TheTakedown
Puck is Life
- Jul 11, 2012
- 13,689
- 1,480
1) I'd love to hear why you think Krejci would be Stastny 2.0.
2) Bruins have 0.0 interest in Lehtera. He has negative value to Boston in a trade.
You spelled Girardi wrong
1) I'd love to hear why you think Krejci would be Stastny 2.0.
2) Bruins have 0.0 interest in Lehtera. He has negative value to Boston in a trade.
Ah, not again with this...
He's always been the 2nd best center on the team. A ppg+ Savard or a healthy Bergeron.
Just read the thread. This has been hashed out on both sides already.
Using this logic, Malkin was never a #1 center either.
Can we please give this a rest? It has been discussed ad nauseum.
As a Blues fan, I'd definitely be interested in something around an extended Shatty for Krejci. BOS would have to take back some additional salary for it to work (probably Berglund since Lehtera a bad contract but Bergy has some value so maybe some lesser asset would then be added on Boston's side to even it out...something like a mid round pick...but that's minor details IMO). The basis for a deal is there IMO.
The question I have for Bruins fans is, with Krejci having a NMC and thus the ability to reject any trade, is there a logical reason as to why he would waive that to be traded to STL? Why would he want out of BOS? Unless he's willing to waive his clause, this talk is moot IMO.
Same feeling I have when a bunch of St Louis fans come here and rehash this BS of an opinion, over and over.
Mind you, if they would bring ANY valid argument why they think that, I would be OK with it. But it's pretty much always a statement thrown out there, with no supporting facts whatsoever. The one lone (failed) try so far was a "but Savard was ahead of him, Bergeron is ahead of him, so he is a #2", promptly neutralized by "so Malkin has never been a #1 center?", meaning that a team CAN have TWO legit #1 centers. Boston has exactly that.
Imagine the reactions from St Louis fans if I for example would say "Pietrangelo is not a top D" (of course he is, I am using it only as an example). Why? Because I prefer <insert bunch of names>, no facts brought to support this. I thought so...
Same feeling I have when a bunch of St Louis fans come here and rehash this BS of an opinion, over and over.
Mind you, if they would bring ANY valid argument why they think that, I would be OK with it. But it's pretty much always a statement thrown out there, with no supporting facts whatsoever. The one lone (failed) try so far was a "but Savard was ahead of him, Bergeron is ahead of him, so he is a #2", promptly neutralized by "so Malkin has never been a #1 center?", meaning that a team CAN have TWO legit #1 centers. Boston has exactly that.
Imagine the reactions from St Louis fans if I for example would say "Pietrangelo is not a top D" (of course he is, I am using it only as an example). Why? Because I prefer <insert bunch of names>, no facts brought to support this. I thought so...
You are not understanding what I've said. Did Jeff Carter become a #1 center on his own? No he didn't, and he is a similar tier center to Krejci IMO, Carter is just a goalscorer and Krejci is a playmaker. They are unproven as a true #1 on a team. Krejci has had Savard and Bergeron, while Carter has had Richards and Kopitar, and he was not as effective in Columbus.
It's the fact that he is unproven in that role, just as Shattenkirk has been being sheltered by Pietrangelo. Saying that this logic applies to Malkin is not looking at it reasonably because everyone views him as a top 5 center or a top 10 forward. Krejci reasonably is in the 20-25 range of centers, similar to Shattenkirk on the defensive side. You can pull statistics without a big sample size that would show Krejci over guys like Giroux or Getzlaf or whoever, but reasonably looking at him, he is in the 20-25 range.
Similar to Carter, who I consider to be on the same tier, the question remains, is Krejci able to perform at the same level as a true #1 or is he best suited to be in a tandem 1A/1B situation? Similar to Shattenkirk, he is unproven in that aspect. Krejci would immediately become our best center, and I'd welcome him, but the idea that Shattenkirk is a huge risk in becoming a #1 and Krejci is not, is wrong.
The idea that having another top center to partner with does not have an impact on your effectiveness is also wrong. It creates for easier matchups and situations because the opposition can't load up on one guy.
This all started because Boston posters said Shattenkirk wasn't a #1. The same logic applies to Krejci if you believe that about Shattenkirk.
Facts and reasoning have definitely been posted by multiple Blues posters. If you're going to disagree with them fine. You're entitled to your opinion. But don't act like nobody has posted this stuff. We have.
Close the thread. This is stupid.
Krejci is anything but unproven on the Bruins in a #1 spot. NOW Bergeron is probably considered unanimously the #1 of the two, but it has not been a thing for that long. You make it sound like Savard passed the torch to Bergeron, so to speak, with Krejci being simply a byproduct of having Bergeron as the top center. You just need to go back a couple of years and things looked completely different.
From 2008-09 to 2013-14, Bergeron outproduced Krejci ONCE (yeah, I know points are not everything. Bergeron is a monster in everything he does, but Krejci is not just a decorative plant either. On the contrary). And TWICE, Krejci lead the entire league in playoffs points (find me anyone else on your 20-25 center list that has done this). How can all this make one NOT proven in a #1 role?
So high was he considered by the Bruins brass that in 2012-13, they chose him over Seguin when they understood that no team can afford to roll THREE #1 centers in the cap era. I know, that turned out a blunder, but that's because Seguin took the next step up (and because of what happened to the assets we got back for him...), not because Krejci was misjudged.
PS: I don't believe anything about Shattenkirk. I haven't seen enough games of him to make an eloquent case either way. However I have seen every game Krejci played and I do know what I am talking about. Not sure you can say the same, being a STL fans quite a ways away from Boston (I think).
Refresh my memory then, because I remember none. I especially would like someone, anyone, to refute (with facts, that is...) the idea that a center who puts up top 10-15 numbers for centers, while being responsible defensively + being able to dictate the game's pace & while also stepping up big time when things matters (see playoffs) is not a true #1 center and, according to some, might not even be top a 25-30 center (!!!).
The argument is that Krejci may not be able to sustain his success without a player like Savard or Bergeron in front of him to carry the big defensive minutes. No one is arguing that Krejci has offensive ability, but can he do as well when playign against teams shut down lines? To refute this, you need to post Krejci's stats with Bergeron/Savard in the Bruins lineup, vs his stats with them in the lineup.
The only problem is that Bergeron has played almost the maximum number of games every year over the past few seasons, so there is no way to compare. Hence why Blues fans are cautious about dubbing Krejci a #1 center.
The biggest argument against Krejci is whether or not he can put up similar numbers when taking the blunt of the heavy matchups. Take a look at this quality of competition chart. Check out where Krejci ranks in comparison to the vast majority of other top 10/15 centers.
His comparables in terms of QOC were Crosby (who has proven that he can play without Malkin and still be the best player in the world) and Stamkos, who really is arguably a top 15 center in the league right now. Every other center is playing much tougher minutes night in and night out than David Krejci.
Those are relative numbers to the team. If you look at Raw QOC, Krejci has the lowest out of the entire group by a pretty significant margin.
The general trend is that with harder competition, points decrease. So you can't keep using Krejci's point count as the end all be all of discussion regarding the player. If he puts up those numbers while facing equivalent competition, then sure. He's definitely a bonafide #1 center. But so far he hasn't. THat's not to say he can't either, but its the exact same situation when looking at Shattenkirk's numbers.
he talks like a 20 year old with "sauce" "cheddar" in his vocabulary, but yes.
The argument is that Krejci may not be able to sustain his success without a player like Savard or Bergeron in front of him to carry the big defensive minutes. No one is arguing that Krejci has offensive ability, but can he do as well when playign against teams shut down lines? To refute this, you need to post Krejci's stats with Bergeron/Savard in the Bruins lineup, vs his stats with them in the lineup.
The only problem is that Bergeron has played almost the maximum number of games every year over the past few seasons, so there is no way to compare. Hence why Blues fans are cautious about dubbing Krejci a #1 center.
The biggest argument against Krejci is whether or not he can put up similar numbers when taking the blunt of the heavy matchups. Take a look at this quality of competition chart. Check out where Krejci ranks in comparison to the vast majority of other top 10/15 centers.
His comparables in terms of QOC were Crosby (who has proven that he can play without Malkin and still be the best player in the world) and Stamkos, who really is arguably a top 15 center in the league right now. Every other center is playing much tougher minutes night in and night out than David Krejci.
Those are relative numbers to the team. If you look at Raw QOC, Krejci has the lowest out of the entire group by a pretty significant margin.
The general trend is that with harder competition, points decrease. So you can't keep using Krejci's point count as the end all be all of discussion regarding the player. If he puts up those numbers while facing equivalent competition, then sure. He's definitely a bonafide #1 center. But so far he hasn't. THat's not to say he can't either, but its the exact same situation when looking at Shattenkirk's numbers.
Way to deceptively cherrypick stats from the season Krejci was injured. I'd give you the benefit of the doubt, except you literally had to change to the season before manually as the generator defaults to 2015-16.
Way to deceptively cherrypick stats from the season Krejci was injured. I'd give you the benefit of the doubt, except you literally had to change to the season before manually as the generator defaults to 2015-16.
Yeah I realized that I'd misclicked that after I posted it. Sorry. Was he injured from 2011-2014 too? Because his charts look largely the same. You cannot judge a players worth based on one year of performance.
Here are his charts since 2011-2012
2012-2013
2013-2014
His performance this past season was more on par with what you would expect from a first line center, but he is far from doing it year in and year out. It also makes sense that this past year could have been his career year so to say, and there is little likelihood that he will continue to improve when his age will soon start becoming a factor. You cannot judge a player based on a one year sample size.
No reason. As a matter of fact, not only he spent his entire career in Boston, but he also became a father recently. There's no indication whatsoever he would want out of Boston at all.
On the contrary, he also has a 1 year old girl (I think actually it's her first birthday tomorrow), I doubt that he would want to up and leave with his brand new family.
I'm fairly sure this is what every Blues fan has been sayingThanks. That's what I figured. So all of this bickering on if Krejci is a #1 or #2 is pretty pointless. He's very unlikely to agree to a trade regardless. That said, count me as a Blues fan that considers him a #1 (although not an elite #1) and would value him higher than Shatty.
Same feeling I have when a bunch of St Louis fans come here and rehash this BS of an opinion, over and over.
Mind you, if they would bring ANY valid argument why they think that, I would be OK with it. But it's pretty much always a statement thrown out there, with no supporting facts whatsoever. The one lone (failed) try so far was a "but Savard was ahead of him, Bergeron is ahead of him, so he is a #2", promptly neutralized by "so Malkin has never been a #1 center?", meaning that a team CAN have TWO legit #1 centers. Boston has exactly that.
Imagine the reactions from St Louis fans if I for example would say "Pietrangelo is not a top D" (of course he is, I am using it only as an example). Why? Because I prefer <insert bunch of names>, no facts brought to support this. I thought so...