Celebrini for Calder

[Juxtaposer]

I actually think its continuing to be a standout, dominant player in your 2nd season that is the tipping point. "generational" players like Crosby, Ovie, McDavid and down to the next tier like Malkin, Makar, Matthews didn't have that growing pains season that nearly every "superstar" player has had, whether that was their rookie or sophomore season, etc. They never had to figure it out nor got figured out; they are/were always steps ahead.

If the Sharks made the playoffs next season and Celebrini had 90 points, then we'd have to start talking. But that's an extremely tall order. We'll see if he can do it...

 

[wickedwitch]

Landon Dupont is the generation guy of the 2020's. No question IMO.

I'm blown away every time I watch him. Not because he stand out (although he occasionally does), but because he's 15 and absolutely looks like a really good 18 year old CHL player.

 

[coooldude]

If the Sharks made the playoffs next season and Celebrini had 90 points, then we'd have to start talking. But that's an extremely tall order. We'll see if he can do it...

I dunno... I think maybe, maybe it's a conversation if he's over 100, close to 110 and we make the playoffs. True generationals like Crosby, as you well know, are 100 then 120 PPG players in their teens.

Mere hall of fame mortals like MacK or Malkin or Matthews or pick your example are still amazing from an early age but not top 3 in the league.

I'm just not sure Celebrini has it in him to be the generational center of the 2020's but the great news is, to lead us to one or ojala multiple cups, he doesn't have to be.

 

[Juxtaposer]

I dunno... I think maybe, maybe it's a conversation if he's over 100, close to 110 and we make the playoffs. True generationals like Crosby, as you well know, are 100 then 120 PPG players in their teens.

Mere hall of fame mortals like MacK or Malkin or Matthews or pick your example are still amazing from an early age but not top 3 in the league.

I'm just not sure Celebrini has it in him to be the generational center of the 2020's but the great news is, to lead us to one or ojala multiple cups, he doesn't have to be.

Sorry, I meant if that happens then we talk about Celebrini in the generational-adjacent tier like Matthews, Mackinnon, Draisaitl, Malkin. He's not a generational player.

 

[coooldude]

Sorry, I meant if that happens then we talk about Celebrini in the generational-adjacent tier like Matthews, Mackinnon, Draisaitl, Malkin. He's not a generational player.

Then we have an accord!

 

[Levie]

Sorry, I meant if that happens then we talk about Celebrini in the generational-adjacent tier like Matthews, Mackinnon, Draisaitl, Malkin. He's not a generational player.

If Celebrini got 90 pts in his second season (extremely unlikely) I'd say he'd be quite a bit better than Mackinnon in his second season. Mackinnon wasn't a ppg player until his 5th season

 

[Juxtaposer]

If Celebrini got 90 pts in his second season (extremely unlikely) I'd say he'd be quite a bit better than Mackinnon in his second season. Mackinnon wasn't a ppg player until his 5th season

Mackinnon had an unusual path and I'm a little tired of people using him as an example to say that their 21 year old 50 point forward could still develop into a superstar (mostly Habs fans with Slafkovsky, to be fair). Being better than Mackinnon in his second season wouldn't mean anything specific about Celebrini's development.

 

[Levie]

Mackinnon had an unusual path and I'm a little tired of people using him as an example to say that their 21 year old 50 point forward could still develop into a superstar (mostly Habs fans with Slafkovsky, to be fair). Being better than Mackinnon in his second season wouldn't mean anything specific about Celebrini's development.

My point is a 90 point Celebrini in his second year would be extremely close to generational and quite a bit better than the players listed in the second tier. Now 90 points is very unlikely.

 

[Juxtaposer]

My point is a 90 point Celebrini in his second year would be extremely close to generational and quite a bit better than the players listed in the second tier. Now 90 points is very unlikely.

Evgeni Malkin put up 106 points in his second NHL season in the dead puck era. Auston Matthews put up a PPG in a much lower scoring era in his second NHL season. 90 points is the new 80 points--as many guys are on pace for 90 points this season than were on pace for 80 points in 2017.

Celebrini would need to be a top-5 scorer in the entire NHL next season to start a "generational" discussion. 90 points would be a stretch goal but is within reason as a "franchise two-way center" being on track for the high end of his development.

 

[Levie]

Evgeni Malkin put up 106 points in his second NHL season in the dead puck era. Auston Matthews put up a PPG in a much lower scoring era in his second NHL season. 90 points is the new 80 points--as many guys are on pace for 90 points this season than were on pace for 80 points in 2017.

Celebrini would need to be a top-5 scorer in the entire NHL next season to start a "generational" discussion. 90 points would be a stretch goal but is within reason as a "franchise two-way center" being on track for the high end of his development.

Malkin was also 23 that season right? He had been playing quite a bit longer against better players. Dead puck era yes. But he also had the benefit of playing behind Crosby.

I don't think Celebrini is generational. I'm just saying he would be quite a bit better than the second tier if he got 90 points playing against teams' top line and shouldering defensive responsibility, and being the focal point of the Sharks.

 

[Cas]

As long as we have a legitimate center who can match up against the best players in the world and hold his own and drive an excellent top line, I'll be happy.

 

[Timo Time]

All talk of "Celebrini this, Celebrini that" but have we ever considered that he's not Lane Hutson?

 

[Lebanezer]

How are we defining generational? All I'm seeing are point totals, which is fine, but without a clearer criteria this whole conversation is moot.

 

[Juxtaposer]

Malkin was also 23 that season right? He had been playing quite a bit longer against better players. Dead puck era yes. But he also had the benefit of playing behind Crosby.

I don't think Celebrini is generational. I'm just saying he would be quite a bit better than the second tier if he got 90 points playing against teams' top line and shouldering defensive responsibility, and being the focal point of the Sharks.

Malkin was not 23, he was 21. So yes, I wouldn't expect Celebrini to put up 106 points with era adjustment (so probably like 130 points in today's NHL) and be second in the NHL in scoring as a 19 year old sophomore to be considered on track to be a Malkin-caliber player.

But the point is that truly generational forwards are capable of leading the entire NHL in scoring as teenagers. 90 points as a 19 year old is superstar stuff, but not generational in today's high-scoring NHL.

 

[coooldude]

How are we defining generational? All I'm seeing are point totals, which is fine, but without a clearer criteria this whole conversation is moot.

Personally, I think it's the player that defines a decade. I like to think there is up to 2 F's but usually one, and up to 1 D. The point totals follow but don't define.

80's: Gretzky, Lemieux
90s: Jagr, Lidstrom
00's: Crosby, Ovie
10's: McDavid, not yet but maybe one day Makar
20's: TBD with a placeholder for Dupont but we'll see

The players that are just heads and shoulders above even their all star peers, and they're there perennially, and at the end of their careers people are debating whether they're the best ever at X, where X is something important like the entire position or goal scoring or whatever. Especially the case if they redefine how the game is played or seen.

 

[Juxtaposer]

How are we defining generational? All I'm seeing are point totals, which is fine, but without a clearer criteria this whole conversation is moot.

Is it a cop-out to say "you know it when you see it?"

I first started watching NHL hockey seriously in like 2007, not knowing anything about the sport or the players at all. The first time I saw Sidney Crosby play, I just knew that there was something different about him. Couldn't have put it into words if I'd tried.

 

[hohosaregood]

You know how superstar players have cheat code level skills like Mark Stone and his takeaways or MacKinnon's bull rushes in transition. To me, a generational player has like 3-4 cheat code level attributes all at once.

Macklin maybe has 1 right now.

 

[mogambomoroo]

I think Macklin's two-way readiness, his shot and his ability to bring the puck to the O-zone at that age are already very very good. But yeah maybe generational is too much, but I would say he could be a franchise++ player. It's just that crazy we can talk this way about a Shark, never before have they had an 18-year that's already driving the whole team. Special player.

 

[weastern bias]

*points to sign meme*

I hate the "generational" tag because it inherently pits players against their contemporaries and forces a comparison of their impact against their peers, which I don't find compelling in the context of discussing team-building, it's better suited to NBA fandom style player-vs-player GOAT debate arguments, which has limited value in a sport as team-oriented as hockey anyway

What I do believe is that Celebrini is a legitimately transformative talent, a player who's very presence will elevate the level of his team's play to such a degree that it pushes the team to a higher strata in the league than they would attain without him

We haven't had one of those players since Jumbo's prime, Celebrini is very special

 

[BaileyMacTavish]

He's also 18, plays hella heavy and drives offense. He's only gonna get better, then we'll see the gaudy point totals come in lol

 

[OrrNumber4]

Is it a cop-out to say "you know it when you see it?"

I first started watching NHL hockey seriously in like 2007, not knowing anything about the sport or the players at all. The first time I saw Sidney Crosby play, I just knew that there was something different about him. Couldn't have put it into words if I'd tried.

Yes, I agree. Generational = pornography.

 

[Lebanezer]

Personally, I think it's the player that defines a decade. I like to think there is up to 2 F's but usually one, and up to 1 D. The point totals follow but don't define.

80's: Gretzky, Lemieux
90s: Jagr, Lidstrom
00's: Crosby, Ovie
10's: McDavid, not yet but maybe one day Makar
20's: TBD with a placeholder for Dupont but we'll see

The players that are just heads and shoulders above even their all star peers, and they're there perennially, and at the end of their careers people are debating whether they're the best ever at X, where X is something important like the entire position or goal scoring or whatever. Especially the case if they redefine how the game is played or seen.

This definition is for best players of their era which probably is the "correct" definition for a generational player. If that is the target, then we need to assign a limit to the number of players who can be labeled as such. Depending on the size, it would change how we view Bedard/Celebrini etc. They certainly have the opportunity to enter into that category. From there, I think there needs to be a delineation between generational players and what I would call revolutionaries (I think a fair portion of people expect a generational talent to be a revolutionary). In my opinion these are the guys who come in and change the game or do something that no one thought was possible. Where the entire sport benefits from that person's presence. As an example, Steph Curry is the greatest shooter of all time, but people think that Lebron James is arguably one of the best basketball players ever. In my opinion, Curry has done far more for basketball with his abilities than Lebron and is more of a revolutionary (and I would argue a better overall player). Similarly, Ovechkin is the greatest goal scorer of all time, and not to take anything away from Crosby, because he's amazing, but their overarching impacts are different.

Is it a cop-out to say "you know it when you see it?"

I first started watching NHL hockey seriously in like 2007, not knowing anything about the sport or the players at all. The first time I saw Sidney Crosby play, I just knew that there was something different about him. Couldn't have put it into words if I'd tried.

I don't think there's anything wrong with that statement.

You know how superstar players have cheat code level skills like Mark Stone and his takeaways or MacKinnon's bull rushes in transition. To me, a generational player has like 3-4 cheat code level attributes all at once.

Macklin maybe has 1 right now.

I think Macklin has at least 3 right now, but they're in their "infancy" so to speak.

 

[coooldude]

This definition is for best players of their era which probably is the "correct" definition for a generational player.

I would argue that generational is an even higher bar than "best of their generation" -- it's a clear best. if there's any debate that the player is a historical outlier, it's not a generational player. Ovie is a generational scorer. Crosby is a generational 2-way C and captain, as clearly shown by his career accomplishments across the board. imho.

If that is the target, then we need to assign a limit to the number of players who can be labeled as such.

Yep, what I tried to do. I think you get 1, maybe 2 F's and 0-1D. You might even have 0 in a decade. Currently 0 in 2020's.

From there, I think there needs to be a delineation between generational players and what I would call revolutionaries (I think a fair portion of people expect a generational talent to be a revolutionary). In my opinion these are the guys who come in and change the game or do something that no one thought was possible. Where the entire sport benefits from that person's presence.

No concern from me here. It's a different thing. I think people can say LeBron is a better basketball player but Curry changed the game more. Curry fwiw is seemingly (I'm no expert) one of the very best shooters of all time.

 

[JoeThorntonsRooster]

The original Hockey’s Future is the first place that defined “generational talent.” They based it off of the actual dictionary definition of generational (a period of about 20-25 years), and IIRC their examples at each position were Gretzky, Orr, and Roy.

The term has undergone massive inflation since then, and every argument about whether a player is generational boils down primarily to how much further each party is willing to cheapen the definition. Realistically, McDavid is the only generational player since Gretzky/Lemieux.