Was Hodgson realistically available at the trade deadline? Trying to answer that is impossible since nobody knows who could be gotten.
What does Hodgson have to do with this? He is not a proven #1 center and judging by many reponses in here many posters are still clamoring for a mythical #1 center. Getting Hodgson (a 3rd line center with top 6 potential at the time of the trade) does not in any way tell us that a #1 center will magically become available.
You're not answering the questions I asked. Some posters want us to acquire a legit #1 center. Well who would that be exactly? What would satisfy this group that IMO is in fantasyland with this desire.
I think Roy is expandable this offseason and we acquire a Goose-type 3rd line C. Ennis and Hodgson look to be our top 2 centres moving forward, both showing that they have the capability to be be a true #1. Sure there is a chance it doesn't work out, but our C situation is a lot better than it was at the start of the season. Miles ahead. We absolutely still need depth at the position, but I think the focus has been shifted to size and strength.
If we could "expand" Roy, to about 6'2", 225 lbs, I think we would be all set. He would probably stay on his feet a bit more if he were expanded. .
What does Hodgson have to do with anything?He is not a proven #1 center and judging by many reponses in here many posters are still clamoring for a mythical #1 center. Getting Hodgson (a 3rd line center with top 6 potential at the time of the trade) does not in any way tell us that a #1 center will magically become available.
You think Hodgson is only top 6 potential? I think he is #1 potential.
There will be prospects available, like Brayden Schenn last year who have top line potential.
I doubt anyone like Getzlaf or Kopitar get traded.
I think Roy is expandable this offseason and we acquire a Goose-type 3rd line C. Ennis and Hodgson look to be our top 2 centres moving forward, both showing that they have the capability to be be a true #1. Sure there is a chance it doesn't work out, but our C situation is a lot better than it was at the start of the season. Miles ahead. We absolutely still need depth at the position, but I think the focus has been shifted to size and strength.
So get rid of the proven talent (Roy) and hope the kids (Ennis/Hodgson) can handle roles they've never been in(top 6 center).
Do posters realize that the current success of our top 3 centers is due to the fact that they are all top 6 centers but don't have to carry the normal burden of a top 6 center. becasue the responsibility is divided over 3 lines.
getting a top flight number 1 center would be dope, but we also need a 4th line center with size, good at face offs, preferably with a cool nickname like Goose or something.
They should go out and get Center depth, propsects for Rochester and some prospect in juniors.
@joshjull: whether or not you think it's realistic has nothing to do with whether or not it's a priority need for this team to be a cup contender. The goal: somebody who can center the top line and put up a PPG, while playing sound defense, and has enough sandpaper in their game that they're not shut down easily in the playoffs. If Getzlaf is still available, he might fit the model. Otherwise, you usually try to draft them, even if it means trading up. Yeah, there are probably only fifteen guys like this in the league. That doesn't mean you just, what, give up on getting them...?
The reason being most teams that win the cup have these types of guys, and in my diagnosis, he's the most important piece of a cup winning roster. So I go out of my way to find him, even if the only way to do it is to draft him.
The Bruins are an exception to the rule, and the next time Ryan Miller can play 24 straight playoff games with a s% above .940, I give the Sabres as currently assembled a chance to win the cup, too. Doesn't mean that's a strategy to improve.
We're better off hoping Ennis and/or Hodgson develop into a #1 center.
So no, it's not the top priority. I think getting some more size, some forward prospect depth at all positions, and also some more center depth (i.e. bottom 6) should be the top priority. But if the opportunity to get a top #1 C guy arises, it should be pounced on...but we don't need to actively pursue it.
yes you are. You're arguing about what Hodgson could be but thats not the point. The point is he wasn't a proven #1 center when he was acquired nor was he even a top 6 center when he was acquired. So getting him via trade tells us absolutely nothing about the availability of proven #1 centers.
yes you are. You're arguing about what Hodgson could be but thats not the point. The point is he wasn't a proven #1 center when he was acquired nor was he even a top 6 center when he was acquired. So getting him via trade tells us absolutely nothing about the availability of proven #1 centers.
Well, you're assuming we have to trade for somebody who's proven. That's why you figure it's so impossible to land a #1 center. I think you either draft them or acquire them as prospects. At best, you might be able to nab one when their stock is really low in a blockbuster type deal. But yeah, of course those types of players are usually untradeable. Most GMs are smart enough to know that those guys are the biggest building blocks of cup-winning rosters, and that's why.
They're still thin down the middle, literally and figuratively. They need to be kicking the tires on possible improvements, particularly someone who has some beef and can play a shutdown role.
__________________
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. - Aristotle
A shutdown #3 is something we should be looking into, whether we sign Goose or Stoll in the off season or draft someone.
I still think, barring making massive reach or having a very talented winger drop, 3 of our first 4 picks should be centers. Not players who could make the transition, actual natural centers.
The rule which states you need a bona-fide #1 to win it all, a Gezlaf, a Crosby, a Towes, a Malkin, a Staal, a Lecavalier, etc.
Those centers are not all on the same level. There is a decent variance between them. You forgot Datsyuk btw and Vinny doesn't belong since he won pre-lockout. I would also like to point out that every one of those centers was drafted by their team and developed from within. So how exactly are we going to trade for one? One thats already established themselves that is.
Also what you define as a bonafide #1 is not the same as others. No one considered Toews a stud #1 center until AFTER they won the Cup. Same goes for Getzlaf. The top two centers on the Ducks that year were Andy McDonald (offensively) and Pahlson (getting big minutes as a shutdown center).
At the end of the day you need a good #1 center and depth behind him. Because none of those centers, regardless of skill level, carried their teams to the Cup. Their teams were strong up the middle.
Those centers are not all on the same level. There is a decent variance between them. You forget Datsyuk btw and Vinny doesn't belong since he won pre-lockout. I would also like to point out that every one of those centers was drafted by their team and developed from withn. So how exactly are we going to trade for one?
Also what you define as a bonafide #1 is not the same as others. No one considered Toews a stud #1 center until AFTER they won the Cup. Same goes for Getzlaf. The top two centers on the Ducks that year were Andy McDonald (offensively) and Pahlson (getting big minutes as a shutdown center).
Btw the Habs in 1993, The Devils in 95, 2000 and 2003 as well as the Bruins last year all won Cups without the "stud #1 center".
At the end of the day you need a good #1 center and depth behind him.
Those Cup teams had unreal center depth and in the case of the Devils, two Selke-quality pivots (Madden/Holik). Buffalo could due to use a guy who is a human erasure out there to round out their center group.
Well, you're assuming we have to trade for somebody who's proven. That's why you figure it's so impossible to land a #1 center. I think you either draft them or acquire them as prospects. At best, you might be able to nab one when their stock is really low in a blockbuster type deal. But yeah, of course those types of players are usually untradeable. Most GMs are smart enough to know that those guys are the biggest building blocks of cup-winning rosters, and that's why.
I'm well aware of the fact that a #1 center is only going to be acquired by drafting them or in a trade when they are like Hodgson, very early in their development.
But again just look at this thread.
Posters are still clamoring for a #1 center. Even though we have two kids (Ennis/Hodgson) showing some potential. So that tells me they want the proven commodity not the prospect with potential. That is someone we will not be able to acquire via trade.
Those Cup teams had unreal center depth and in the case of the Devils, two Selke-quality pivots (Madden/Holik). Buffalo could due to use a guy who is a human erasure out there to round out their center group.
I know that but they aren't the stud centers that some posters are refering to. I also deleted that reference from my post so I didn't further divert the discussion but you caught it before I edited it. It gets tough when I'm debating multiple posters and they're picking small parts to argue.
The arguement from some is we need to get a legit #1 center. I've argued you just need to be strong up the middle (Those Devil squads fit my defination). But I've also been asking for a defination of what this mythical #1 center is supposed to look like and I've gotten different answers. But none of those types (Crosby, Malkin, B.Richards, Toews Getzlaf, Datsyuk, etc) are going to available via trade. So why should an unattainable goal by our #1 priority?
Posters are still clamoring for a #1 center. Even though we have two kids (Ennis/Hodgson) showing some potential. So that tells me they want the proven commodity not the prospect with potential. That is someone we will not be able to acquire via trade.
It won't be easy. But, I wouldn't say it is impossible.
Joe Thornton has been traded once in his career already. You never know what can happen.
For instance, do LA or SJ go through a major shake up if things don't go well between now and the end of the playoffs? If they do, a #1C could possibly move this summer like the Philly centers moving last off season.
They're still thin down the middle, literally and figuratively. They need to be kicking the tires on possible improvements, particularly someone who has some beef and can play a shutdown role.
The first name I thought of when you posted this; Jordan Staal. Honestly, I would take him on our team in a second. It would be tough to pry him out but I would not hesitate for the chance to get him in our lineup.
Shutdown kind of guy, sandpaper to his game. Similar Situation as Hodgson. Lindy likes to balance out ice time so I'm sure these guys would not be buried.
Staal/Hodgson/Ennis as your centers(not in that order) and if you somehow grab Parise in the offseason...Sure hes not Elite talent but that center depth is very Boston-like. Potential to still have dangerous lines no matter who you put out there.
Of course the lines would change but, still...The potential.
It's still the #1 priority, IMO. A 15 game hot streak by Ennis and Hodgson is not enough to convince me otherwise. Ennis is great at center but he can be just as great on the wing if a legit #1 came to town.
This sums up my thoughts as well. Ennis has been awesome the last couple of months at center, and the way things have been going, there's no reason whatsoever to move him to the wing...right now. It's still an incredibly small sample size, and it's waaaaay too early to judge whether or not he's a permanent solution to the team's situation at center.
I don't think there's any question at least one of our top two picks will be used on a center, and I fully expect Darcy to target one NHL-ready (or damn close) center via trade. Bjugstad is still an interesting proposition IMO
He would probably stay on his feet a bit more if he were expanded. 
.
