Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
PASabreFan

Would you trade every Sabre prospect for an elite #2 center?

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, dudacek said:

I’m thinking elite number twos are the guys you’d rank in that range - guys who aren’t clear-cut ones, but who would be centring the first line on a lot of teams.

There are 31 #1 Cs in the NHL, 31 #2’s, and so on.  

I know it’s very debatable where guys rank exactly, but it makes no sense to say there are 19 #1 Cs and 42 #2 Cs, or something like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You will quibble with the rankings, but IMO elite 2nd line centre is somewhere around your favourite guy on the third of these three tiers, or your least favourite on the second:

McDavid, Crosby, McKinnon, Barkov, Tavares, Bergeron

Point, Stamkos, Draisaitl, Giroux, Schiefele, Eichel, Aho, Toews, Matthews, Seguin, Backstrom, Malkin, Kopitar, Pavelski, Barzal

O’Reilly, Couturier, Monahan, Zibenijad, Larkin, Domi, Duchene, Kuznetsov, Petterson, Couture, Johansen, Nugent-Hopkins, Horvat, Dubois, Karlsson...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is a thought experiment indeed. Sabres fans love their chillren, and I just wondered what it would take to bundle them all up and leave them outside the firehouse. Maybe a better scenario would be whether you'd trade Cozens for that imaginary # 2 center.

I'd be curious to know where our fanbase ranks in terms of valuing (overvaluing?) and obsessing about prospects. I'd guess it's the sad sack franchises that have fans that feel this way.

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Curt said:

There are 31 #1 Cs in the NHL, 31 #2’s, and so on.  

I know it’s very debatable where guys rank exactly, but it makes no sense to say there are 19 #1 Cs and 42 #2 Cs, or something like that.

It makes no sense, but people do it all the time.

When people say 1st-pairing defenceman they generally mean top-20, when they say top-four, they mean top 3.

When people say Ristolainen is a 3rd-pairing defencman, do they really think that a player who has consistently been among the top 30 in scoring over the past 4 years, is not among the top 120 defencemen in the NHL?

Edited by dudacek

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, PASabreFan said:

It is a thought experiment indeed. Sabres fans love their chillren, and I just wondered what it would take to bundle them all up and leave them outside the firehouse. Maybe a better scenario would be whether you'd trade Cozens for that imaginary # 2 center.

I'd be curious to know where our fanbase ranks in terms of valuing (overvaluing?) and obsessing about prospects. I'd guess it's the sad sack franchises that have fans that feel this way.

As long as that 2C is around 25 years old and not 30+, I'd do this without hesitation. 

  • Like (+1) 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, dudacek said:

It makes no sense, but people do it all the time.

When people say 1st-pairing defenceman they generally mean top-20, when they say top-four, they mean top 3.

When people say Ristolainen is a 3rd-pairing defencman, do they really think that a player who has consistently been among the top 30 in scoring over the past 4 years over the past four years, is not among the top 120 defencemen in the NHL?

Thing is, context is key and talent is not distributed equally. When I say I think Risto is a 3rd pairing Dman, I'm implicitly saying that's where he'd slot on a good team. Of course he's top-4 on a bad team, but that's part of why that team is bad. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Randall Flagg said:

Couturier is better than more than 90% of the guys that fans would call 1Cs

The single most defining characteristic of a “number one” in the minds of the general public is the ability to produce points in a highlight-reel fashion. That’s how you get people actually thinking Barzal is in the same stratosphere as Couturier.

The only way to overcome that is to win: see Toews, Jonathan and Bergeron, Patrice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, dudacek said:

The single most defining characteristic of a “number one” in the minds of the general public is the ability to produce points in a highlight-reel fashion. That’s how you get people actually thinking Barzal is in the same stratosphere as Couturier.

The only way to overcome that is to win: see Toews, Jonathan and Bergeron, Patrice.

I would add an addendum: on a winning team. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, PASabreFan said:

It is a thought experiment indeed. Sabres fans love their chillren, and I just wondered what it would take to bundle them all up and leave them outside the firehouse. Maybe a better scenario would be whether you'd trade Cozens for that imaginary # 2 center.

I'd be curious to know where our fanbase ranks in terms of valuing (overvaluing?) and obsessing about prospects. I'd guess it's the sad sack franchises that have fans that feel this way.

I think for observant fans, context is key.

I’m with Blue, when you have parts like Eichel and Dahlin in place and a gaping hole at 2C, I trade Cozens for the guy I hope Cozens turns into every time.

And every fanbase obsesses over, and overrates their prospects. The Sad Sack Franchise fans are just more vocal about it because it’s all they have.

Edited by dudacek

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, dudacek said:

You will quibble with the rankings, but IMO elite 2nd line centre is somewhere around your favourite guy on the third of these three tiers, or your least favourite on the second:

McDavid, Crosby, McKinnon, Barkov, Tavares, Bergeron

Point, Stamkos, Draisaitl, Giroux, Schiefele, Eichel, Aho, Toews, Matthews, Seguin, Backstrom, Malkin, Kopitar, Pavelski, Barzal

O’Reilly, Couturier, Monahan, Zibenijad, Larkin, Domi, Duchene, Kuznetsov, Petterson, Couture, Johansen, Nugent-Hopkins, Horvat, Dubois, Karlsson...

I guess you are entitled to your personal definitions, but it doesn’t make logical sense to me that there are only 21 #1 Cs in a 31 team league.  The term #1 C sort of loses its meaning if you twist it like that.

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Curt said:

I guess you are entitled to your personal definitions, but it doesn’t make logical sense to me that there are only 21 #1 Cs in a 31 team league.  The term #1 C sort of loses its meaning if you twist it like that.

I don’t see this as my personal opinion, more of my reading of what I see fans do.

And I see their point. The difference between McDavid and Johansen is far greater than the gap between Johansen and Hayes.

Part of it is Blue’s point about the unspoken addendum of “on a good team” and part of it is a lack of appreciation of how many players are actually in the league.

Edited by dudacek

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Curt said:

I guess you are entitled to your personal definitions, but it doesn’t make logical sense to me that there are only 21 #1 Cs in a 31 team league.  The term #1 C sort of loses its meaning if you twist it like that.

I disagree. Sure, on face there are 31 teams and each of those has a center who leads them in ice time. But player quality has to matter, and I think the frame should take it into account. When fans talk about #1 centers, I'm reasonably confident what they actually mean is a center capable of getting top minutes on a team that can win in the playoffs. 

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, dudacek said:

It makes no sense, but people do it all the time.

When people say 1st-pairing defenceman they generally mean top-20, when they say top-four, they mean top 3.

When people say Ristolainen is a 3rd-pairing defencman, do they really think that a player who has consistently been among the top 30 in scoring over the past 4 years, is not among the top 120 defencemen in the NHL?

 

8 minutes ago, dudacek said:

I don’t see this my personal opinion, more of my reading of what I see fans do.

And I see their point. The difference between McDavid and Johansen is far greater than the gap between Johansen and Hayes.

Well, we agree that it makes not sense, so that's good.  I just try not to perpetuate things that make no sense.  Its just an inaccurate description.  Just say "low end #1C" instead, a guy who could probably be a #1C on a team somewhere, but you probably aren't winning a cup with them in that role. 

This is just my opinion of course, but I think its important that we describe things accurately, especially on the internet where conversations are often short and its easy to misunderstand eachother.

Edited by Curt
  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, PASabreFan said:

It is a thought experiment indeed. Sabres fans love their chillren, and I just wondered what it would take to bundle them all up and leave them outside the firehouse. Maybe a better scenario would be whether you'd trade Cozens for that imaginary # 2 center.

I'd be curious to know where our fanbase ranks in terms of valuing (overvaluing?) and obsessing about prospects. I'd guess it's the sad sack franchises that have fans that feel this way.

Depending on that centers age, yes. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, PASabreFan said:

It is a thought experiment indeed. Sabres fans love their chillren, and I just wondered what it would take to bundle them all up and leave them outside the firehouse. Maybe a better scenario would be whether you'd trade Cozens for that imaginary # 2 center.

I'd be curious to know where our fanbase ranks in terms of valuing (overvaluing?) and obsessing about prospects. I'd guess it's the sad sack franchises that have fans that feel this way.

I'd trade Cozens and Risto and another fairly valuable piece (a first rounder?) to get an elite 2C. 

I'd think of it as sacrificing defensive depth, and another lotto ticket that I plan on making in the 20s or 30s, to GUARANTEE that Cozens hits his ceiling but RIGHT NOW. 

Edited by Randall Flagg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Curt said:

I guess you are entitled to your personal definitions, but it doesn’t make logical sense to me that there are only 21 #1 Cs in a 31 team league.  The term #1 C sort of loses its meaning if you twist it like that.

What you seem to be missing, is that when most people talk about whether somebody should be considered among the #1's, or top liners, or top 4 is they are leaving the word "quality" unspoken. 

Yes, there are 31 #1 centers in the NHL.  No, there aren't anywhere near 31 QUALITY #1 centers. 

And when somebody says "there's only 20 (or 15, or 22, or however many) #1 centers in the NHL" they are CLEARLY stating "there are only 20 quality centers in the NHL."

Edited by Taro T

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's basically what Philadelphia did to get Eric Lindros from Quebec (Colorado).  Philly didn't do much with Lindros, while Colorado won a couple of Cups.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Taro T said:

What you seem to be missing, is that when most people talk about whether somebody should be considered among the #1's, or top liners, or top 4 is they are leaving the word "quality" unspoken. 

Yes, there are 31 #1 centers in the NHL.  No, there aren't anywhere near 31 QUALITY #1 centers. 

And when somebody says "there's only 20 (or 15, or 22, or however many) #1 centers in the NHL" they are CLEARLY stating "there are only 20 quality centers in the NHL."

To me, there are.  If there aren't, then I don't know what #1 C is referring to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Curt said:

To me, there are.  If there aren't, then I don't know what #1 C is referring to.

Not sure if you're trolling us at this point or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Taro T said:

Not sure if you're trolling us at this point or not.

I'm not, lol.  I'm just telling you how I define the term and why I don't think any other way makes sense.

Edited by Curt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Curt said:

I'm not, lol.  I'm just telling you how I define the term and why I don't think any other way makes sense?

We get that is how you view it.  But to say ALL 31 #1 centers are all QUALITY #1 centers doesn't make any more sense than saying "all cars are quality cars.". IMHO. Clearly YMM (and apparently does) V. 😉

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Taro T said:

We get that is how you view it.  But to say ALL 31 #1 centers are all QUALITY #1 centers doesn't make any more sense than saying "all cars are quality cars.". IMHO. Clearly YMM (and apparently does) V. 😉

 

Oh, I read that as 31 #1 quality Cs, but that’s not actually what you wrote.  That’s my bad.

Its just like anything else.  There are 31 #1 Cs, but some are better than others.

You are basically defining #1 C as someone you can build a playoff team around.  For me, I would probably use the term All-Star (or just Star) C, or perhaps Franchise C.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Curt said:

Oh, I read that as 31 #1 quality Cs, but that’s not actually what you wrote.  That’s my bad.

Its just like anything else.  There are 31 #1 Cs, but some are better than others.

You are basically defining #1 C as someone you can build a playoff team around.  For me, I would probably use the term All-Star (or just Star) C, or perhaps Franchise C.

To a degree, yes.  But there are more quality 1st line C's than there are all star slots.  Actually there could be close to 30 #1 C's though there aren't anywhere near 31 #G's (though there are more than 😎 nor D.  (Again, IMHO.)

So, perhaps for the exercise that was / is this discussion, #1 goalies would have been more appropriate.  (Hutton is the Sabres #1, though he isn't a #1.)

[Edit: the little 😎 was supposed to be an "8 )".]

Edited by Taro T

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would we have to trade our best prospects for a #2 center when the Stanley Cup champions traded a couple of Salary dumps, their 3rd best prospect and a lottery-protected 1st round pick for their #1 center?

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Haha (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, jad1 said:

Why would we have to trade our best prospects for a #2 center when the Stanley Cup champions traded a couple of Salary dumps, their 3rd best prospect and a lottery-protected 1st round pick for their #1 center?

Because you can't count on other GMs being as foolish with their best players as Botterill was last offseason. It'll happen here or there, sure, but it's not the norm. 

Edit: besides, this is more of a thought experiment about how valuable people think it is to fix the 2C hole. I don't think PA's intent was to get bogged down in the specifics. 

Edited by TrueBlueGED

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...