HF Habs: Out of Town Thread: 2024 Playoff Edition

[angusyoung]

I’ll definitely be watching, as well as the NBA finals which I am super AMPED for.

The Jays aren’t giving me much to cheer for though I am going to the Orioles/Jays game on Thursday. My first home game of the season.

On that note, LFG Oilers and Mavericks!!

AMPED up? do you go to eleven too.

 

[ngc_5128]

Would you prefer the inequality of European Football where all the richest clubs can hoard and poach talent from other teams? The New York Rangers and the Toronto Maple Leafs would have a lot more Stanley Cup if they could take the likes of McDavid and Draisaitl from Edmonton and other smaller clubs whenever they wanted.

If that was the case, wouldn't have they have won more than 1 cup between them from 1967 to 2005.

 

[The Real Timo]

If that was the case, wouldn't have they have won more than 1 cup between them from 1967 to 2005.

Haha... leafs would still have no cup

 

[red devil]

https://x.com/i/web/status/1798362407548699089

 

[Anardil]

The Oilers have become my second favourite team, and it is not for the on ice product. I hope they win just to see the superfan again.

I don't know if they are real, but they are spectacular!!

 

[TheBuriedHab]

Generational is a term that gets abused. He's not generational. He's a HOF talent and an outstanding player. He's not Crosby, McDavid or Ovechkin.

Cool. If you want to debate this further, put it in the Out of Town thread and I'll be happy to reply there. Let's not hijack the thread.

To me, it makes sense to look at how cup winners are constructed when building a team. The debate between say Demidov and Lidstrom is an interesting one as they are very different players. It makes sense to bring in teams like Chicago vs LA or Tampa etc... and argue to build one way or another. I don't want to get stuck into a 'is Kucherov generational' debate because it's outside the scope of the discussion here. Suffice it to say, he's an amazing player and I'm not going to sit here and say that we have someone that good now or that somebody that good is avaiable in this draft. We have no way of knowing as it's far too early. Again, remember that this guy was drafted 58th overall. That should tell you all you need to know about how talent can take time to develop.

Lidstrom would be great and take us one direction, Demidov a completely different route. BOTH I think would greatly help the future of this team. I'd be fine with either.

The top 5 point producers in the past 10 years are Mcdavid, Kucherov, Draisatl, Mackinnon and Crosby in that order. If you want to play semantics over the word generational I don't care. The fact is Tampa had the 2nd most productive player in the world over the past 10 years.

 

[ReHabs]

The top 5 point producers in the past 10 years are Mcdavid, Kucherov, Draisatl, Mackinnon and Crosby in that order. If you want to play semantics over the word generational I don't care. The fact is Tampa had the 2nd most productive player in the world over the past 10 years.

I think Lafleurs Guy means Kucherov wasn't pegged as a legendary talent pre-draft or in his very first years. In Canada we were hearing about Crosby and McJesus nonstop even before their draft year, as if they were destined for it. I can see that deliniation... but it's ultimately irrelevant to this draft. Not even Celebrini has the weight of 'generational' on his back.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

The top 5 point producers in the past 10 years are Mcdavid, Kucherov, Draisatl, Mackinnon and Crosby in that order. If you want to play semantics over the word generational I don't care. The fact is Tampa had the 2nd most productive player in the world over the past 10 years.

Adam Oates was the 2nd highest point getter of the 90s. Is he generational?

Kucherov has two scoring titles and has been top ten five times. Great freaking player. HOFer.

If he's generational though, then the term loses all meaning. Yes 144 points is amazing but it's completely different than ten years ago when scoring titles were won with 89 points. The points themselves don't matter as much as the margin ahead of the next player and how he finishes relative to his peers.

Nobody would dispute the guy's a HOFer or that he's amazing. But he's not generational. He's among the best players of his generation. Not the same thing.

 

[TheBuriedHab]

Adam Oates was the 2nd highest point getter of the 90s. Is he generational?

Kucherov has two scoring titles and has been top ten five times. Great freaking player. HOFer.

If he's generational though, then the term loses all meaning. Yes 144 points is amazing but it's completely different than ten years ago when scoring titles were won with 89 points. The points themselves don't matter as much as the margin ahead of the next player and how he finishes relative to his peers.

Nobody would dispute the guy's a HOFer or that he's amazing. But he's not generational. He's among the best players of his generation. Not the same thing.

Describe to me the difference between Kucherov and a generational player then

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

Describe to me the difference between Kucherov and a generational player then

Crosby eight times top three in points. Never less than a point per game (tied for most seasons all time) 12 times top ten in points.

Ovechkin 9 times goal leader - about to break all time record.

Kucherov three times top three. No goal scoring titles.

McDavid’s already got eight top three finishes and a Richard.

Kucherov’s amazing. Two Ross trophies and killer in the playoffs. He’s 30 and already a HOFer. But he’s not generational. How can you be generational and not be considered the best player of your generation? McDavid is a clear cut above.

 

[Non Player Canadiens]

Crosby eight times top three in points. Never less than a point per game (tied for most seasons all time) 12 times top ten in points.

Ovechkin 9 times goal leader - about to break all time record.

Kucherov three times top three. No goal scoring titles.

McDavid’s already got eight top three finishes and a Richard.

Kucherov’s amazing. Two Ross trophies and killer in the playoffs. He’s 30 and already a HOFer. But he’s not generational. How can you be generational and not be considered the best player of your generation? McDavid is a clear cut above.

maybe it makes sense to think of it in terms of relative impact between types of players

a superstar ~3x more impactful than a regular star
a generational talent is ~3x more impactful than a superstar

therefore a generational talent is ~9x more impactful than a regular star

 

[TheBuriedHab]

Crosby eight times top three in points. Never less than a point per game (tied for most seasons all time) 12 times top ten in points.

Ovechkin 9 times goal leader - about to break all time record.

Kucherov three times top three. No goal scoring titles.

McDavid’s already got eight top three finishes and a Richard.

Kucherov’s amazing. Two Ross trophies and killer in the playoffs. He’s 30 and already a HOFer. But he’s not generational. How can you be generational and not be considered the best player of your generation? McDavid is a clear cut above.

Well you're already wrong.

Kucherov has finished at least tied top 3, 4 times. Those 4 times were the past 4 times when he played at least 80 games. Kucherov also hasn't finished below PPG since his 3rd year.

He also finished 4 points back of third in 2017 playing 8 less games than Kane.

Also it's a bit weird to compare career totals when Kucherov is 6 years younger than Crosby and 8 years younger than Ovechkin. Chance he ties Crosby with top three point finishes.

Your original claim was that Tampa won without generational talent, and we can hide behind the word generational if we want. But the reality is Kucherov was a top 3 forward of the last decade, which is more of the point I was making.

 

[The Gr8 Dane]

Well you're already wrong.

Kucherov has finished at least tied top 3, 4 times. Those 4 times were the past 4 times when he played at least 80 games. Kucherov also hasn't finished below PPG since his 3rd year.

He also finished 4 points back of third in 2017 playing 8 less games than Kane.

Also it's a bit weird to compare career totals when Kucherov is 6 years younger than Crosby and 8 years younger than Ovechkin. Chance he ties Crosby with top three point finishes.

Your original claim was that Tampa won without generational talent, and we can hide behind the word generational if we want. But the reality is Kucherov was a top 3 forward of the last decade, which is more of the point I was making.

Would you consider Malkin generational?

 

[ReHabs]

Your original claim was that Tampa won without generational talent, and we can hide behind the word generational if we want. But the reality is Kucherov was a top 3 forward of the last decade, which is more of the point I was making.

In the context of drafting needs, it makes sense to argue that Kucherov was not considered a generational pick-up at the time of the draft.

So for the purpose of drafting strategy, someone could say: to get maximum value you should always try to pick up TALENT before anything else because look at Kucherov, he wasn't a generational prospect, but he's been incredible and has dominated the league despite his percieved issues with size.

 

[TheBuriedHab]

Would you consider Malkin generational?

No. I don't consider Draisaitl or Malkin who both got to play with Crosby and Mcdavid generational.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

Well you're already wrong.

Kucherov has finished at least tied top 3, 4 times. Those 4 times were the past 4 times when he played at least 80 games. Kucherov also hasn't finished below PPG since his 3rd year.

Okay. Four. Awesome. HOFer.

Not generational

He also finished 4 points back of third in 2017 playing 8 less games than Kane.

Also it's a bit weird to compare career totals when Kucherov is 6 years younger than Crosby and 8 years younger than Ovechkin. Chance he ties Crosby with top three point finishes.

Your original claim was that Tampa won without generational talent, and we can hide behind the word generational if we want. But the reality is Kucherov was a top 3 forward of the last decade, which is more of the point I was making.

How far do you want to water this down? Is Iginla generational? Is Yzerman? Malkin? Kane? Thornton?
Sakic?

They’re all great players. All HOfers. They aren’t generational.

 

[GrandBison]

As per definition, there should be one generational talent over 20-25 years or so. Is it even clear that Jagr, Crosby and Ovechkin are generational? I think MacDavid is at an other level, like Hasek, Lemieux and Gretzky.

 

[TheBuriedHab]

Okay. Four. Awesome. HOFer.

Not generational

How far do you want to water this down? Is Iginla generational? Is Yzerman? Thornton?
Sakic?

They’re all great player. All HOfers. They aren’t generational.

Like I said, I'll surrender the point that he isn't generational.

My main point that you keep ignoring, is that Tampa had a top 2 point producer of the past decade. So yeah Tampa didn't have a generational player I guess, just a top 3 forward of the past decade. Cool.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

As per definition, there should be one generational talent over 20-25 years or so. Is it even clear that Jagr, Crosby and Ovechkin are generational? I think MacDavid is at an other level, like Hasek, Lemieux and Gretzky.

Crosby and OV happened at the same time. And their accomplishments are just too good to eliminate either one. They are generational players. Crosby is hampered by injury in his prime and both players played in a low scoring era. But they are head and shoulders the best players of that era.

Yzerman isn’t. Sakic isn’t. Messier, Jagr, Kucherov are not. Great players but not generational. The top three finishes are impressive. 6 times top ten is great. Dude’s a HOFer already. Generational? No.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

Like I said, I'll surrender the point that he isn't generational.

Okay.

My main point that you keep ignoring, is that Tampa had a top 2 point producer of the past decade. So yeah Tampa didn't have a generational player I guess, just a top 3 forward of the past decade. Cool.

And like I said, they are one of the better cup teams to have won. Very few clubs now can be put together as good as that one.

I’d love for us to be that good but I doubt it will happen. Very few teams will be able to be that good going forward with the cap restrictions.

We don’t need to be that good to win a cup. That’s the ideal but not the floor of where we need to be.

Again, nobody knew how good Kucherov would be. So why is it inconceivable that we have a star in Hutson? Why is it that we can’t believe that we might pull another star out of this draft?

We have a great group of young players. At this stage in a rebuild that’s all you can ask for. We will have to see where things go.

Imagine if this conversation was had on Tampa’s board in 2013… could they have know what they’d have? Of course not. It takes time for players to emerge and we’ve already got a few players who we think are going to be very good.

No we may never be as good as Tampa was but… who will? It doesn’t mean we can’t build a team that’s good enough to win a cup.

 

[HuGo Sham]

Kaplan's Stanley Cup buzz: What are the secrets to success for Oilers and Panthers?

How did last season set the stage for the Florida Panthers? What keyed the Edmonton Oilers' turnaround? Here's what we're hearing on the two teams left playing.

www.espn.com

 

[LaP]

The top 5 point producers in the past 10 years are Mcdavid, Kucherov, Draisatl, Mackinnon and Crosby in that order. If you want to play semantics over the word generational I don't care. The fact is Tampa had the 2nd most productive player in the world over the past 10 years.

A generation is not 10 years though. A generation is usually considered as 15 years. In the last 15 years Kecherov is 3rd in ppg behind Crosby and McJesus. He's 11th in goals per game. He'll likely finish lower than 3rd since he's soon to be 31 and will regress in the next 4 years (he has been in the NHL for 11 years). If he doesn't regress into his mid 30ies and keep the pace then there could be a discussion about it but i highly doubt it will happen.

 

[Weltschmerz]

A generation is not 10 years though. A generation is usually considered as 15 years. In the last 15 years Kecherov is 3rd in ppg behind Crosby and McJesus. He's 11th in goals per game. He'll likely finish lower than 3rd since he's soon to be 31 and will regress in the next 4 years (he has been in the NHL for 11 years). If he doesn't regress into his mid 30ies and keep the pace then there could be a discussion about it but i highly doubt it will happen.

Wikipedia has it at 20-30 years , but not sure why there is the premise that there can only be one outstanding player per generation.

In the end everyone has it's own understanding what is elite generational or a superstar.

 

[PeteWorrell]

If that was the case, wouldn't have they have won more than 1 cup between them from 1967 to 2005.

Why do you think they didn't win after 1967? Without the draft, they could sign all the kids in the area and then decide later on if they wanted to keep them or not. They could no longer hoard talent and their management were no longer up to the task.

 

[LaP]

Wikipedia has it at 20-30 years , but not sure why there is the premise that there can only be one outstanding player per generation.

In the end everyone has it's own understanding what is elite generational or a superstar.

15-20-25. Let's agree that 10 years is not big enough of a sample size. Yes there can be more than one players in a generation like Crosby and Ovy or Gretzky and Lemieux and also there can be none like in the dead puck era where the generational players were all goalies.

But Kucherov's career has been too short to claim him as a generational player and the beginning of it not good enough to claim him generational after 11 years unlike McJesus. Kucherov has been generationally dominant for 6 years only. Many players were dominant for 6 years and then had good but not generational career.

If Kucherov falls down a cliff next season at 31 (it happens more often than people want to admit) i don't see any discussion where he'll be considered generational.