Ovechkin isn't in the top 30 scorers this year but I guess since he's an undisputed top 5 player he gets a pass.
Giroux was pretty close to a PPG last season and was obviously trending upward. People who saw him play most often (his GM and scouts) made roster makeover decisions based on his progression as a player. He then responded by taking a major leap forward in scoring. He's such a complete player though that even if he were only an 80 point scorer I think he'd definitely be in the conversation for top 10 player and top 5 forward. See, the points are nice but what what most Giroux apologists seem to have in common is an understanding of the player beyond gaudy numbers.
Ovechkin isn't in the top 30 scorers this year but I guess since he's an undisputed top 5 player he gets a pass.
Giroux was pretty close to a PPG last season and was obviously trending upward. People who saw him play most often (his GM and scouts) made roster makeover decisions based on his progression as a player. He then responded by taking a major leap forward in scoring. He's such a complete player though that even if he were only an 80 point scorer I think he'd definitely be in the conversation for top 10 player and top 5 forward. See, the points are nice but what what most Giroux apologists seem to have in common is an understanding of the player beyond gaudy numbers.
Well, looking at the production and financials of Couturier, Voracek, Schenn, and Simmonds vs the players traded in the decisions you mention (not to mention the draft picks on top), you could also suggest that Philly's GM made those moves based on the vision of how that group would grow together and contribute (while also being "cheaper" in the mean time, mind you) - just as much as they may have decided to go with Giroux as "their guy". Those moves ultimately proved successful on a few levels; not just because of how the emergence of Giroux would figure in. Credit to Giroux for stepping up out of the Carter/Richards shadow the way he has, though.
Well, looking at the production and financials of Couturier, Voracek, Schenn, and Simmonds vs the players traded in the decisions you mention (not to mention the draft picks on top), you could also suggest that Philly's GM made those moves based on the vision of how that group would grow together and contribute (while also being "cheaper" in the mean time, mind you) - just as much as they may have decided to go with Giroux as "their guy". Those moves ultimately proved successful on a few levels; not just because of how the emergence of Giroux would figure in. Credit to Giroux for stepping up out of the Carter/Richards shadow the way he has, though.
Right, but I think it's safe to say that the lynchpin of the whole scenario was who was going to center the top line. Obviously, Holmgren expected good things out of the players he acquired, but he traded some quite talented players largely because he wanted a larger part of the team's identity to be defined by Giroux rather than Richards or Carter. I know none of that in itself makes Giroux a top anything player but judging by how he responded I think it does say a lot about his standing in the league.
Can someone PLEASE finally show me something that suggests that Stamkos is so much better than Giroux? Pretty much everything points to Giroux.
Are goals just too sexy?
As long as the league keeps implementing changes to increase scoring, as opposed to changing rules to limit scoring, then yes... domination in goal scoring is going to be considered quite significant - or sexy.
I think he's one of the five best players in the NHL at the moment. But next year others might bounce back and he'll slip back. These things are rarely stable.
I'm not including goalies because it's impossible to compare with skaters.
