bleedblue1223
Registered User
- Jan 21, 2011
- 52,966
- 16,442
Depends on your definition of #1. Is your version of #1 being in the top 30 or is it the 10-12 defensemen that fit the typical #1 mold?
Tim Vezina Thomas
Registered User
- Jun 4, 2009
- 11,342
- 629
I think hes in the top 30 for sure, so by that definition he is.
Like I said, ideally you wouldn't put him on your first PK unit. Obviously Bostons situation is a little different because he'd immediately become our best D man, but still.
wintersej
Registered User
Of course they count, but for most of the game he is not a low end 1/ high end 2. He is a guy who scores in the lower end of first pairing guys at even strength and plays OK defense.
Is Ryan Kesler a #1C because he is great on the PK?
BruinDust
Registered User
- Aug 2, 2005
- 25,537
- 24,814
Just my definition, only the Top 10 or 15 guys in the game are legit No.1 caliber D-men.
Personally I don't put Shattenkirk in this group.
To me he's in that group of No.2s who are in that 16-40 range. Where he falls within that group is entirely debatable. I have him in that 20-25 range.
BruinDust
Registered User
- Aug 2, 2005
- 25,537
- 24,814
This is the problem IMO.
I don't believe management or the current coaching staff are convinced Spooner can play C in the current system. He's very weak defensively down low, his effort is there but his awareness isn't and he's often overpowered physically down low. You can look at Julien's usage of the likes of KHL cast-offs Kemppainen and Talbot last season, moving them into the 3rd line C spot and Spooner to the wing as proof of this thought process.
He's good enough to shift to the middle late in Games if/when Julien moves Backes to RW on the Krejci or Bergeron lines in order to protect a lead. But as it stands right now I expect he's going to play this season about 80% wing/20% C, and the opposite for Backes.
And you don't need to keep Spooner for this role because Riley Nash in spot duty can function as the 3rd line C late in games.
Backes is also probably better on the wing these days, although not getting the prime defensive assignments like he always did with the Blues will help him.
We aren't trying to sell Shattenkirk as a bonafide #1 defenseman. If he was, then we would not be talking about Krejci. It would be a bonafide #1 center.
- Jul 4, 2014
- 8,076
- 8,706
I think the biggest argument you'll get from Blues fans on whether or not this trade represents fair value is that we would agree with you on your assessment of Shattenkirk and would, at the same time, probably put Krecji in about the same group in terms of centers. Not sure if you agree, but I think many people would consider the positions of D and C about the same in terms of overall value. This brings us to the position that the 20-25th best D is worth about the same as the 20-25th best C.
Tim Vezina Thomas
Registered User
- Jun 4, 2009
- 11,342
- 629
- Jul 4, 2014
- 8,076
- 8,706
Not my fight, but I'll bite. Your argument is one of semantics, based on how you define "bonafide #1 center." If you're talking about one of the Top 10-15 centers in the game, no he is not. I can easily name 10-15 centers in the league who are inarguably better than Krecji. If you are talking in terms of being one of the 30 best centers in the NHL and, therefore, would be the best center on his team if the players were distributed evenly based on talent, then yes he is a "bonafide #1 center." As I mentioned in a previous post, I think both Krecji and Shattenkirk could reasonably be ranked at the same level with respect to the other players in the league at their respective positions. Under that frame of reference, either both are #1s or neither are depending on your interpretation of what qualifies a player as a "#1".
bleedblue1223
Registered User
- Jan 21, 2011
- 52,966
- 16,442
You can legitimately ask the question whether Krejci is a 1A/1B or a legit 1.
His P/60 was around 15th or 16th among Centers in the league this year. He's not a particularly strong possession player (not bad, but not close to Bergeron for instance). A number of the guys below him on the list are younger and improving, have cheaper contracts, don't have his injury history, etc.
He is IMO probably a 20-25 C in the league all things considered. He's a very good player, but there is a big list of guys I'd rather have if the option was there (it's not). So by his overall standing in the league he is a #1 C if there are 30 of them, but in the realm of unquestioned stud #1 Cs who can be expected to carry their team on a nightly basis, no... he's probably not that guy. He hasn't had to be that guy for Boston with Bergeron also on the roster.
He is comparable in that regard to Shattenkirk. Shatty is a very good defenseman who is top pairing caliber on most teams, and even would be the #1 on probably 5-10 teams, but he's not a Top 10-15 true stud defenseman in his own right the way guys like Keith, Doughty, Hedman, or even Pietrangelo are.
- Jul 4, 2014
- 8,076
- 8,706
By what measure? Others in this thread have made a case for how they rank both Krecji and Shattenkirk. Is he a #1 just because you say he is? Please show your work.
bleedblue1223
Registered User
- Jan 21, 2011
- 52,966
- 16,442
That is your opinion. Can he be the #1 center without a guy like Bergeron behind him? Can he do that when he is older than 30? Those are legitimate questions at this point. Going forward especially, I see him as a 1st line center, but not a legitimate #1, similar to how Shattenkirk is viewed.
I am not the biggest Corsi guy around, as it does require context, but his numbers have been falling.
BruinLVGA
Next: CZ SP-01 Tactical!
For centers, overall, in 2015-16: 15th for points...7th in assists... 9th in ppg for centers with at least 72 games played... And all this, considering that: a) he missed 10 games (only Seguin, of the centers with equal or more points than Krejci, missed as many games. Seguin had 10 (TEN) more points... I think having a certain guy named Benn helped Tyler get that 10 points separation)... B) he played the last 30 games with a bad hip (that required surgery in the off season), basically handicapping severely his production.
And to put his 15th overall for points for centers in 2015-16 in perspective, let's consider also that there's plenty of centers ranked ahead of him at same points (= more goals, in order to be ranked ahead) or a very few points more...
To be precise: Krejci 63 points / 72 games... Ahead of him: Monahan 63 pts / 81 games... Spezza 63 pts / 75 games... Forsberg 64 points / 82 games... Stamkos 64 points / 77 games... Giroux 67 points / 78 games... Bergeron 68 points / 80 games.
Lastly, name me any C currently playing who lead the entire league in playoffs points TWICE. He is also a player that is able to dictate the play, slow it down, has great vision, clutch when needed.
Just his 2015-16 stats say ABSOLUTELY top 10-15 center, inarguably, never mind the historical stuff... You don't think so?
Last edited:
- Jul 4, 2014
- 8,076
- 8,706
For centers, overall, in 2015-16: 15th for points...7th in assists... 9th in ppg for centers with at least 72 games played... And all this, considering that: a) he missed 10 games (only Seguin, of the centers with equal or more points than Krejci, missed as many games. Seguin had 10 (TEN) more points... I think having a certain guy named Benn helped Tyler get that 10 points separation)... B) he played the last 30 games with a bad hip (that required surgery in the off season), basically handicapping severely his production.
And to put his 15th overall for points for centers in 2015-16 in perspective, let's consider also that there's plenty of centers ranked ahead of him at same points (= more goals, in order to be ranked ahead) or a very few points more...
To be precise: Krejci 63 points / 72 games... Ahead of him: Monahan 63 pts / 81 games... Spezza 63 pts / 75 games... Forsberg 64 points / 82 games... Stamkos 64 points / 77 games... Giroux 67 points / 78 games... Bergeron 68 points / 80 games.
Lastly, name me any C currently playing who lead the entire league in playoffs points TWICE. He is also a player that is able to dictate the play, slow it down, has great vision, clutch when needed.
Just his 2015-16 stats say ABSOLUTELY top 10-15 center, inarguably, never mind the historical stuff... You don't think so?
Silly me. I forgot that points are the only way to measure players.
In no particular order:
Crosby, Malkin, Toews, Giroux, Thornton, Kopitar, Sedin, Backstrom, Seguin, McDavid, Bergeron, Getzlaf, Taveras, Stamkos
That's 14 Centers that I would say are inarguable better players at the position than Krecji.
Then you have the next level of guys like Spezza, Galchenyuk, Couture, Carter, Stepan, Nugent-Hopkins, Barkov, Schiefele, Johansen, T Johnson, Duchene, ROR, Eichel, Kesler, Turris, and Monahan. I would take at least half of that list over Krecji for various reasons and I probably missed a couple of really glaring names.
So, yeah, like I said - he is probably in the 20-25 range unless all you want to look at is box scores and not actually, you know, watch players play.
dredeye
BJ Elitist/Hipster
- Mar 3, 2008
- 27,450
- 3,113
Except krejci would be your best centre for years to come and Shattenkirk would be our best defenceman for a year. That's the issue.
I should add in not sure shats is a top 30. Would be close though
Majorityof1
Registered User
Krejci wouldn't be our best center for very long. Fabbri's ceiling is at least as high as Krejci right now, if not higher. When he shifts to center, he will be better than Krejci sooner than you'd think. Over the back half of the season including playoffs (55 games), Fabbri put up .75 points per game as a rookie playing generally less than 15 minutes a night and plays a good 2-way/possession game as well. Krejci will decline, Fabbri will improve.
Krejci's health is also in question. How well will he recover from hip surgery? We could be left wishing we had gotten one year out of Shattnekirk rather than be stuck with a $7.5M cripple. I'd be willing to bet that if this trade does happen, it won't happen until after the season starts and Krejci can show he is recovered.
All in all, the trade just stinks. Krejci is absolutely the wrong player for the Blues to be targeting. He is too expensive, older than our new core and has a pretty serious injury history. I'd much rather trade Shattenkirk for a much less proven 24-25 year old that is still cost controlled. Krejci is better than nothing as a stop gap, but it would be another fumble by Blues management of targeting the wrong players in trades.
Last edited:
WhalerTurnedBruin55
Fading out, thanks for the times.
- Oct 31, 2008
- 11,347
- 6,720
IMO, Bergeron is #1, and Krejci is a 1b.
That said, Krejci would be a #1 on a number of teams, including St. Louis. He's not going to be the face of the franchise, but he can hold down that position solidly. Especially with the wingers St. Louis has.
roflstomper
Barzal/Connor/Konecny
I don't even consider Krejci 1 for 1 with Shattenkirk on a 1 year deal. Not even in the discussion. Even if Shattenkirk was signed I don't do it mostly because the Bruins have literally no one ready to step in and play 20 min a night top line center. And no don't tell me David Backes. Filling one hole to create another just makes no sense.
Ducks in a row
Go Ducks Quack Quack
Bergeron
Backes
Spooner
That is rock solid top 3 centers having a signed Shattenkirk to add to Bruins blueline would be better then keeping Krejci I mean look at the Bruins current blueline of players under contract https://www.capfriendly.com/teams/Bruins
Chara (39 years old)
Krug
McQuaid
K. Miller
Liles
C. Miller
Morrow
Grant
Bruins need to boost their blueline.
roflstomper
Barzal/Connor/Konecny
Bergeron has to go against the other teams top lines all night and grinds the hardest minutes. I don't anticipate him putting up another 30 goal season and Marchand getting almost 40 too often. I am not going to trust a 32 year old Backes to be the one to drive the offense for this team. As for Spooner he needs sheltered minutes STILL. Soft and has questions in his game. He is likely to be moved to wing in the very near future (if he stays a Bruin). Krejci is the yin to Bergerons yang and the combo works so well.
WhalerTurnedBruin55
Fading out, thanks for the times.
- Oct 31, 2008
- 11,347
- 6,720
They do. His name is Patrice Bergeron.
They have 2 players that reasonably could be second line centers next season in Spooner or Backes. Are they steps down from Krejci? Yes. But the Bruins DON'T have a defenseman of the #1 variety. A much more pressing need and positional hole than center.
Losing Krejci hurts, but let's for a second pretend Shattenkirk can fill that top pairing void. With our current roster, I make that trade off. Without that trade off? I don't know if this years team is much better (if at all) than last years team. And I don't mean that in a bad way, just that they are a fringe playoff team again without improving our defense.
WhalerTurnedBruin55
Fading out, thanks for the times.
- Oct 31, 2008
- 11,347
- 6,720
Krejci is a good/great player.
But having a Krejci/Bergeron combo is a luxury. It's a waste to have them be our combo 1/2 if our defense is still below average.
If they can improve the defense without moving salary or one of our higher paid forwards, and have enough to pay said defensive upgrade in the long term, by all means, awesome. I'm just having trouble seeing it being realistic.
