Prospect Info: The Second Overall Pick Thread: Part III (Kakko/Hughes Talk)

[Fitzy]

Yeah G is dumb. Especially because in this era you never have player so far above his colleagues that his dominance lasts 10 plus years.

Hasek would be the last ever of that was the case.

I use "first ballot hall of famer" or "Multiple Hart trophy winner" as criteria.

 

[nyr2k2]

The generational debate is an exercise in futility because everyone has their own definition. To me, there's the big four (Gretzky, Lemieux, Orr, and Howe), and then there's everyone else. Franchise players of varying degrees, if you will.

You're right, everyone has their own definition which makes it impossible.

I obviously wouldn't disagree with the names on your list, but I (personally) feel it's far too restrictive. Gretzky and Lemieux more or less played at the same time, and half of Howe was overlapped by Orr's short career. So you basically had generational talents active for 40 years of the NHL's history and none for the other 60. I feel like if you have a guy that over a, say, 20-year period (arbitrary choice for the sake of argument) is clearly the best player at his position (or maybe one of two or something) then as the greatest player of his generation he should be considered generational.

But again, that's just how I kind of look at it, and I can understand why others disagree. It's the same thing with the HOF, honestly. Like in baseball people get all up in arms over a certain guy or a certain guy who played a certain position (or non-position, LOL) making it in, like it cheapens the honor of being elected or diminishes other guys that have made it already. I never felt that way.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

I've never seen so much consternation about something so insignificant as when HF discusses who's generational and who isn't.

 

[SA16]

The only generational player I've ever seen play is Tanner Glass and it's not for a good reason.

 

[Edge]

I won't address your second point since I'm not really talking about anyone else, just Lidstrom.

When you consider that the guy's peak of dominance was basically fifteen years, all his records, his status as one of the greatest and most accomplished European players in the history of the game, the fact that he was dominant at both ends of the ice, etc., I just don't know how you could not think he was a generational player. That you didn't consider him in the same class as a Brian Leetch or Chris Chelios until he was 30 doesn't really do it for me, since he continued to be dominant until he was 41. He won all those Norris trophies and the Conn Smythe after 30. I don't think you need to be considered generational the moment you step on the ice to be considered generational when you hang them up.

If you asked 100 people to list their top six or seven defensemen ever, I'd wager 95 of them would have Lidstrom there. He's in my top five, easily. Being one of the five greatest ever to play your position, is, to me, the defenition of generational.

But, everyone is entitled to their opinion.

Personally, I take Bourque, Leetch, Orr, Park, Coffey, Robinson, Potvin, Harvey, Kelly, maybe a prime EK as well.

And keeping in mind, I don't consider all of those names generational either.

 

[Edge]

Out of curiosity: would Bossy, Trottier, Francis or Potvin make your list?

No.

And full disclosure, the list of guys I consider is pretty short.

 

[Edge]

The generational debate is an exercise in futility because everyone has their own definition. To me, there's the big four (Gretzky, Lemieux, Orr, and Howe), and then there's everyone else. Franchise players of varying degrees, if you will.

I'm probably close to a similar mindset on the generational debate. Maybe with a few more names on there.

Re: the futility, that's just about every discussion on here though.

With rare exception, every conversation is opinion and subjective.

I always laugh when someone says, "this conversation is pointless" or "it's all subjective."

Well of course it is.

A player's impact, a prospect's projection, a coach's decision, generational vs. not, the value of a contract, etc. is all subjective. It's no different than tastes in music, movies, art, women, literature, politics, policy, philosophical beliefs, life approaches, and other topics.

But that's part of why we discuss it.

 

[RangerBoy]

Hughes look very comfortable in red.



His agents and family wouldn't have let him play in the World Championships if it was going to hurt his chances of going #1. Going #1 is a very big deal. They know the Devils are committed to him.

 

[True Blue]

If you asked 100 people to list their top six or seven defensemen ever, I'd wager 95 of them would have Lidstrom there. He's in my top five, easily. Being one of the five greatest ever to play your position, is, to me, the defenition of generational.

Can't do it. Orr, Borque, Chellios, Stevens, Coffey.....all guys I would take before Lidstrom. That is just a quick count.

 

[GeorgeKaplan]

Hughes look very comfortable in red.



His agents and family wouldn't have let him play in the World Championships if it was going to hurt his chances of going #1. Going #1 is a very big deal. They know the Devils are committed to him.

Going was never going to hurt his chances, it’s a huge positive to be invited to it in the first place

 

[RangerBoy]

Button said Kravtsov reminded him of Nash too.

 

[Edge]

Shifting the conversation back to this draft, I think there's too much emphasis placed on calling guys generational --- either as prospects or when evaluating their career.

If I can a star, franchise player, I'm happy. If that guy can lead my team to a championship or championships, I am elated.

Beyond that, if said player can carve out a HOF career with my team I am over the moon.

Strangely enough, while I certainly have my share of opinions on the term "generational" and probably more conservative in my considerations than some might prefer, it's really something that exists only in the very back of my mind. In fact, up until about 15 years or so ago, the term very rarely ever came up. I feel like it started to creep into conversations with the Crosby draft and it's been in the lexicon ever since --- primarily driven outlets who turn each draft into a more dramatic story, and with fans who are primarily active on the internet. That in turn has bled into some "insider" conversations, but it's arguably not a word I hear that often within the circles of those who work in the industry. The term kind of exists apart from that world --- at least in my experience working with people.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

Button said Kravtsov reminded him of Nash too.

I don't think Nash, in his wildest dreams, could work the boards the way Kakko did against Suter yesterday.

 

[SnowFort]

Is it even relevant who is considered generational or not?

 

[Fitzy]

Nash was a consensus top 10 winger in the league for ten years and would have hit 500 goals easily over a non injured career, so we could do worse.

 

[Edge]

Button said Kravtsov reminded him of Nash too.

I feel like Kakko is a better all-around offensive player than Nash was at the same age.

Even as a teenager, Nash had a tendency to try and do it all himself and didn't always make the best use of his linemates.

One of the things that really stands out with Kakko, and feeds into some of the conversations about him playing center, is that he sees the ice very well. He doesn't live and and die by his ability to shoot, or get in close, he'll wait for the play to develop around him if he runs out of a real estate.

I feel like both Kakko and Kravtsov has the (somewhat) unique ability to really be the playmaker on their lines, despite not being centers. In many ways they're not your typical breed. The fact that the Rangers will have both of them is well....kind of scary.

 

[Edge]

Is it even relevant who is considered generational or not?

Ultimately, no it's not. It just makes for interesting perspectives.

 

[Hunter Gathers]

Can't do it. Orr, Borque, Chellios, Stevens, Coffey.....all guys I would take before Lidstrom. That is just a quick count.

I'd gladly take Lidstrom over Stevens.

 

[Kaapo Cabana]

Nash was a consensus top 10 winger in the league for ten years and would have hit 500 goals easily over a non injured career, so we could do worse.

Agreed

Nash getting underrated in this thread.

The recency bias of old tired concussed Rick Nash seems to have really poisoned the well.

Nash was an absolute force who could take over games.

 

[True Blue]

I'd gladly take Lidstrom over Stevens.

Different strokes for different folks. I am not begrudging your choice. People go for different things. I am not even sure I would take Lidstrom ahead of a Chara or an in-prime Leetch. But people's opinions and tastes vary.

 

[Hunter Gathers]

Different strokes for different folks. I am not begrudging your choice. People go for different things. I am not even sure I would take Lidstrom ahead of a Chara or an in-prime Leetch. But people's opinions and tastes vary.

I'd take prime Leetch over prime Lidstrom and prime Lidstrom easily over Stevens or Chara. I think Lidstrom is now getting underrated, somehow. The idea that he was ever at Orr's level (which some Wings fans used to crow about) was always absurd. So I think we're seeing that trend go the opposite way.

 

[RangerBoy]

Going was never going to hurt his chances, it’s a huge positive to be invited to it in the first place

Have you noticed how many people on twitter and this board are reacting to the play of Hughes VS Kakko in the WC? There are people basing the #1 pick on this tournament. Kakko has 5 goals in the tournament and Hughes isn't dominating so Kakko is the #1 pick. Hughes wasn't supposed to go the WC. He was playing in the U18 and the decision to play in the WC was made after the U18. He played 7 games in 11 days in Sweden. Flew to Europe. Back to the States. Flew back in Europe less a week later.

I saw people on twitter tweeting the NHL.com draft people and Tom Gulitti who was a long time Devil beat writer than Hughes needs to step up his game. He is falling behind.

 

[Edge]

Agreed

Nash getting underrated in this thread.

The recency bias of old tired concussed Rick Nash seems to have really poisoned the well.

Nash was an absolute force who could take over games.

For me, it's not even a recency bias.

I truly think Kakko is a better player at the same age and has a higher all-around ceiling.

What Kakko is doing, at 17/18 years old, is nothing short of amazing.

 

[Levitate]

Can't do it. Orr, Borque, Chellios, Stevens, Coffey.....all guys I would take before Lidstrom. That is just a quick count.

Stevens lol what the actual f***

 

[Hunter Gathers]

Kakko has the upside basically of Nash with better hockey sense and less of a need to do it all himself