The Down Side of the #1 Defenceman Argument

[Blob]

I was never a fan of the argument in favor of the Canucks getting a "True #1 Defenseman". In light of Karlsson's season ending injury, we can all see the drawbacks of placing too much emphasis on one defenseman in your lineup.

The defense by committee is looking good right now. We can suffer a season ending injury to any or our defense corps and probably get along fine.

Having said that, if you draft someone like Karlsson, you run with it. It's just that for the Sens, who are also missing Spezza, things do not look good.

Sucks to be a Sens fan right now.

Click to read more...

 

[Eddy Punch Clock]

Defence by committee all the way. Not one of our D is making nearly as much money as Bouwmeester, and I don't think I'd trade any one of them straight up for him.

Yeah, sucks for Ottawa. Memories of Todd Simpson and Pavel Bure crossed my mind last night. Devastating loss for a team already limping big time.

 

[Wolfhard]

I agree. While it's nice to have that uber defenceman to run the powerplay, it's nice to know that in the event of injury, or even an off game, we can simply rotate another guy into his place with minimal upset to the team.

We also have some guys that excel in different areas, which allows us to easily shift ice time around a bit to change the look and feel of our main pairing without rocking the boat too much.

 

[Eddy Punch Clock]

... but I've still got my fingers crossed for Weber.

(hypocrites )

 

[Wisp]

Focusing on team building should always emphasize on adding good players.

I don't think you can say the Sens made the active choice to have all their eggs in one basket anymore than the Canucks have actively avoided adding a number 1. You do with what you have and improve with what you can get. In the Sens case, they had an exceptional player emerge from their prospect pool. In the Canucks case, several solid individuals emerged from their own system, bolstered with some cheaply acquired, equally solid UFAs.

All of it comes down to opportunity.

 

[vanuck]

Focusing on team building should always emphasize on adding good players.

I don't think you can say the Sens made the active choice to have all their eggs in one basket anymore than the Canucks have actively avoided adding a number 1. You do with what you have and improve with what you can get. In the Sens case, they had an exceptional player emerge from their prospect pool. In the Canucks case, several solid individuals emerged from their own system, bolstered with some cheaply acquired, equally solid UFAs.

All of it comes down to opportunity.

If a true No. 1 D-man emerges from your prospect pool then you do what you can to build around that, but I think the OP meant that it doesn't make sense for the team to actively acquire one via trade and then have to overpay.

 

[B-rock]

I'd still like to have a mean SOB back there that can actually play some hockey a la Chara, or Pronger in his heyday. I don't think it's a coincidence that Pronger has been on so many long playoff runs. Guys like that make a big difference IMO.

 

[Bourne Endeavor]

Aye. We have a great committee, with Hamhuis and Edler pretty damn close to being the prototypical #1 anyway. Frankly, we are fortunate to have a core signed to reasonable contracts, thus allowing us to ice a better group than teams with that one dynamo. Philly is a great example of what can happen when you rely too heavily upon one guy.

 

[Alflives*]

I'd still like to have a mean SOB back there that can actually play some hockey a la Chara, or Pronger in his heyday. I don't think it's a coincidence that Pronger has been on so many long playoff runs. Guys like that make a big difference IMO.

Agreed. Although I agree with Wisp too. The cost of these players - once proven - is very high, too high. Thus, getting one through the draft, or via trade (when they are young) is most likely the way to add him. Now who's out there that would fill that roll? (Draft Seth Jones or trade for John Carlson.) Carlson helps the team now. Drafting Jones is a dream.

 

[Superpest]

Our defence is perfectly balanced to the point we have 3-4 defensemen with #1 d attributes.

 

[Nuckles]

But we already have a #1 d-man. Keith Ballard.

 

[Blue Suede Shoes]

I remember a guest on team 1040 talking about moneyball, mostly in regards to baseball. The main premise is what is in the OP. better to have 2 players at a position than 1 star player who costs as much as the other 2 combined.

I think In hockey this is even more relevant because of the salary cap.

 

[Vankiller Whale]

The downside of the argument is that it means our team is lacking. If by some miracle we ended up getting Weber, we'd all be raving about how a #1 Dman was what we've been missing this entire time, and we'll be unstoppable with him on our team.

 

[FloydTheBarber]

It worked for Carolina. It can work for anyone.

 

[Phrazer]

There's no such thing as a #1 defenseman. Theres less than 10 guys that hfboards would give that title to.

 

[LickTheEnvelope]

The Canucks d is fine... unless the stupid 3-4 injuries that are common place to our d start up again.

 

[Proto]

Totally agree, which is why the Canucks should under no circumstances ever acquire a generational talent like Crosby* in case he gets injured!

/logic



*unless he has a twin

 

[Proto]

I remember a guest on team 1040 talking about moneyball, mostly in regards to baseball. The main premise is what is in the OP. better to have 2 players at a position than 1 star player who costs as much as the other 2 combined.

I think In hockey this is even more relevant because of the salary cap.

This isn't necessarily true. At a certain point, wins for a baseball team become more important (somewhere around 88-94 wins), because they're harder to get and they're more likely to get a team into the playoffs. In light of that, acquiring a player who adds a 2 wins -- say, 6 WAR vs 4 WAR -- is worth more money when you have an 87 win club. It all gets a bit complicated, but at a certain point the extra talent is worth the additional dollars. This is part of the reason people believe the asset cost was worth it for the Jays when they acquired RA Dickey: it may have pushed them from a team around 86 wins to about 89-90 wins.

There's also something else to consider. People here seem to be suggesting they'd take two 80-point players making 6 million over one 140-point player making 12 million, but if you had a 140 point player, how much better would he make his linemates? Would he turn players you pay to be 60 point players into 90 point players? What's the surplus value there?

Having a franchise defenseman (I hate the phrase "#1 defenseman") is absolutely worth additional value beyond simple numbers. There are a handful of defensemen in the league I would gladly pay 8-9 million to if it meant adding them to the Canucks.

 

[Blue Suede Shoes]

This isn't necessarily true. At a certain point, wins for a baseball team become more important (somewhere around 88-94 wins), because they're harder to get and they're more likely to get a team into the playoffs. In light of that, acquiring a player who adds a 2 wins -- say, 6 WAR vs 4 WAR -- is worth more money when you have an 87 win club. It all gets a bit complicated, but at a certain point the extra talent is worth the additional dollars. This is part of the reason people believe the asset cost was worth it for the Jays when they acquired RA Dickey: it may have pushed them from a team around 86 wins to about 89-90 wins.

There's also something else to consider. People here seem to be suggesting they'd take two 80-point players making 6 million over one 140-point player making 12 million, but if you had a 150 point player, how much better would he make his linemates? Would he turn players you pay to be 60 point players into 90 point players? What's the surplus value there?

Having a franchise defenseman (I hate the phrase "#1 defenseman") is absolutely worth additional value beyond simple numbers. There are a handful of defensemen in the league I would gladly pay 8-9 million to if it meant adding them to the Canucks.

I should be clear, I don't necessarily agree with what the guy said, I was just throwing it out for discussion. I actually agree with you to an extent - if we can get that legendary defenceman, I would do it instantly - but I don't just want a 'franchise defenseman' who can put up points, because I think our team has the points covered (by committee). I want the 'franchise defenseman' who can put up points AND can intimidate the other team with his size and physicality. That's the final piece to put us over the top. Perhaps that is who are referring to by "a handful of defensemen".

 

[Proto]

I should be clear, I don't necessarily agree with what the guy said, I was just throwing it out for discussion. I actually agree with you to an extent - if we can get that legendary defenceman, I would do it instantly - but I don't just want a 'franchise defenseman' who can put up points, because I think our team has the points covered (by committee). I want the 'franchise defenseman' who can put up points AND can intimidate the other team with his size and physicality. That's the final piece to put us over the top. Perhaps that is who are referring to by "a handful of defensemen".

Not necessarily. Current guys that fit the bill or have recently/will soon would be Karlsson, Weber, Suter, or Chara. Or, recently, Neidermayer, Pronger, or Lidstrom. Pietrangelo I think is on the cusp of worming his way into that discussion, and Drew Doughty would be if you got prime-time Doughty all the time.

As for committee scoring, I guess I'd say that if you could upgrade a 5g/40pt defenseman to a 15g/60pt defenseman, you're adding a lot of surplus value into a single roster spot. That's worth something.

For the last several years, Weber/Suter were head and shoulders above any defense pairing in the NHL. It wasn't even close when you looked at their results versus the minutes they played. The tricky part there was isolating what impact each would have separate from the other, but both guys have to be ridiculously good to get the results they did.

Edit: all things being equal, I would take the guy who adds that physicality like Weber for obvious reasons, but it wouldn't be at the top of my list.

 

[Alflives*]

Not necessarily. Current guys that fit the bill or have recently/will soon would be Karlsson, Weber, Suter, or Chara. Or, recently, Neidermayer, Pronger, or Lidstrom. Pietrangelo I think is on the cusp of worming his way into that discussion, and Drew Doughty would be if you got prime-time Doughty all the time.
For the last several years, Weber/Suter were head and shoulders above any defense pairing in the NHL. It wasn't even close when you looked at their results versus the minutes they played. The tricky part there was isolating what impact each would have separate from the other, but both guys have to be ridiculously good to get the results they did.

Edit: all things being equal, I would take the guy who adds that physicality like Weber for obvious reasons, but it wouldn't be at the top of my list.

It appears many posters here feel adding that big, physical, minute eating, and talented D-man is attractive. However, the cost for one, who is already developed, is too high for this current Canuck team. This is why trading for a pick (that could turn into one, if drafted) or trading for a young guy who will likely reach that level, is the way to go. It appears that GMMG just might have identified John Carlson, as that player. The pick would need to be the 1st. overall in this coming draft. (Seth Jones) The 'pick' option is why GMMG appears insistant on the return for Luongo to include the 1st rounder.

 

[Proto]

It appears many posters here feel adding that big, physical, minute eating, and talented D-man is attractive. However, the cost for one, who is already developed, is too high for this current Canuck team. This is why trading for a pick (that could turn into one, if drafted) or trading for a young guy who will likely reach that level, is the way to go. It appears that GMMG just might have identified John Carlson, as that player. The pick would need to be the 1st. overall in this coming draft. (Seth Jones) The 'pick' option is why GMMG appears insistant on the return for Luongo to include the 1st rounder.

I agree that the Canucks probably aren't in a position to trade for a player like that, but it's next to impossible to know who will "likely" reach that level: once you do, they cost just as much to acquire as someone at that level. You're more likely to end up giving away all your assets for Tyler Myers than to steal Shea Weber from Nashville before he's "Shea Weber"...

 

[YogiCanucks]

I think the whole idea we need a #1 defenceman is a bit silly too. I usually use the numbers to represent the type of players they are (ie what they bring to the table and how many minutes they can log)

Edler #2
Hamhuis #2
Bieksa #3
Garrison #4
Ballard #4
Tanev #4
Alberts #7
Barker #9

 

[Bleach Clean]

I agree that the Canucks probably aren't in a position to trade for a player like that, but it's next to impossible to know who will "likely" reach that level: once you do, they cost just as much to acquire as someone at that level. You're more likely to end up giving away all your assets for Tyler Myers than to steal Shea Weber from Nashville before he's "Shea Weber"...

6 guys in the entire league would be considered "#1 Dmen" with the way things are worded around here. That's how that term has been used. One would think those 6 would be more akin to "franchise" level Dmen, leaving the next 24, of the top 30 in the league, to be recognized as legit #1s. When you put it like this, it's clear to see that Edler is a #1. Perhaps even Hamhuis too.


Correct about the cost. It would be astronomical. There is a point to be made about Myers and Weber. Both follow a methodology in drafting that better allows to forecast a high-end defender - great toolboxes. These were project picks that matured into what you now see. Targeted for their physical gifts more than anything. That's what MG needs to do with his later picks.


Carlson was a late 1st. Weber was a 2nd rounder. Myers went 12th overall. Karlsson at 15. Suter went 7th overall. The only elite Dmen to go in the top5, in recent memory, are Doughty and Pietrangelo. Meaning, the "hits" are not localized to the very top of the draft. You can make a shrewd pick later, develop it right, and still have it turn out extremely well. But you have to draft upside, and you have to have at least a standard allotment of picks. This gives you a chance.

 

[Proto]

You'll never ever see me use any variation of the term "#1 defenseman" or "true #1 defenseman" in the context it's used popularly in hockey circles. It's dumb and illogical. I would call Edler a borderline elite #1 defenseman, but not a franchise defenseman. Hamhuis is probably right around that Top 20-25 mark for me, especially on a team with an offensive player like Edler. Hamhuis/Edler could be a Top 3 pairing in the NHL if Edler ever adapts to the right side.

My point about Myers is actually that he looks like a terrible player right now and has for several seasons. It's very hard to project defensemen, even ones who have elite looking pedigrees early.

Edit: Duncan Keith is another guy in the "elite" discussion, though he hasn't been quite as good recently. I think they need to get him away from Seabrook.