Kadri discussion thread after his 30th goal - now featuring 60 points!

[stickty111]

What do you define as a player playing on the 1st line then, because simply saying he plays on the 3rd line is just as flawed as me saying Bergeron plays on the 3rd line.

There's literally zero reasoning behind saying he plays on the 3rd line.

I know right. Its like saying Malkin is a 2nd liner because he plays on the 2nd line. Someone needs to tell Malkin is a 2nd line C at best. Kadri clearly plays on the top 6 and has continued to play well in that role. A top 6 player for sure who can score 30 goals but dont know if he will continue to score 30 goals. Maybe 20-25 goals with 30-35 assists. As I said we have 6 players who are top 6 players, and Kadri is one of them. He plays what I would say a hybrid 1st line C/2nd line C role on this team.

 

[HockeyThoughts]

Honestly, who cares if he's a 1st, 2nd or 3rd line center.

All that matters is he has scored 30G, is on pace to score 60pts, has matched up against top opposition and fared extremely well - and he's all ours.

Do people not realize that Auston Matthews, William Nylander, Nazem Kadri, Tyler Bozak...etc. all play for the same team? That Mike Babcock doesn't play a conventional top 6/bottom 6 lineup? That our offensive talent is dispersed all throughout the lineup?

Or is everyone just too stuck quibbling over semantics to see the big picture.

 

[LeafingTheWay]

Over the last 100 or so years the first line is usually defined as the line that generates the most offence, pretty much every standard or advance scoring stat, TOI, etc would have Matthews ahead of Kadri, making Matthews our true #1. Meaning Hyman is on our #1 line

Just to be clear that does not mean Kadri is bad because you are incorrect in your theory, just simply statistically he is not our #1 center.

From a traditional role , usually your best checking line is your 3rd line but I think those roles are blurred on this team. I think one could argue that having Kadri checking the 1st line might ****** his production, he may well have more goals if he was deployed the way a typical 1st line is deployed.

I like that reasoning. I agree based on production of their line, Matthews line is the 1C line. I don't agree with the best checking line being the 3rd line though. If anything the 2nd line has always been the 'matchup/shutdown' line, while the 3rd line being a two-way 'grinding' line. Based on QoC/usage Kadri's line is the 1st line but based on production stats Kadri's line is the 2nd line.

I'm fine with Kadri being wherever, but what annoys is me when people say he's succeeding because he's on the 3rd line which isn't true because the consensus among NHL fans (I'm assuming here) is that the 3rd line faces easier minutes and easier starts.

It seems like an insult to any of the lines to say that I guess. "Matthews/Nylander/Kadri/Marner is only succeeding because he's on the 3rd line. I'd rather call the lines by their roles.

Matthews line = Two-way line
Kadri line = Matchup/shutdown line
Bozak line = Offense line

 

[LeafingTheWay]

Honestly, who cares if he's a 1st, 2nd or 3rd line center.

All that matters is he has scored 30G, is on pace to score 60pts, has matched up against top opposition and fared extremely well - and he's all ours.

Do people not realize that Auston Matthews, William Nylander, Nazem Kadri, Tyler Bozak...etc. all play for the same team? That Mike Babcock doesn't play a conventional top 6/bottom 6 lineup? That our offensive talent is dispersed all throughout the lineup?

Or is everyone just too stuck quibbling over semantics to see the big picture.

We see the big picture, but we love to quibble over semantics as well

 

[Trapper]

Honestly, who cares if he's a 1st, 2nd or 3rd line center.

All that matters is he has scored 30G, is on pace to score 60pts, has matched up against top opposition and fared extremely well - and he's all ours.

Do people not realize that Auston Matthews, William Nylander, Nazem Kadri, Tyler Bozak...etc. all play for the same team? That Mike Babcock doesn't play a conventional top 6/bottom 6 lineup? That our offensive talent is dispersed all throughout the lineup?

Or is everyone just too stuck quibbling over semantics to see the big picture.

Everyone keeps trying to shove every player on the top line sometimes.
This is the new NHL. If you want to win the Cup, you need to build 3 lines strong. 4 if you could but the Cap won't allow that. The 4th line is where the players like Boyle,Martin,Gauthier etc. Come in.

The way I see the future.
Matthews will be the tough matchup line.
Marner will be the higher offensive zone start line.
Nylander will be the sorry, your team has nothing left to match us line.

Babcock constantly says these players drive a line for good reason. Because they will.
It doesn't mean they won't get some time together or special teams but they should drive their own lines.
Add in the Kappys,Grundstroms, whoever else to compliment.

 

[Ignatius Reilly]

Yup. Its crazy that we have potentially a 1A, 1B, 1C situation in terms of centres if Kadri can keep his level of play up in future seasons, and Nylander shifts over to centre smoothly.

I'd go one step further and add a "1D" centre. Then everyone could be a legit number 1 and we could quit the bickering.

The numbers simply do not matter.

In the spirit of the OP, I'll toss out a congrats to Kadri for having the best season of his career so far.

 

[Bluelines]

I know right. Its like saying Malkin is a 2nd liner because he plays on the 2nd line. Someone needs to tell Malkin is a 2nd line C at best. Kadri clearly plays on the top 6 and has continued to play well in that role. A top 6 player for sure who can score 30 goals but dont know if he will continue to score 30 goals. Maybe 20-25 goals with 30-35 assists. As I said we have 6 players who are top 6 players, and Kadri is one of them. He plays what I would say a hybrid 1st line C/2nd line C role on this team.

I think you;re conflating skill level with what line they play on, the line number you play on has no bearing on the skill level or the contribution of a particular player. If Malkin is playing on the 2nd line, it means he is a 2nd liner on the Pens, it does not mean his skill level is less than a 1st liner though.

Kane plays on the 2nd line and I don't think anyone would question his elite skill level.

 

[stickty111]

Rielly is a clear #2 who could be a #1. Jake is a clear #3. He isnt better than Rielly but thats fine. Odd we have been winning since Rielly has been better than Jake, and when Jake was better than Rielly, we were losing. Jake is having some trouble against top pairings where Rielly was showing struggles but was making progress, and Rielly is better at facing weaker pairs than Jake is. Hopefully the trend continues where Rielly outplays Jake because thats when we are a good team. Rielly can carry d corps, Jake cant.
Kadri is a great #2 who can be play as a 1st line C in case of injuries and stuff

 

[Pookie]

Never trade until the bitter end.

Sound financial advice too.

Never sell high. Always sell when the value is at the lowest.

?

 

[Gary Nylund]

Kadri is the perfect non elite hockey player. If you could clone Kadri into all 12 forward positions, we would win every cup until they couldn't skate anymore.

Great player always has been. Never trade until the bitter end.

Yeah I'm a huge fan too. I've spent a ton of time and energy defending him here from the mindless haters and I would be thrilled if Kadri retired a Leaf. It's very rare as we all know for a player to spend his entire career with one team these days, wouldn't it be something if he was the one!

 

[Joey Hoser]

Sound financial advice too.

Never sell high. Always sell when the value is at the lowest.

?

Sure seems like you always want to trade him regardless of current apparent value.

 

[Gary Nylund]

Sound financial advice too.

Never sell high. Always sell when the value is at the lowest.

?

You should head over to the main board. There's a guy there in the Calder thread who's drawing parallells between Matthews and playing the centre position in soccer - you'd fit right in.

 

[Bluelines]

His 30 goals is a great accomplishment, esp. considering his career trajectory before Shanny and Babs. Give him a star, an cookie and a pat on the back.

As long as our goalies bail him out after making bad plays like the one last game, (who passes from the corner into the slot in his own end?), he will continue to shine. One trueism about Kadri is when he plays poorly he tends to come back next game and have a big one, so here's hoping to a Naztastic night in Nashville!!!

 

[Bluelines]

Kadri is the perfect non elite hockey player. If you could clone Kadri into all 12 forward positions, we would win every cup until they couldn't skate anymore.

Great player always has been. Never trade until the bitter end.

LOL... some people might interpret that as sarcasm...

 

[Menzinger]

Sound financial advice too.

Never sell high. Always sell when the value is at the lowest.

?

You could say the same thing about every asset on the team.....

 

[Gary Nylund]

Sure seems like you always want to trade him regardless of current apparent value.

Truer words have never been spoken.

 

[Bluelines]

Sure seems like you always want to trade him regardless of current apparent value.

Not just Nazzy "Soft mittens" Kadri
+JVR
+Bozak
+Jake

 

[Pookie]

Not just Nazzy "Soft mittens" Kadri
+JVR
+Bozak
+Jake

Conveniently overlooked when the pitchforks come out.

 

[IBeL34f]

You guys both agree on the possibility of trade.

You are only haggling about the timeline.

You say 5 years. He is 1-2. I'm probably 3.

We don't know when the decline, or opportunity to move him, will come about.

Be flexible.

Kadri is 7 months younger than JVR btw.

So if everyone agrees that the time to trade him isn't now, why not drop it until it is time to trade him, and spend the time that you don't want to trade him enjoying having him?

I'm sure it's all just fun discussion for you guys, you don't have anything against him, you don't want to see him moved, but then what's the point? Or - if you just love trade speculation - why not discuss it in the Trade Speculation thread? I'm not a moderator, I don't get to dictate what's discussed here, but I just straight up don't get it. Why is all the talk about what we can get for him, instead of how lucky we are to have him?

JVR's a UFA after next season, by the way.

 

[Pookie]

So if everyone agrees that the time to trade him isn't now, why not drop it until it is time to trade him, and spend the time that you don't want to trade him enjoying having him?

I'm sure it's all just fun discussion for you guys, you don't have anything against him, you don't want to see him moved, but then what's the point? Or - if you just love trade speculation - why not discuss it in the Trade Speculation thread? I'm not a moderator, I don't get to dictate what's discussed here, but I just straight up don't get it. Why is all the talk about what we can get for him, instead of how lucky we are to have him?

JVR's a UFA after next season, by the way.

It's funny to me that we have an untouchable player whose name isn't Matthews.

Everyone else is fair game. But not this player.

Completely fine with moving Bozak. And JVR. If you recall, I was annoyed we weren't sellers at the deadline and instead targeted 2, 32 year olds (one of whom turned us down).

Why talk about trade value? Because he won't retire a Leaf so the question isn't if, it's when. And we need a few more puzzle pieces.

But apparently I can't have that conversation with you as ... well that's up to you as to why. But clearly, we can't have that discussion.

 

[IBeL34f]

It's funny to me that we have an untouchable player whose name isn't Matthews.

Everyone else is fair game. But not this player.

Completely fine with moving Bozak. And JVR. If you recall, I was annoyed we weren't sellers at the deadline and instead targeted 2, 32 year olds (one of whom turned us down).

Why talk about trade value? Because he won't retire a Leaf so the question isn't if, it's when. And we need a few more puzzle pieces.

But apparently I can't have that conversation with you as ... well that's up to you as to why. But clearly, we can't have that discussion.

That's why you also spend so much time in Rielly's thread gauging his trade value, right? And Marner's? And Nylander's?

 

[Bluelines]

Yeah, that's why Detroit got such great returns on guys like Lidstrom, Yzerman, Shanahan, Rafalski, Fedorov, Larionov, Datsyuk...

Oh wait, they never traded them*. Instead, they won multiple Cups with them into their 30's...

I have no problem with good asset management. Moving a guy like Bozak, when his contract is set to expire and we're looking to start playing Nylander as a C - he's definitely ready - is good asset management. Weighing the pros and cons of re-signing JVR, determining that his contract just wont fit into the long-term structure, and ultimately pulling the trigger on a deal is good asset management.

Trading your feisty, defensively-responsible, 30-goal-scoring, home-grown #2C in his prime at the beginning of a sweetheart deal is not "good asset management" - we're not the 2011 Flyers.

*Datsyuk was technically traded, but is anyone actually gonna try and say that was getting prime value for him?

LOL... is the term asset manage is something that is completely new to you? Say to yourself hey we are in year 1 of the rebuilding process and then ask yourself what does it mean to be in a MULTIYEAR "rebuilding" process... if you stop adding pieces after 1 year... kinda means that you think you have a finished product. People gotta go to make sure this team is a long term success.

Lidstrom, Yzerman, Shanahan, Rafalski, Fedorov, Larionov, Datsyuk? So that is a long list of HOFer's or soon to be HOFer's. So in other words Detroit KEPT HOF talent as their core instead of trading them ... hmmmm ... sounds like good asset management to me. Keep HOF talent trade the chum.

Is Kadri = to Lidstrom, Yzerman, Shanahan, Rafalski, Fedorov, Larionov, Datsyuk? If you think Yes he is by default you must also think Kadri is a future HOFer, if you dont think so I'm not sure what point you were trying to make.

Yes you keep superstar talent, not sure that is revolutionary concept in the asset management book. Is Kadri a superstar?

BTW Nylander is not event remotely close to playing center, until he commits to playing a 200ft game he will never see the center position on a Babcock team.

 

[TLeafsFan]

Kadri with a C on his jersey would look almost as good as Matthews with it... but not quite.

Kinda like Malkin would look almost as good as Crosby wearing the C... but not quite.

But you keep both of these bona fide 1A and 1B centers around as long as you can.

Feels good man.

 

[TLeafsFan]

A Leafs team with a couple Cups in the next five years and nobody will be looking to move Kadri.

Especially if he wins a Selke or even possibly a Smythe.

 

[cookie]

But to be fair to you you cant tell the difference between a core that you keep thatis made of HOFers and a core made of complimentary players. I think you get to take a mulligan on that one.

The core of a team is not set in stone. As it stands, the Leafs can only hope the big-3 are HOF worthy but they still have effective players they can win with. Unless you have a trade proposal wherein a future HOF player can be had for a Kadri/Gardiner/etc, this is the core the team has. Beggars cannot be choosers...and the Leafs have pretty talented players to round out their core.