For me, it’s pretty simple. A generational player is simply best at his position let alone the league. They’ll have a few attributes that are clearly beyond any current player. As the name implies, they come literally once a generation though we can narrow it down to perhaps 7-10 years. These are players who were not just hyped in juniors, but delivered almost immediately in the NHL.
Right now it’s McDavid. I really don’t see how this can be argued. Previous would be Crosby, Mario, the Great One, Orr…
I hear the term franchise used a lot, and I would use that as a description on a tier below generational. This is a player you build a team around who are more than just elite. McKinnon, Kuch and Matthews for example.
I know there are players that blur things, especially when they are contemporaries to some generational players; Ovi
Currently, i don’t see anyone supplanting McDavid. Perhaps McKenna or it’ll be somebody else we haven’t seen yet.
Demidov?
I agree that the term generational should get limited to the maximum, or redefined, if not.
A generation is 20 years. Even if we limited it to 10 years, or even 7, we shouldn't see that many names come up -- even if it is possible for two names to come up within the same period.
Orr transformed the game, Gretzky and Lemieux as well. I'm not sold on McDavid having transformed the game, but, through sheer consistency at such a high level, I think that McDavid and Crosby could be deemed generational. It,s difficult with players like Ovechkin, but he's such a physical specimen with scoring prowess that I would also consider him generational.
Franchise players is a more appropriate term, as you suggest, that encompasses a much larger sample of players. Automatically, for example, Ovechkin is at least that.
It can be a G, while the team still has an elite C that produces 80-90 points per season without being a franchise player or a generational player.
Elite Cs, to take just one position as an example, should be PPG Cs, or 70-point Cs that are excellent shutdown Cs.
Danault, for example, even if he was the best shutdown C, would never come close to being considered elite at his position, but Bergeron, however, would.
Franchise players apply to McKinnon, for example, but not to Rantanen, because Rantanen's amazing production levels are really tied to playing with McKinnon, IMHO.
If McDavid is a franchise player (not a generational player, IMO), what is there to say about Draisaitl? Could he also be a franchise player? Personally, I would take Draisaitl over McDavid, but that's a personal choice where I think that McDavid doesn't really bring what he takes as a mega pay cheque and I don't see much of a difference when you look at the bang for the buck on Draisaitl's contract and how it gives you the ability to add more talent under the cap for not that much of a difference in impact on the ice.
