Asked you a serious question, by all metics Sustr has improved just about every year and was widely praised for that on the boards earlier this year which he showed noticeable improvement for the first couple months. So when you make statements like:
Is it your hate for him or do you have selective memory of only when he makes mistakes? or a recency bias towards the end of the season? I mean your Witkowski analysis makes no sense either, considering Wikowski came up, took Sustr's spot on the bottom pairing and pushed him up against harder competition. If Witkowski was better why was he the one sheltered and playing half as much minutes?
For the time he spent on the bottom pairing this year where he's supposed to be did he well as opposed to his first 2 years where he was just bad regardless, so if you want to hold it against him that he got thrown onto the 1st and 2nd pairing because of injuries and did bad then sure. Could we use an upgrade on him? Sure but if he came back as a bottom pairing defenseman we'd be fine as well, he's not as bad as some of you guys are making it out to be especially considering the cost as well.
Ah, it's much better in a dialogue to assume somebody has a selective memory or a hatred toward a player. Note taking commences.
So because people widely praised Killorn when he had 50% of his goals in the first two weeks on this board, should we still be praising him now? No. Great. Kudos to Sustr for having 10 great games a year out of 82. On one hand, you complain about Palat not showing up until February and on the other hand Sustr has somehow improved because a collection of fans on this board praised him for a 10-15 or however many game stretch.
Specifically, what has improved in his +300 games in the NHL? Because I sure as hell am not noticing a whole lot. I've given him credit in the past on two occasions where it FINALLY looked like he was developing and progressing, but like clockwork, the dark side of Sustr appears and it's the version we got from him at game 1, as opposed to game 274. To be clear, im not saying he should be top 2 or 4 material, but at the 6/7, he's a liability out there against tough competition. I'll grant you 15 games a year he looks competent, but for the remaining 67, he looks like an emergency call up, not a guy that has played over 300 games including two deep runs in the playoffs. His progress just isn't there in my opinion. Certainly not worth clogging up the lane for Dotchin, Slater and potentially Sergachev.
Secondly, one defenseman has 274 regular season games and the other has 54. Witkowski has provided stability in the same role and brings physicality, something we are in dire need of. The only thing Sustr beats him on is his foot speed, and not by much. The saving grace for Sustr over Witkowski is his reach. Besides that, we'd save a little on cap and have somebody willing to actually use his body to tie up his man. That's with 54 games played. I feel confident that if Luke had 200 games or even as many as Sustr, he'd be more effective. Recency bias? If by 274 games recent then yes, watching him lose coverages Matt Carle would be ashamed of at 6'8" in nearly 300 games played, then absolutely. It's the same story with him year after year. Look good, suck, suck, suck even more, look good, finish off poorly. If you're gonna lynch Palat, Johnson and Killorn, it's only consistent to do so with Sustr's lackluster play for 75% of the time.