- Feb 10, 2010
- 14,137
- 10,977
How Many Seasons of Peak Gretzky is Worth More than Marleau's Entire Career?
- Thread starter Midnight Judges
- Start date
- Status
- Jun 22, 2018
- 8,211
- 19,182
CharasLazyWrister
Registered User
- Feb 10, 2010
- 14,137
- 10,977
TheDawnOfANewTage
Dahlin, it’ll all be fine
- Dec 17, 2018
- 12,752
- 18,723
Man, and to think I thought I thought some weird thoughts.
82 games, if the playoff run is included in that. Because if you’re even remotely a playoff team, you should have a good shot at a cup, you’re marketable as hell for a year, it’s cool, I make that trade. 20 years of Marleau is nice, he coulda maybe contributed to a cup in another timeline, but even a year of Gretzky is worth the career of a very good player. That’s my logic, at least.
Edit, oh shit, I should read. Regular season only? Well that’s just silly, if the whole point is always to win the cup then the whole point of argument is off. It’s like “how many hrs of driving in a porsche vs being able to have a Honda Civic for free, but it’s all in bumper-to-bumper traffic.”
82 games, if the playoff run is included in that. Because if you’re even remotely a playoff team, you should have a good shot at a cup, you’re marketable as hell for a year, it’s cool, I make that trade. 20 years of Marleau is nice, he coulda maybe contributed to a cup in another timeline, but even a year of Gretzky is worth the career of a very good player. That’s my logic, at least.
Edit, oh shit, I should read. Regular season only? Well that’s just silly, if the whole point is always to win the cup then the whole point of argument is off. It’s like “how many hrs of driving in a porsche vs being able to have a Honda Civic for free, but it’s all in bumper-to-bumper traffic.”
I think anywhere from 3-6 seasons/years is fair. Hard to narrow it down from there.
Akrapovince
Registered User
- May 19, 2017
- 3,817
- 4,235
Depends how good your team is.
If I’m the Edmonton Oilers who are pretty much there with all their youngsters locked up, a Pavelski could pretty much have them close to the finals every single year of his career, no?
Whereas Gretzky would basically guarantee it for them, so we have to ask ourselves:
How many cups does Pavelski at 18-40 win with the assumed core of Hyman, McDavid, Draisatl, Nuge & Bouchard?
However many cups do you think they win with him? Whatever number that is during that time, you take that number and add +1 with Gretzky.
I’m sure this is a flawed way to look at it, but their on ice values is how many cups they can help bring so however many cups Pavs can win in a career versus how many guaranteed cups they get with Gretz.
If I’m the Edmonton Oilers who are pretty much there with all their youngsters locked up, a Pavelski could pretty much have them close to the finals every single year of his career, no?
Whereas Gretzky would basically guarantee it for them, so we have to ask ourselves:
How many cups does Pavelski at 18-40 win with the assumed core of Hyman, McDavid, Draisatl, Nuge & Bouchard?
However many cups do you think they win with him? Whatever number that is during that time, you take that number and add +1 with Gretzky.
I’m sure this is a flawed way to look at it, but their on ice values is how many cups they can help bring so however many cups Pavs can win in a career versus how many guaranteed cups they get with Gretz.
Im more confident in a team winning with 1 year of peak Gretzky than the same team winning once with Marleau over his entire career. I think longveity counts for alot when it comes to players of similiar caliber(say Crosby vs Forsberg) but less so when it's players of entirely different stature.
Marleau isn’t a difference-maker. Take 1 year of Gretzky and run. His impact on his teammates would likely be huge even after leaving too.
And if this is based on the ideas about Lemieux from the goal scoring thread, I’d take 1/3 of a season from Lemieux over a full year from Marleau as well
And if this is based on the ideas about Lemieux from the goal scoring thread, I’d take 1/3 of a season from Lemieux over a full year from Marleau as well
Last edited:
TheGuiminator
I’ll be damned King, I’ll be damned
- Oct 23, 2018
- 2,061
- 1,823
The ultimate goal is to win the Cup, so you should pick the player who will maximize your chances of winning.
Peak Gretzky, roughly from 1982 to 1987, led his team to three Stanley Cup wins during that period.
Patrick Marleau’s contribution resulted in a whopping one Stanley Cup Final appearance over 23 years, with zero Stanley Cup win
Therefore, anything between one playoff run and three seasons of peak Gretzky is a good answer.
This is why peak performance has more impact on the game than longevity.
Peak Gretzky, roughly from 1982 to 1987, led his team to three Stanley Cup wins during that period.
Patrick Marleau’s contribution resulted in a whopping one Stanley Cup Final appearance over 23 years, with zero Stanley Cup win
Therefore, anything between one playoff run and three seasons of peak Gretzky is a good answer.
This is why peak performance has more impact on the game than longevity.
- Jul 25, 2007
- 4,032
- 4,301
As a Sharks fan, it was awesome watching Patty's career, but I'd trade it all for a successful cup run. Therefore since this is only regular season, it would be 2-3 seasons of Gretz / who cares, but the real answer is one playoff run. Like these guys said...
- Feb 10, 2010
- 14,137
- 10,977
TheGuiminator
I’ll be damned King, I’ll be damned
- Oct 23, 2018
- 2,061
- 1,823
They won just two years after Gretzky left, the winning culture of the Oilers was already well established due to Gretzky.
Not gonna lie, It also helps to have a natural-born leader like Messier as Gretzky’s successor.
I voted 1 shift because I think it was a funny option. The reality is I think it's likely 1-2 seasons.
Aashir Mallik
Registered User
- Apr 19, 2019
- 11,970
- 12,548
If it’s just regular season and that’s what used to measure, then the ultimate goal is the presidents trophy and personal accolades of the team.
1 year, maybe 2. I think if any somewhat decent team (league placement of 16 and up) adds prime Gretzky to their team, they should be in the fight for that. Moreover, give him a consistent 30 goal scorer and he can turn him into a rocket contender. Not to mention Gretzky will be in the hart, Ross, Lindsay, maybe even rocket himself competition, and he’d be the favourite.
1 year, maybe 2. I think if any somewhat decent team (league placement of 16 and up) adds prime Gretzky to their team, they should be in the fight for that. Moreover, give him a consistent 30 goal scorer and he can turn him into a rocket contender. Not to mention Gretzky will be in the hart, Ross, Lindsay, maybe even rocket himself competition, and he’d be the favourite.
- Feb 10, 2010
- 14,137
- 10,977
Over the course of 20 seasons, aren't the odds of any random team winning a cup in a 32 team league about 62.5%?
- Jul 25, 2007
- 4,032
- 4,301
If the odds are straight even, then it's 1- the chance you never win in 20 years, which is 31/32^20. 1-0.53 or 47% chance you win a cup in 20 years with straight odds, but...
1) odds are not straight
2) we already know what Marleau's career was with the sharks and we won zero cups.
I thought of this as dropping peak Gretz into an actual sharks team from his career. And that player probably makes that Sharks team (especially in the Thornton era) the front runner for a cup.
If we get him for the playoffs.
CanadienShark
Registered User
- Dec 18, 2012
- 39,382
- 13,743
1-3 seasons. I voted 3, just in case they're not cup contenders that 1st year. With Gretzky, you should be able to at least contend within those 3 years.
Video Nasty
Registered User
- Mar 12, 2017
- 5,464
- 9,613
Ovechkin is on track to break the goals mark. Can’t you be satisfied with that and abandon this weird crusade to downplay Gretzky?
HFpapi
Registered User
I'm not a particularly big fan of Marleau as a player, ( I don't have him anywhere near the HOF for ex), but anyone saying less than a few seasons is selling him very short or overestimating the impact of Gretzky.
I would say 4 seasons of Gretzky is where I feel better about my chances of winning a cup with him than in the 15 productive years a very good but not franchise altering player like Marleau gives.
No player in history = an automatic cup so thinking one/two years of 99 is a slam dunk is ridiculous, as evidenced by his 4 cups in 20 seasons. Lemieux and Orr only 2 each, McDavid zero to date.
I would say 4 seasons of Gretzky is where I feel better about my chances of winning a cup with him than in the 15 productive years a very good but not franchise altering player like Marleau gives.
No player in history = an automatic cup so thinking one/two years of 99 is a slam dunk is ridiculous, as evidenced by his 4 cups in 20 seasons. Lemieux and Orr only 2 each, McDavid zero to date.
- Feb 10, 2010
- 14,137
- 10,977
Video Nasty
Registered User
- Mar 12, 2017
- 5,464
- 9,613
- Feb 10, 2010
- 14,137
- 10,977
I know, which is why Gretzky is a great yard stick to measure against.
I think you're being a bit sensitive.
Video Nasty
Registered User
- Mar 12, 2017
- 5,464
- 9,613
Watching one season of the greatest player to ever step onto the ice and perform at the level he did, while leading his team to a Cup is worth more than watching a merely good player suit up night in and night out for twenty three seasons.
- Status
