That’s the same type of ask as to prove a negative.
Zegras could prove better offensively while being good defensively.
Cutter could prove effective as a center at the NHL level.
McTavish might continue being injury prone, maddeningly inconsistent, and prone to absolutely moronic penalties.
Nobody has a crystal ball saying that any of those are impossibilities, or even improbabilities. There’s no “proof” either way. What there is is conjecture, and there‘s no harm in discussing the possibilities.
Again, I said while there's a possibility that Mac could move to wing, the probability of it occurring is not very high.
We're talking about talent eval here. You can't be disingenuous to say, "I'm asking to prove a negative." Scouting is easily available to us today than it was five years ago. I'm asking to prove talent eval, even if comparing D+1, WJC-18, or WJC-20s or current prospect rankings. Just saying shit just say shit is just saying shit. Back up that thought.
When you interject injury into talent eval, then your premise is already incorrect. Is having a baby considered an injury to a player because they are no longer playing like a top player? And would that baby injury struggle be considered the norm for that player? No.
Mac's recent struggles is akin to Terry's early struggles, both have identifiable struggles and both I'm not worried about not finding their way back to their games. You can't be, "Terry will find his game b/c of baby troubles," and from the same mouth say that, "Mac will always be inconsistent and have moronic penalties forever." There is no consistency being applied here by you.
When you don't entertain that Carlsson should also be moved to wing, then your premise is already incorrect. You're not applying your own thesis of players can be better or worse to all centers. Hell, why not have Carrick as a top-6 center? He could improve too, based upon your logic of trying to prove a negative. But that probability isn't high. The odd part is that you'd agree that Carrick being a top-6 for us next year isn't a high probability.
Again, I don't mind discussing possibilities, but there isn't discussion. I asked why should Mac move. Then I get a whole bunch of white knighting instead of discussing why Cutter is superior at center to displace Mac. Do you see the inconsistency of your questioning here? I asked a question, but you white knight by saying you can't prove a negative and at the same time want to have a "harmless discussion"?
Feels like unwarrented anti-Mac bias. hahahhahahah
