How about we put it this way. Meszaros, at 20, Played top four minutes, on one of the best teams in the league, was one of the leaders in +/- all year, Played in the Olympics, and played top pair mins when redden went down....
While I respect the opinions of MOST (some in this thread are wayyyy off the reservation) in this thread and am in no way indicating that this is conclusive evidence one way or another, I would just like to point out that the +/- is a pretty useless stat when comparing individual defensemen. It is, IMO (and has been stated here and other places forever) more of a team or line statistic and doesnt give even a close to accurate read on an individual player's defensive ability, but is a reflection of the team. Case in point would be this years +/- leader Michal Rozsival.
He was not very good defensivley while playing for the Penguins. He was average, but his -6 and -5 the two seasons he played prior to this years +36 really speak volumes as to how this stat can be skewed many ways. This year, he played with a much better team than he had during his time with the Pens.
So, does that mean, despite the injuries and all of the time he missed out on (thus missing out on valuable experience as he is still relatively young) he became not only that much better defensivley, but THAT GOOD defensivley to warrant a +41 turn around?
I would think not. Rather, I would think it had everything to do with the team he played for and little to do with Roz himself. This year he had a much better team and it is reflected in his +/- (and I am in no way saying Roz isnt a good D-Man because I always liked the kid and was upset when he was let go...I always hoped he could come back from his injuries and I am thrilled to see that he did just that. PISSED OFF that he couldnt do it on the Pens where he was sorely needed this year).
I think AM's season (and progression/status) is helped out in a large part due to the team he played on. The Sens were one of the best teams (and best defenses) in the NHL and that certainly has helped him along as it is much easier for a young guy to come in and look good/progress quicker playing for a team that has top end talent and incredible depth (again, use the Roz comparison as he looks much better playing for a team that didnt stink defensivley and has many other options to use).
In no way am I saying that AM doesnt deserve his accolades. He was a very nice addition and he did his part to make the Sens one of the better defensive teams in the NHL this season. Yet would he have looked as good on my Penguins? Of course not (Neither would Carle mind you). But I am simply saying that when you judge an individual, you absolutely have to look at the team he plays on and at the very least, take that into consideration. AM looks to be a very good player for many years to come, but I think the +/- thing is incredibly over rated when using it to judge an individual's defensive accumen, just as I think he truly benefitted this past season from playing on such an incredible team.
That is why I think the opinions given are fine and I respect them, yet I think to say that when I see comments that he is far and away better than Carle at this point it isnt fair because it isnt entirely accurate as Carle didnt have the opportunity to play a whole season and he didnt play for a team near as good defensivley as the Sens.
Give it some time and perhaps we will see a different story once we are able to see the two of them and get a better read on the individual play of each instead of having it skewed by the teams they play for.
Does that make sense even a little?