has done in Nashville but I bet you he is a thousand percent more complete of a player than the turnover machine that is fiala

 

[2Pair]

Honestly I think you're comparison is looking at things in the best possible case for fiala. By picking only the last 16 to 20 games instead of their entire careers you're kind of missing how good each player actually is. The fact of the matter is granlund was a much higher and proven commodity than fiala ever was. 15-20 games really is nothing.

Granted I haven't watched anything that granlund has done in Nashville but I bet you he is a thousand percent more complete of a player than the turnover machine that is fiala

Look at Granlund's numbers since Thanksgiving. Not good

You would lose that bet. Granlund is a more complete player than Fiala is right now, but the diference is minimal.

 

[AKL]

Honestly I think you're comparison is looking at things in the best possible case for fiala. By picking only the last 16 to 20 games instead of their entire careers you're kind of missing how good each player actually is. The fact of the matter is granlund was a much higher and proven commodity than fiala ever was. 15-20 games really is nothing.

Granted I haven't watched anything that granlund has done in Nashville but I bet you he is a thousand percent more complete of a player than the turnover machine that is fiala

Is it really fair to compare Fiala’s first few seasons to Granlund’s prime?

Doesn’t really matter what happened in the past at this point. What happens after the deal is what will determine if this was a good or bad trade. So far, it’s been a wash, which is a lot better than we expected before the trade happened.

 

[16thOverallSaveUs]

Where he’s injured or just suddenly forgot how to play hockey, these are alarming numbers:
1st 41 games this season: 39 points
Last 38: 15 points

One could argue that he will bounce back, but he wasn’t even making hockey plays towards the end of the year. I think, like 2pair said, we got out of this trade at the perfect time. I don’t like the value, but if granlund doesn’t return to form, I’ll take Fiala and run.

 

[BlackBusa24]

Look at Granlund's numbers since Thanksgiving. Not good

You would lose that bet. Granlund is a more complete player than Fiala is right now, but the diference is minimal.

I'm sorry but fiala is a turnover machine and is plus minus highly shows that. You're nitpicking a certain statistic to prove your point but disregarding the other ones. There's a reason everyone around the NHL was saying how Fenton was taken without lube on the trade when it happened.

Saying that over 15 to 20 games granlund lost who he was as a player to make the trade even is ludacris

 

[AKL]

I'm sorry but fiala is a turnover machine and is plus minus highly shows that. You're nitpicking a certain statistic to prove your point but disregarding the other ones. There's a reason everyone around the NHL was saying how Fenton was taken without lube on the trade when it happened.

Saying that over 15 to 20 games granlund lost who he was as a player to make the trade even is ludacris

Lol

 

[2Pair]

I'm sorry but fiala is a turnover machine and is plus minus highly shows that. You're nitpicking a certain statistic to prove your point but disregarding the other ones. There's a reason everyone around the NHL was saying how Fenton was taken without lube on the trade when it happened.

Saying that over 15 to 20 games granlund lost who he was as a player to make the trade even is ludacris

What stat am I "nitpicking"? What point am I trying to prove/disprove? I even said that Granlund is currently the more complete player.


Granlund has been a bad player for much more of his career than he has been a good one? Disprove that.

 

[2Pair]

Where he’s injured or just suddenly forgot how to play hockey, these are alarming numbers:
1st 41 games this season: 39 points
Last 38: 15 points

One could argue that he will bounce back, but he wasn’t even making hockey plays towards the end of the year. I think, like 2pair said, we got out of this trade at the perfect time. I don’t like the value, but if granlund doesn’t return to form, I’ll take Fiala and run.

In his last 60 games since Thanksgiving
6 goals 26 assists
13 of those 32 points were on the PP.

 

[BlackBusa24]

Is it really fair to compare Fiala’s first few seasons to Granlund’s prime?

Doesn’t really matter what happened in the past at this point. What happens after the deal is what will determine if this was a good or bad trade. So far, it’s been a wash, which is a lot better than we expected before the trade happened.

Who would you have?

A center with...

82

13

31

44

-12

20

2

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Or a winger with...

GP	G	A	P	+/-
83	13	26	39	-23

[TBODY] [/TBODY]
[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Stats being pretty much the same I would much rather have the guy who pulled the points at the same age as center rather than wing. Granlunds high and proven by his last couple years at wing just shows you how much better he is at any age.

Also not to beat a dead horse but the plus minus show how much each is as far as being a complete player and how much of a two-way player they are. Fiala is a wreck in this department and doesn't show you how many goals he has cost the team. Fact of the matter is he would have to score an extra 10 or so goals to make up for his crappy defensive play

 

[AKL]

Who would you have?

A center with...

82

13

31

44

-12

20

2

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Or a winger with...

GP	G	A	P	+/-
83	13	26	39	-23

[TBODY] [/TBODY]
[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Stats being pretty much the same I would much rather have the guy who pulled the points at the same age as center rather than wing. Granlunds high and proven by his last couple years at wing just shows you how much better is.

Also not to beat a dead horse but the plus minus shore how much each is as far as being a complete player and how wall of a two-way player they are. Fiala is a wreck in this department and doesn't show you how many goals he has cost the team. Fact of the matter is he would have to score an extra 10 or so goals to make up for his crappy defensive play

I like this game. Your turn. Which would you rather have?

82

33

30

63

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

or

82

16

37

53

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Both are centers by the way, in their draft+4 seasons.

 

[2Pair]

Who would you have?

A center with...

82

13

31

44

-12

20

2

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Or a winger with...

GP	G	A	P	+/-
83	13	26	39	-23

[TBODY] [/TBODY]
[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Stats being pretty much the same I would much rather have the guy who pulled the points at the same age as center rather than wing. Granlunds high and proven by his last couple years at wing just shows you how much better he is at any age.

Also not to beat a dead horse but the plus minus show how much each is as far as being a complete player and how much of a two-way player they are. Fiala is a wreck in this department and doesn't show you how many goals he has cost the team. Fact of the matter is he would have to score an extra 10 or so goals to make up for his crappy defensive play

1. You're comparing Granlund's 23 year old season against Fiala's 22 year old season.

2. Want to look at their 21 year old seasons? Didn't think so

3. Using your seasons- Granlund played 1, 486 minutes on the 1st line. Fiala played 1,298 on the 2nd line

4. Comparing +/- across teams just shows that you don't understand how that statistic works.

The fact that Granlund was terible ar center pretty much kills your argument that it's more important that he did it as a center.

 

[BlackBusa24]

I like this game. Your turn. Which would you rather have?

82

33

30

63

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

or

82

16

37

53

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Both are centers by the way, in their draft+4 seasons.

I guess it depends on the player and how defensively responsible each player is. The top player obviously has 10 more points than the bottom one but if he is also a turnover machine like fiala is then he probably is cost his team more goals and points then the bottom player.

But I see the point you probably trying to make being that we don't know what fiala will become. He could be a stud or he could be garbage. Another reason that the trade wasn't even as we hold all the risk

 

[BlackBusa24]

1. You're comparing Granlund's 23 year old season against Fiala's 22 year old season.

2. Want to look at their 21 year old seasons? Didn't think so

3. Using your seasons- Granlund played 1, 486 minutes on the 1st line. Fiala played 1,298 on the 2nd line

4. Comparing +/- across teams just shows that you don't understand how that statistic works.

The fact that Granlund was terible ar center pretty much kills your argument that it's more important that he did it as a center.

Then look at what each of them did plus-minus this year. Like you said same teams lol

 

[AKL]

I guess it depends on the player and how defensively responsible each player is. The top player obviously has 10 more points than the bottom one but if he is also a turnover machine like fiala is then he probably is cost his team more goals and points then the bottom player.

But I see the point you probably trying to make being that we don't know what fiala will become. He could be a stud or he could be garbage. Another reason that the trade wasn't even as we hold all the risk

The top player is more defensively responsible. Which one you going with?

 

[Wabit]

Who would you have?

A center with...

82

13

31

44

-12

20

2

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Or a winger with...

GP	G	A	P	+/-
83	13	26	39	-23

[TBODY] [/TBODY]
[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Stats being pretty much the same I would much rather have the guy who pulled the points at the same age as center rather than wing. Granlunds high and proven by his last couple years at wing just shows you how much better he is at any age.

Also not to beat a dead horse but the plus minus show how much each is as far as being a complete player and how much of a two-way player they are. Fiala is a wreck in this department and doesn't show you how many goals he has cost the team. Fact of the matter is he would have to score an extra 10 or so goals to make up for his crappy defensive play

Just for the record that -12 was the worst on the team, best was +21 (Suter), a 33p swing. The -23 season (split between 2 teams) the best on the Wild was +1 for the season (Coyle), a 24p swing.

Going by +/-; Rask (-4) was a more complete player than Granny (-8) this season.

 

[BlackBusa24]

Just for the record that -12 was the worst on the team, best was +21 (Suter), a 33p swing. The -23 season (split between 2 teams) the best on the Wild was +1 for the season (Coyle), a 24p swing.

Going by +/-; Rask (-4) was a more complete player than Granny (-8) this season.

Fiala ... -23 between 2 teams
Granlund... -8 between the same two teams

And Rask was over 49 games in 3rd and fourth-line minutes

 

[Wabit]

Fiala ... -23 between 2 teams
Granlund... -8 between the same two teams

You were comparing their whatever season in the league. I was replying to that. +/- is an awful stat without any context.

 

[AKL]

Fiala ... -23 between 2 teams
Granlund... -8 between the same two teams

And Rask was over 49 games in 3rd and fourth-line minutes

Alex Barkov was a -3 this season with 96 points. Please tell me he’s not a good defensive player. Please do it. Anze Kopitar was a -20.

Come on, tell me these guys aren’t good defensively. I want to see you say it.

 

[BlackBusa24]

Alex Barkov was a -3 this season with 96 points. Please tell me he’s not a good defensive player. Please do it. Anze Kopitar was a -20.

Come on, tell me these guys aren’t good defensively. I want to see you say it.

Weren't you just giving me shit for comparing plus-minus of people on two different teams?