The thing with using that comparision is that it can be very skewed with such a small sample considering how they were employed and all. But it's not as if Vanek was a defensive specialist either.
Either way, this could make Holland look really bad.
- porkchops1977
You're not wrong about the sample size issue, which is why I've said a few times that there still could be a lot of noise / uncertainty. It's no "smoking gun," as it were.
More generally, my point is this:
1) We don't know a lot about Pulkkinen yet because he hasn't been given an adequate amount of time to demonstrate his usefulness, but the limited information we do have is mostly positive.
2) We know a lot more about Vanek, who is very likely still a competent NHLer but is 32 and in clear decline.
3) If Detroit were a championship caliber team there could be an argument with going for the "safer" choice of Vanek. But in any other circumstance choosing 1 year of an aging, expensive stopgap over a 24-year-old RFA who might realistically be just as good is hard to justify.
And again, this whole debate is a little contrived because it likely wasn't and in any case never should have been Pulkkinen vs. Vanek in the first place. When Ott or Miller is still on the roster, the correct choice is "both."
