Well I’d have to say looks like we’ll just have to disagree about the development curve, but most things I’ve read suggest D men like forwards tend to hit their primes in that post 22/23 age range, but tend to stay in them a bit longer than forwards.
And he does have qualities that are attractive (never said he was a bad player) I just don’t think he’s quite good enough to justify moving a player of Nylander’s caliber for.
why?
almost everyone in hockey says the same thing.
Forwards usually show a lot of progress earlier
Defensemen takes
a lot of time (like you can't even judge a defenseman until 300+ NHL games)
and goalies take the longest
not to mention is individual, and some people need a better environment something a lot of people around here tend to ignore.
quite frankly. i think people get way too wrapped up in winning trades or what it will "look like." i've said all summer people love going "ehmehgerd, Hall v Larsson, Hall v. Larsson. that's so bad." Hall for Larsson was one thing, and Edmonton had
other issues that Chiarelli didn't (and hasn't ) addressed. so yes. Hall for Larsson is bad, but if they had addressed the other issues, and not built a slower team is it really
that bad? and before someone goes "yes because Hall won the Hart, or quality etc. let's stop and really think about it." Is Larsson
that bad for Edmonton? if the answer is yes -
Larsson is bad, then it was a bad trade. if it's
no, but it's not the 'value' people want - then quite frankly, that's what it is.
I don't know what a Nylander-esque defenseman would be to the point someone would trade him
if someone gave a Pesce-esque + something else for Nylander to a team that has a
lot of offense, but will still miss some of the qualities that Nylander brings but it strengthens the team in other areas - is
that a bad thing? I personally feel people don't want Pesce because he's not a sexy high event defenseman that you see on 1v1 or doesn't have the potential to be a extremely solid, dependable, defensive defenseman who can skate (key) and help the team in other areas. We HAVE a lot of high event defenseman. what we don't have is a lot of stability units which Pesce could bring.
and so if the argument is we need to have SOMEONE AMAZING. name a name. there are a few teams i'm looking at who can not score
at all and I don't know if they have young "they fit" defensemen. Cor and others mentioned Pesce is actually
perfect because his contract is a long term one at a really low cap hit (considering) his advance stats are pretty stable, and he's comfortable working with more talented defensemen (Slavin) so if he can find chemistry with Rielly (YAY) if he he has to slot down but he's capable of long term defense first pairing - what exactly is the issue?