HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > Philadelphia Flyers
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Coburn and Carle as UFAs

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
06-07-2011, 03:28 PM
  #26
CS
Bryzgalov's Blueline
 
CS's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Lumberton, NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 14,004
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by VanSciver View Post
Carle is already a solid top 4 defensman. I don't see Carle as a #1 future D man. But he could play on a #1 pairing with a #1 defenseman. Carle still has plenty of upside.
He already is.

That doesn't mean that he isn't the most replaceable component on our blueline.

CS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-07-2011, 03:29 PM
  #27
VanSciver
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,302
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Shafer View Post
He already is.

That doesn't mean that he isn't the most replaceable component on our blueline.
Does it mean that he is the most replaceable component on the blueline?

VanSciver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-07-2011, 03:30 PM
  #28
Giroux tha Damaja
Registered User
 
Giroux tha Damaja's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Mount Holly, NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 9,232
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Giroux tha Damaja
Suter, Letang and Yandle deserve at least to have their names brought up. This is me, bringing their names up.

Giroux tha Damaja is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-07-2011, 03:30 PM
  #29
CS
Bryzgalov's Blueline
 
CS's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Lumberton, NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 14,004
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by VanSciver View Post
Does it mean that he is the most replaceable component on the blueline?
Not it doesn't mean that automatically.

But he definitely is our most replaceable component on the blueline...

I mean that pretty much goes without saying. Timonen, Pronger, Meszaros, Coburn...I wouldn't elect to keep Carle over any of them.

CS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-07-2011, 03:34 PM
  #30
Giroux tha Damaja
Registered User
 
Giroux tha Damaja's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Mount Holly, NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 9,232
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Giroux tha Damaja
I honestly just prefer Coburn to Carle because of how he played last year in the play offs (and he quietly played well this year also) and the rest of the time he has a fire under him. I have faith that he can elevate to that level for the play offs, and I value his A-game more than Carle's.

Giroux tha Damaja is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-07-2011, 03:38 PM
  #31
Bryz4shiz
Registered User
 
Bryz4shiz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Alhoa Oe
Posts: 3,007
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dookie88 View Post
There's currently a team in the Stanley Cup Final without a franchise type of Dman, even without one who has the potential to be one.
Let's be honest, neither team has a Dman who plays like a Franchise Dman in the playoffs. A franchise Dman doesn't get out muscled along the boards against guys like Briere and St Louis.

That aside I think both Coburn and Meszaros have the potential to be decent top pairing guys in the future. Coburn's offensive tools are underrated here because he just hasn't been carrying the puck or using his incredible foot speed the way he did his first season here. He seems to be much more focused on his defensive game, which is fine by me. While I wouldn't be comfortable with them as our top two Dman this year/in front of scrub goaltenders I think when the time comes and they have to replace Timonen they will be able to do it, and maybe just maybe by then we'll have a #1 goalie

Edit: As far as on the open market they could both probably get around 4 million

Bryz4shiz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-07-2011, 03:41 PM
  #32
VanSciver
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,302
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Shafer View Post
Not it doesn't mean that automatically.

But he definitely is our most replaceable component on the blueline...

I mean that pretty much goes without saying. Timonen, Pronger, Meszaros, Coburn...I wouldn't elect to keep Carle over any of them.
I disagree completely. It doesn't go with out saying at all. After Timonen and Pronger, the other 3 all have the strengths and weaknesses. I would keep Carle over Coburn. Carle's importance to this team and what he brings is very underrated.

When you look at all the factors, the Flyers shouldn't be looking to mess with their defensive depth in my opinion.

VanSciver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-07-2011, 03:50 PM
  #33
Giroux tha Damaja
Registered User
 
Giroux tha Damaja's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Mount Holly, NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 9,232
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Giroux tha Damaja
Quote:
Originally Posted by VanSciver View Post
I disagree completely. It doesn't go with out saying at all. After Timonen and Pronger, the other 3 all have the strengths and weaknesses. I would keep Carle over Coburn. Carle's importance to this team and what he brings is very underrated.

When you look at all the factors, the Flyers shouldn't be looking to mess with their defensive depth in my opinion.
Agreed. They shouldn't be looking to do it. I will say that if a fair opportunity comes along to address some of the team's needs, dealing a defenseman isn't a terrible idea.

Giroux tha Damaja is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-07-2011, 03:53 PM
  #34
VanSciver
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,302
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Giroux tha Damaja View Post
Agreed. They shouldn't be looking to do it. I will say that if a fair opportunity comes along to address some of the team's needs, dealing a defenseman isn't a terrible idea.
Realistically they only have one big need, and that's in net. I don't see that they have to trade a defenseman to add a Goalie. Trading from the Forward ranks, specifically a Winger, (not Carter)is the obvious way to go in my opinion.

VanSciver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-07-2011, 04:05 PM
  #35
Giroux tha Damaja
Registered User
 
Giroux tha Damaja's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Mount Holly, NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 9,232
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Giroux tha Damaja
Quote:
Originally Posted by VanSciver View Post
Realistically they only have one big need, and that's in net. I don't see that they have to trade a defenseman to add a Goalie. Trading from the Forward ranks, specifically a Winger, (not Carter)is the obvious way to go in my opinion.
Name names.

Briere has an NMC and is settled here with children on a team with a good chance of success. Leino is a free agent. JVR, Giroux, Carter....probably not going anywhere. Obviously moving Nodle or Carcillo or any of the role players is of minimal impact.

We could move a Hartnell or Versteeg and then try to get a cheaper option, but who is that player? Adam Hall's name has come up and I am a fan. I don't love the idea of moving Hartnell (he brings a lot to the table besides points, which he is usually in the top 5 in on the team anyway). And the idea of trading Versteeg for what we'd get for him after giving a third and a first makes me want to punch something (besides the idea of him healthy on Richards' wing still interests me). I'd rather leave the offense alone and deal one of Carle or Coburn and accept a downgrade at D to make room for the new goalie. Of the two, as said, Carle is my preference. Not that I don't like Carle, he's a good player.

Giroux tha Damaja is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-07-2011, 04:17 PM
  #36
VanSciver
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,302
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Giroux tha Damaja View Post
Name names.

Briere has an NMC and is settled here with children on a team with a good chance of success. Leino is a free agent. JVR, Giroux, Carter....probably not going anywhere. Obviously moving Nodle or Carcillo or any of the role players is of minimal impact.

We could move a Hartnell or Versteeg and then try to get a cheaper option, but who is that player? Adam Hall's name has come up and I am a fan. I don't love the idea of moving Hartnell (he brings a lot to the table besides points, which he is usually in the top 5 in on the team anyway). And the idea of trading Versteeg for what we'd get for him after giving a third and a first makes me want to punch something (besides the idea of him healthy on Richards' wing still interests me). I'd rather leave the offense alone and deal one of Carle or Coburn and accept a downgrade at D to make room for the new goalie. Of the two, as said, Carle is my preference. Not that I don't like Carle, he's a good player.
Why would you rather leave the offense alone? Even if the Flyers don't resign Leino and trade Versteeg, they still have as much offense as most teams do.
They have two 37 year old defenseman, one coming off major back surgery. If Pronger has issues recovering, and isn't ready to start the Season, and you trade Carle, then your top 4 is Timonen, Coburn, Meszaros, and who? And if Pronger is healthy, your still looking at a situation of overplaying Timonen and Pronger and wearing them down through the Season. And if another guy gets a significant injury, then your back in the same situation. Taking into account all of the factors involved, trading a defenseman is a mistake in my opinion.

VanSciver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-07-2011, 04:39 PM
  #37
Giroux tha Damaja
Registered User
 
Giroux tha Damaja's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Mount Holly, NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 9,232
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Giroux tha Damaja
Quote:
Originally Posted by VanSciver View Post
Why would you rather leave the offense alone? Even if the Flyers don't resign Leino and trade Versteeg, they still have as much offense as most teams do.
They have two 37 year old defenseman, one coming off major back surgery. If Pronger has issues recovering, and isn't ready to start the Season, and you trade Carle, then your top 4 is Timonen, Coburn, Meszaros, and who? And if Pronger is healthy, your still looking at a situation of overplaying Timonen and Pronger and wearing them down through the Season. And if another guy gets a significant injury, then your back in the same situation. Taking into account all of the factors involved, trading a defenseman is a mistake in my opinion.

That's a lot of what-ifs in there. We can never hope to be totally insulated from injuries, nor should that be the goal.

If Pronger doesn't make it back in time for the start of the season, then they play with out him, just like they did last year. My assumption is that Bartulis would get a look on the third pairing which shouldn't be that scary an idea with a Bryz or Vokoun caliber tender in net. He can defend well enough to keep the shots savable, it's just that in his games he didn't have a goalie who could make a save. Outside of that, I would be comfortable letting Coburn play big minutes. He has always played better the more minutes he got.

Timonen - Coburn
Carle- Meszaros
Bartulis - UFA/Some Coburn

Giroux tha Damaja is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-07-2011, 04:44 PM
  #38
VanSciver
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,302
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Giroux tha Damaja View Post
That's a lot of what-ifs in there. We can never hope to be totally insulated from injuries, nor should that be the goal.

If Pronger doesn't make it back in time for the start of the season, then they play with out him, just like they did last year. My assumption is that Bartulis would get a look on the third pairing which shouldn't be that scary an idea with a Bryz or Vokoun caliber tender in net. He can defend well enough to keep the shots savable, it's just that in his games he didn't have a goalie who could make a save. Outside of that, I would be comfortable letting Coburn play big minutes. He has always played better the more minutes he got.

Timonen - Coburn
Carle- Meszaros
Bartulis - UFA/Some Coburn
They aren't what ifs. The are very realistic scenarios and are reasons why you have depth. This fan base has gone from loving the Flyers defensive depth, to now wanting to get rid of it in one Season. What a fickle bunch. It's not the 3rd pair that you worry about, it's overplaying Timonen and Pronger. Which is what will happen. And they are both showing serious signs of physical decline. And they need to have their minutes conserved during the Season so they remain as fresh as possible for a hopefully long playoff run. And your one injury away from having Bartulis or a UFA/Some Coburn, whatever that means, playing 20 minutes a night in a top 4 role.

VanSciver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-07-2011, 05:05 PM
  #39
Giroux tha Damaja
Registered User
 
Giroux tha Damaja's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Mount Holly, NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 9,232
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Giroux tha Damaja
Quote:
Originally Posted by VanSciver View Post
They aren't what ifs. The are very realistic scenarios and are reasons why you have depth. This fan base has gone from loving the Flyers defensive depth, to now wanting to get rid of it in one Season. What a fickle bunch. It's not the 3rd pair that you worry about, it's overplaying Timonen and Pronger. Which is what will happen. And they are both showing serious signs of physical decline. And they need to have their minutes conserved during the Season so they remain as fresh as possible for a hopefully long playoff run. And your one injury away from having Bartulis or a UFA/Some Coburn, whatever that means, playing 20 minutes a night in a top 4 role.

Regarding what the fanbase thinks: you're not talking to the whole fanbase, you're talking to me. And I'm not a fickle person, I'm rational and I have explained my reasoning. I still like that the Flyers are a deep defensive team. I also like that they're a deep offensive team. Why do you want to trade away all our offensive depth I said from the get-go that they shouldn't be going out of their way to deal defense, but if a fair deal came along to address a need (really goal tending is the one thing I could be talking about here) then they should do it. Getting a very good goalie is going to make ALL your defensemen look better, and would be worth the risk of increased liability to multiple injuries.


"UFA/Some Coburn" means I would split the third pairing duties with Bartulis between Coburn and whoever they sign to replace O'Donnell.

Regardless of how likely you think they may be (and they're not astronomically unlikely, I concede), your scenarios are just that, scenarios a.k.a. "what-ifs". You're asking me things like "What if the team loses half of their top four defense men?" Seriously? They're going to struggle, just like every other team in the league. Hopefully your goal tending and offense pick you up a bit until you get healthy again. The season is 82 games long, that's just the way **** goes.

Giroux tha Damaja is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-07-2011, 05:11 PM
  #40
Beef Invictus
Global Moderator
Beefitor
 
Beef Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Centreville
Country: Lord Howe Island
Posts: 38,903
vCash: 500
Trading a defenseman who is overall our weakest on defense to address goaltending is fine for me. Vokoun or Bryz are good enough to cover for the decrease on the blueline. I don't think Bob is consistent or experienced enough yet to do that. If we trade a forward, Vokoun or Bryz won't be racking up points or assists to cover that.

I'd only trade Carle to make room for a goalie.

__________________
Down in the basement, I've got a Craftsman lathe. Show it to the children when they misbehave.
Beef Invictus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-07-2011, 05:14 PM
  #41
VanSciver
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,302
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Giroux tha Damaja View Post
Regarding what the fanbase thinks: you're not talking to the whole fanbase, you're talking to me. And I'm not a fickle person, I'm rational and I have explained my reasoning. I still like that the Flyers are a deep defensive team. I also like that they're a deep offensive team. Why do you want to trade away all our offensive depth I said from the get-go that they shouldn't be going out of their way to deal defense, but if a fair deal came along to address a need (really goal tending is the one thing I could be talking about here) then they should do it. Getting a very good goalie is going to make ALL your defensemen look better, and would be worth the risk of increased liability to multiple injuries.
I didn't intend to direct the fickle comment towards you. My apologies if it seemed that way. In my opinion they should try and get a good Goalie and keep the D depth. And trading a D man such as Carle should be a last resort.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Giroux tha Damaja View Post
"UFA/Some Coburn" means I would split the third pairing duties with Bartulis between Coburn and whoever they sign to replace O'Donnell.
So Coburn is going to play on one of the top pairs and on the 3rd pair. Coburn, if the Flyers trade a defensman other than him, is going to be playing 20 minutes plus on a top pair. I don't see how he also plays on a 3rd pairing. Unless I'm misunderstanding what your saying here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Giroux tha Damaja View Post
Regardless of how likely you think they may be (and they're not astronomically unlikely, I concede), your scenarios are just that, scenarios a.k.a. "what-ifs". You're asking me things like "What if the team loses half of their top four defense men?" Seriously? They're going to struggle, just like every other team in the league. Hopefully your goal tending and offense pick you up a bit until you get healthy again. The season is 82 games long, that's just the way **** goes.
I'd rather instead of having your offense pick you up, rely on your defensive depth which they have if they don't trade a defensman.

The scenarios I proposed are very realistic and should be considered in the off season game plan in my opinion. Bill Meltzer has also echoed these thoughts and scenarios in a recent blog he wrote.

VanSciver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-07-2011, 05:32 PM
  #42
Giroux tha Damaja
Registered User
 
Giroux tha Damaja's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Mount Holly, NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 9,232
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Giroux tha Damaja
Quote:
Originally Posted by VanSciver View Post
I didn't intend to direct the fickle comment towards you. My apologies if it seemed that way. In my opinion they should try and get a good Goalie and keep the D depth. And trading a D man such as Carle should be a last resort.
Fair enough, I understand why you hink that, and it's logical. I'd also be okay with letting Leino walk and using the space to sign a goalie, but that doesn't get us any assets in return. I think Carle just had close to a career year and we should sell high if we do make a trade.

Quote:
Originally Posted by VanSciver View Post
So Coburn is going to play on one of the top pairs and on the 3rd pair. Coburn, if the Flyers trade a defensman other than him, is going to be playing 20 minutes plus on a top pair. I don't see how he also plays on a 3rd pairing. Unless I'm misunderstanding what your saying here.
I have no problem giving Coburn 25 minutes a night so long a 20 of it is with Timonen next to him. Then he could play about 5 a game with Bart. Anytime he has to play a lot of minutes his play improves. Then Bartulis would have the #5 D (the UFA) for the rest of his 15 minutes a night or whatever he played.


Quote:
Originally Posted by VanSciver View Post
I'd rather instead of having your offense pick you up, rely on your defensive depth which they have if they don't trade a defensman.

The scenarios I proposed are very realistic and should be considered in the off season game plan in my opinion. Bill Meltzer has also echoed these thoughts and scenarios in a recent blog he wrote.
I'm not a huge fan of Mr. Meltzer's. I think you and I want to insulate the defense from this hypothetical scenario in different ways. You want a ton of depth, which is one way. I am willing to sacrifice depth and to place the burden on improved goal tending (and perhaps more time of possession via a better offense, but that's a bit of a reach considering we're talking about one winger). We just have a difference of philosophy. I guess we'll see how it plays out.

Giroux tha Damaja is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-07-2011, 06:31 PM
  #43
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dookie88 View Post
Umm, I referred to the Nucks.
And Alex Edler is far from being a franchise dman.

Pronger
Lidstrom
Chara
Weber
Keith
Doughty (potentially)
Pietrangelo (potentially)

Those are the Dmen I would currently rate into this category, with Pietrangelo and Doughty standing out as the two young guys who already (Pietrangelo to a lesser extent) have shown to be able to become what is defined as a franchise defenseman.
There are a few others (including Edler) who can jump into this conversation but atm this would be my list.
You think there are only five franchise D in the NHL right now? Timonen is a notable exception... more than capable of being a franchise guy (and was here). How about Markov in Montreal (when healthy)? We could go on.

There are 30 teams in the league... the volume of roster spots has a lot more to do with the threshold for "franchise" D talent than an arbitrary talent assessment.


Quote:
The best 6 man unit in the NHL got eliminated by the Boston Bruins in round 2.
And even if you consider Vancouver to be the best 6 man unit (which isn't far from the truth, I just like having two Ds who can play 30min more than having a whole lot of #2-3s), it doesn't change my few on them not having a franchise defender.
Well, I think there is a problem with your definition of a "franchise" D... as it doesn't really work for a 30 team league. It isn't the Original Six anymore.

Quote:
That's actually my point.
Not necessarily a good one. Being a Norris candidate is not really a good way to define a "franchise" D. Scott Stevens, for example, was rarely a legit Norris candidate and never won the thing.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-07-2011, 06:54 PM
  #44
VanSciver
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,302
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
You think there are only five franchise D in the NHL right now? Timonen is a notable exception... more than capable of being a franchise guy (and was here). How about Markov in Montreal (when healthy)? We could go on.

Timonen, although a very fine player and a lead defenseman for a few years here, never was a franchise defenseman. Neither was Markov. I'm not sure what your definition of a franchise player is regardless of position.

VanSciver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-07-2011, 07:41 PM
  #45
mirimon
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: The Wrong Town
Country: Sweden
Posts: 2,780
vCash: 500
I don't really want to go into the whole what-makes-a-player-a-franchise-player-debate, but Andrei Markov might have been the most important defender for his team for fourth straight seasons after the lockout. After that he's had two seasons destroyed by injuries and I think it's pretty clear that the Montreal defense has really lacked a player of his caliber.

mirimon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-07-2011, 07:53 PM
  #46
VanSciver
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,302
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mirimon View Post
I don't really want to go into the whole what-makes-a-player-a-franchise-player-debate, but Andrei Markov might have been the most important defender for his team for fourth straight seasons after the lockout. After that he's had two seasons destroyed by injuries and I think it's pretty clear that the Montreal defense has really lacked a player of his caliber.
I guess it all depends on your definition of a franchise player. The Flyers lacked a defenseman of Timonen's ability before they signed him also. It doesn't make him a franchise player in my opinion.

VanSciver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-08-2011, 02:55 AM
  #47
dookie88
Registered User
 
dookie88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Germany
Country: Germany
Posts: 2,709
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
You think there are only five franchise D in the NHL right now? Timonen is a notable exception... more than capable of being a franchise guy (and was here). How about Markov in Montreal (when healthy)? We could go on.
By your logic there are 30 franchise centers, 30 franchise S and 30 franchise goaltenders. Probably also 30 franchise 4th line wings.
One question: what happens if a team owns two franchise players at one position? Does the marginally lesser become a non-franchise player and another one on a different team fills that gap?
Yeah, I think your theory is lacking here.

dookie88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-08-2011, 08:36 AM
  #48
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dookie88 View Post
By your logic there are 30 franchise centers, 30 franchise S and 30 franchise goaltenders. Probably also 30 franchise 4th line wings.
One question: what happens if a team owns two franchise players at one position? Does the marginally lesser become a non-franchise player and another one on a different team fills that gap?
Yeah, I think your theory is lacking here.
No, that teams lacks for something... and the other team is probably very good.

By your logic Timonen ceased to be a franchise quality defender when Pronger arrived... and you think there's a problem with my theory?

There are 30 "no. 1" centers in the NHL based on talent. It's debatable as you get towards the back of the list, but if there are 30 teams, that means there are 30 roster spots... and THAT determines the threshold within the talent pool at any given moment.

By your logic it's possible that a "franchise" anything could simply not exist in the NHL at any given moment.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-08-2011, 11:40 AM
  #49
dookie88
Registered User
 
dookie88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Germany
Country: Germany
Posts: 2,709
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
By your logic Timonen ceased to be a franchise quality defender when Pronger arrived... and you think there's a problem with my theory?
I never said that.
It would apply to your logic of "there have to be 30 franchise Dmen" which is what you basically said when I "only" listed 5.

And Timonen imo never was a franchise Dman, he was/is a legit #1 dman, but, again, there's a difference in my book between franchise and #1.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
There are 30 "no. 1" centers in the NHL based on talent. It's debatable as you get towards the back of the list, but if there are 30 teams, that means there are 30 roster spots... and THAT determines the threshold within the talent pool at any given moment.
There is no franchise roster spot, though.
It's a matter of definition, but if you want to call Stephane Robidas a #1 defender, or a franchise defender that's fine by me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
By your logic it's possible that a "franchise" anything could simply not exist in the NHL at any given moment.
I'll cross that bridge when I come there, which will be never.
Tags like "franchise", "#1", "elite" are always dependent on the level of play that is currently played, which in turn is set by the players.

Just to make sure we aren't talkin at cross purposes:
I said there are 5 franchise Dmen out there atm.
You said "no way, there have to be more (did you mean 30?), because there are 30 teams."
Right?

dookie88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-08-2011, 12:00 PM
  #50
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dookie88 View Post
Just to make sure we aren't talkin at cross purposes:
I said there are 5 franchise Dmen out there atm.
You said "no way, there have to be more (did you mean 30?), because there are 30 teams."
Right?
Probably 20 or so legit guys (that you could view as a franchise D), and then a whole mess to quibble about for the final spot. However, the term HAS to be elastic. If the league were to expand to 60 teams the influx of players would drastically alter what a "bad," "average," "good," and "elite" guy are in the NHL. Guys that we currently classify as "solid" NHL players would be extremely good in such a league.

This hasn't been as visible in hockey because even with expansion the sport itself has grown as far as who is coming to play in the NHL (far more Europeans and Americans are playing the game at a high level today than they were 40 years ago).

However, if we were to go look at baseball where the talent pool has remained somewhat the same (if not shrank) the result of expansion was dramatic as far as pitching talent in MLB. The level of play of QBs in the NFL has gone down on average over the last couple of decades with expansion.

So, what constitutes a "franchise" guy changes.

Similarly, if we shrank leagues the bar would elevate considerably.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:27 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.