Speculation: Who Will the Rangers Target At the Center Position this Summer?
- Thread starter KingWantsCup
- Start date
-
Xenforo Cloud will be upgrading us to version 2.3.5 on March 3rd at 12 AM GMT. This version has increased stability and fixes several bugs. We expect downtime for the duration of the update. The admin team will continue to work on existing issues, templates and upgrade all necessary available addons to minimize impact of this new version. Click Here for Updates
Granted. But you slot someone just like Stepan into the 2c and the team is fine. Let's give miller a chance to either push Brassard into performing better or taking the spot himself. Just wish Sather keeps the checkbook in his pocket. Open it for Stamkos next year.
BobMarleyNYR
Rangers future on D
Which we DID have this season. But it's (likely) weaker with JT Miller replacing Richards... I like Grabovski as a realistic option... Legwand? Ermmm maybe... someone mad a really good case for Goc, now that I think of it... but Goc...? Just Goc??? That'd be kinda... Goc.
Inferno
Registered User
seems to me like some people are trying to argue semantics.
I personally agree with -31-
There are 30 #1 centers in the league.
I'd say there are mabye 15 "Franchise" centers in the league.
I think thats the distinguishment ppl need to make.
Stepan is a #1 center. He's not a franchise center.
I personally agree with -31-
There are 30 #1 centers in the league.
I'd say there are mabye 15 "Franchise" centers in the league.
I think thats the distinguishment ppl need to make.
Stepan is a #1 center. He's not a franchise center.
Stepan is not elite, but you can win with him being your #1.
Eli Manning has won 2 Super Bowls, Peyton has won 1. Who is the better QB?
What does it matter? This is a team sport. Individual achievements should hypothetically mean squat. As long as the team wins, everyone should be happy.
Nash was a probably a top 30 LW at some point. Didn't stop the invisible barriers and luck to stop him from producing at a productive rate this year. Could have been the difference between SCF appearance and cup win.
Nash was a probably a top 30 LW at some point. Didn't stop the invisible barriers and luck to stop him from producing at a productive rate this year. Could have been the difference between SCF appearance and cup win.
Inferno
Registered User
i prefer not to compare football to hockey...kinda different sports in the way they are played.
i too think you *can* win with Stepan as your #1 center...but I don't think it's ideal.
i think if you can get either 3 #2 centers like we had last year, or get a true #1 in front of him and Brassard it just slots everyone better.
Just, hypothetically, which lineup do you like better...
Kreider - Thornton - Nash
Hagelin - Stepan - MSL
Pouliot - Brassard - MZA
Fasth - Lindberg - Miller (for cap sake)
or
Kreider - Stepan - Nash
Pouliot - Brassard - MZA
Hagelin - Miller - MSL
Fasth - Moore - Dorsett
both coudl work
I just think the top set is MUCH stronger than the bottom.
BobMarleyNYR
Rangers future on D
Inferno
Registered User
BobMarleyNYR
Rangers future on D
Glen Sathers Cigar
Sather 4 Ever
Is there any possibility Stamkos sniffs free agency? In today's league it seems ALL superstars are signed to extensions. Then we see some ask to be traded when they feel themselves getting older and want a chance to win if they don't think their team is there (Nash, Spezza as examples).
Plus Tampa is going to be a ridiculous team in the near future. They have so much young talent coming up, I don't see why Stamkos who is the face of the franchise would want to leave. One can dream though.
Oh cool, the weekly iteration of what is a true 1C
I truly do not think the 1C label matters much these days. The Pens, for example, have two elite centers and haven't fared too well in the playoffs. In today's cap world, it seems to be more about fitting the right puzzle pieces in place to create effective depth and cohesion than the old line one through four mode. Now, your top LW may be on your 'third' line and your top RW may need to be on line 'two.'
I truly do not think the 1C label matters much these days. The Pens, for example, have two elite centers and haven't fared too well in the playoffs. In today's cap world, it seems to be more about fitting the right puzzle pieces in place to create effective depth and cohesion than the old line one through four mode. Now, your top LW may be on your 'third' line and your top RW may need to be on line 'two.'
Ail
Based and Rangerspilled.
I see three distinctions, personally:
1. Acting #1: A 1st line center by default for nothing other than the fact they play on the teams first line. Skill level is irrelevant.
2. Legitimate #1 center: A 1st line center who would be one on any team discounting their own 1st line centers who may be more skilled. Must possess the skill level you would expect of a 1C, something that is highly debatable. (Stepan goes here.)
3. Franchise/Star #1 center: A 1st line center who could be the #1 center on even the best teams and plays an elite game at least offensively. Has an elite level of skill, considered a perennial all-star, could win the Art Ross/Richard any year in their prime. (Crosby, Getzlaf, Thornton, Stamkos, Malkin, Kopitar, Giroux etc.)
I never see Stepan getting to #3. He is definitely a 1st line center all things considered, however.
1. Acting #1: A 1st line center by default for nothing other than the fact they play on the teams first line. Skill level is irrelevant.
2. Legitimate #1 center: A 1st line center who would be one on any team discounting their own 1st line centers who may be more skilled. Must possess the skill level you would expect of a 1C, something that is highly debatable. (Stepan goes here.)
3. Franchise/Star #1 center: A 1st line center who could be the #1 center on even the best teams and plays an elite game at least offensively. Has an elite level of skill, considered a perennial all-star, could win the Art Ross/Richard any year in their prime. (Crosby, Getzlaf, Thornton, Stamkos, Malkin, Kopitar, Giroux etc.)
I never see Stepan getting to #3. He is definitely a 1st line center all things considered, however.
Amazing Kreiderman
Registered User
- Apr 11, 2011
- 45,070
- 40,920
lineup #2.
The 4th line in lineup #1 is a non-factor and would get manhandled, making us a 3 line team, and probably running out of gas well before the Conference Final. Plus, Thornton means we lose one or both of Staal and Stralman. 1000% don't want to lose Stralman.
I'd rather not have a big-ticket #1 center and have 4 lines and 3 pairs that the coach trusts to give a regular shift.
Also, don't want Fast anywhere near this team if we are looking to contend. I like the kid, but we are lacking size and strength as it is, replacing Boyle with Fast is a huge downgrade IMO. Lindberg is a downgrade from Moore. I don't believe Moore is looking to break the bank, so keeping him should be a priority.
They already targeted Spezza and Thornton.
Both are going for similar returns... Spezza is a definite out and Thornton is a maybe.
Ottawa said they will not trade Spezza to the East and St.L and Ana are both highly interested anyway.
If I were San Jose, I would not trade Thornton. He has a solid contract, 3 years left. Still a good player. A top 2 center, really a #1. A large guy who can play in the west and knows your team hands down. There are many changes the Sharks should do but JT is not a must.
Because of their high return request, the high salary cap of Thornton and the the fact that we have a large amount of centers already... I do not see the Rangers doing this.
Paul Stastny is apparently getting a big contract from Colorado and he said hell take less. Im glad, I am sure he is overrated and we would have overpaid.
Ryan O'reily is intruiging because I am sure we can get him for 6 million for a few years and hes ridiculously young.
Rangers have stated they will likely just keep the centers they have.
Both are going for similar returns... Spezza is a definite out and Thornton is a maybe.
Ottawa said they will not trade Spezza to the East and St.L and Ana are both highly interested anyway.
If I were San Jose, I would not trade Thornton. He has a solid contract, 3 years left. Still a good player. A top 2 center, really a #1. A large guy who can play in the west and knows your team hands down. There are many changes the Sharks should do but JT is not a must.
Because of their high return request, the high salary cap of Thornton and the the fact that we have a large amount of centers already... I do not see the Rangers doing this.
Paul Stastny is apparently getting a big contract from Colorado and he said hell take less. Im glad, I am sure he is overrated and we would have overpaid.
Ryan O'reily is intruiging because I am sure we can get him for 6 million for a few years and hes ridiculously young.
Rangers have stated they will likely just keep the centers they have.
Thirty One
Safe is safe.
- Dec 28, 2003
- 28,981
- 24,357
Pretty much this.
Classifications like #1 center, top-six forward, #1 defensemen, top-four defensemen, #1 goalie are set by how many jobs there are in the league. In a thirty team league, there are 180 top-six forward spots, so I would think it's reasonable to say there are 180 top-six caliber forwards in the league. There will be some who play third line on deep teams, and some non-top-six caliber players that play in that role on weaker teams.
Of course the standard for these classifications change when the number of teams in the league changes. Do you really think that those growing up in the Original Six days have the same standard for a top-line center as you do?
Of course not. This obscure, undefinable (frankly, arbitrary) measure of a #1 center that's been developed would be a lot different if it wasn't developed watching a 26-30 team league.
If you want develop a standard that's based on ideals and not practicality, that's fine, but I would pick a title that doesn't suggest a purely mathematical standard.
Thirty One
Safe is safe.
- Dec 28, 2003
- 28,981
- 24,357
Have you run the numbers on that first one? Looks like you would have to run out almost no defense to me.
So Thornton/Lindberg or Moore/Dorsett. Think about the back end though and what you're giving up to get Thornton. Also, $$$.
Hunter Gathers
The Crown
No, they are subjective interpretations of the skill of a player. Whenever you hear those terms being discussed during a game, by the media, etc. they are discussing the skill of a player relative to the other players of the same position. I've never heard anyone make the lazy argument that 30 = 30, BRO. Just because there are 30 teams does not mean that there are 30 #1 centers.
It's likely more reasonable to say that there are 180 top six players (compared to saying that there are 30 #1 centers) considering the skill level to be a top six player is highly variable and all over the map.
The standard wasn't the same since the game wasn't the same. There certainly weren't six number one centers in the league, though.
It doesn't suggest that since the title has had a subjective meaning since it was first used.
Inferno
Registered User
theyd have to hold salary..only way to make it work. i figure staal would be traded for him.
So San Jose would have to retain salary on Thornton and take back Staal who is 1 year away from UFA? Doesn't make much sense for them.
Jim Morrison
Registered User
- Aug 4, 2009
- 3,647
- 49
