Madferret said:Are we doing playoff / series threads or just one general one or here?
Definitely separate threads. You or anyone else is welcome to start making them whenever. I'll try to do any left-overs before the games start.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Madferret said:Are we doing playoff / series threads or just one general one or here?
If we are talking about who you would rather have right now and not considering who would be better to build with for the future then how is Stamkos being 22 as opposed to 25 an advantage?Borschevsky-Antropov-Kulemin said:ontariojames said:The point about the age was made because if we are just talking about right now, and not building for a few years down the road, it doesn't matter if Stamkos is younger because Malkin is still only 25 and in the middle of his prime.
But his age is still an asset in the here and now.
ontariojames said:As far as Malkin playing on a better offensive team, the difference is smaller than it looks.
Actually, what I said was that Malkin plays on a better team, period. Tampa's a little better offensively and much worse defensively. As a general rule, I think the quality of a team lifts the stats of the players on it.
ontariojames said:Also, the biggest factor in offensive support for a player is the linemates they usually play with and Stamkos' usual linemates and Malkin's usual linemates are pretty even. So when you factor that in there's not much difference at all.
That's certainly a factor, maybe the biggest, but you can't discount the impact good defensemen have on a forward line. Leaving alone great offense from defensemen for a second, just having guys who are especially good at clearing the puck are going to move the play into the offensive zone more often, giving the offense a better chance to score. The Tampa defense is a trainwreck.
Along those lines, playing on a bad team means you're more likely to be playing against a team that's protecting a lead. If you're leading the other team is liable to leave themselves open to counterattack as they try to catch up.
ontariojames said:Malkin being 1.2 mil more expensive and having one bad year of injury trouble in a career where he's been pretty healthy shouldn't make anyone want to choose Stamkos over Malkin to win right now.
Those shouldn't be anyone's primary reasons but they do factor in Stamkos' favour. Like I've said, the goal scoring and physical play are probably why I'd give the edge to Stamkos.
Also, I think you're being a little unfair with regards to Stamkos in last year's playoffs. He was good. Not great, but good.
ontariojames said:If we are talking about who you would rather have right now and not considering who would be better to build with for the future then how is Stamkos being 22 as opposed to 25 an advantage?
ontariojames said:Minus Letang, the Pens defense isn't anything special offensively, and in 29 games without Letang Malkin was on pace for 113 points.
ontariojames said:Teams also play more defensively when they have the lead,
ontariojames said:I'm not sure how much of a difference this makes, if it made a big difference I would think Stamkos would've had a better year then he did last year playing on a very good Tampa team. However, we do know Malkin has the potential to be a 113-120 point player.
ontariojames said:As far as linemates are concerned, I was generous towards Stamkos in saying they were similar. James Neal was a 50 point player prior to playing with Malkin this year, I don't think it's a coincidence that he all of a sudden turns into a ppg player while playing with Malkin all year while Malkin's having a monster year. Stamkos plays with St Louis, who has been a fantastic player on his own without Stamkos.
ontariojames said:Lastly, as far as Stamkos being a better goal scorer goes, Malkin was on pace for 54 had he not missed 7 games, only six less than Stamkos. And Malkin doesn't play with a very good playmaker like St.Louis. And it doesn't appear to be a one year fluke, Malkin had a lot more shots on goal this year than in any of his previous seasons, so he appears to have changed his game to be more of a shooter and goal scorer the same way Crosby did.
ontariojames said:(the one playoff he had was mediocre, 6 goals and 13 points in 18 games is disappointing by his regular season standards)
groundskeeper willie said:17. Sports Illustrated's Michael Farber wrote a piece about the Blues that quoted John Davidson as saying they hired Hitchcock to find out if the players they drafted were "capable of carrying a team." Thought a lot about that watching Colorado down the stretch. The team is staying with Joe Sacco and you wonder what that means for Matt Duchene.
18. Duchene was benched March 22 (played only 7:21 vs. Phoenix) then saw almost 15 minutes two nights later. But then his time-on-ice falls off a cliff. Average for the final five games: 11:40. You can sense an uneasy relationship between he and Sacco. The Avalanche dealt Chris Stewart out of nowhere. If they think Sacco is the right coach, what do they think about Duchene?
I would think the Avs would be nuts to move him, but you can't deny he struggled for whatever reason last year. He's not the biggest guy, but he is fairly solid and would fantastic beside Kessel I would think. No idea what the cost would be, but I would think he wouldn't be cheap. By far a better use of resources than Nash though.
Kush said:groundskeeper willie said:17. Sports Illustrated's Michael Farber wrote a piece about the Blues that quoted John Davidson as saying they hired Hitchcock to find out if the players they drafted were "capable of carrying a team." Thought a lot about that watching Colorado down the stretch. The team is staying with Joe Sacco and you wonder what that means for Matt Duchene.
18. Duchene was benched March 22 (played only 7:21 vs. Phoenix) then saw almost 15 minutes two nights later. But then his time-on-ice falls off a cliff. Average for the final five games: 11:40. You can sense an uneasy relationship between he and Sacco. The Avalanche dealt Chris Stewart out of nowhere. If they think Sacco is the right coach, what do they think about Duchene?
I would think the Avs would be nuts to move him, but you can't deny he struggled for whatever reason last year. He's not the biggest guy, but he is fairly solid and would fantastic beside Kessel I would think. No idea what the cost would be, but I would think he wouldn't be cheap. By far a better use of resources than Nash though.
Probably would start with Gardiner and the 5th.
Corn Flake said:Kush said:Probably would start with Gardiner and the 5th.
Probably not.
Corn Flake said:Kush said:groundskeeper willie said:17. Sports Illustrated's Michael Farber wrote a piece about the Blues that quoted John Davidson as saying they hired Hitchcock to find out if the players they drafted were "capable of carrying a team." Thought a lot about that watching Colorado down the stretch. The team is staying with Joe Sacco and you wonder what that means for Matt Duchene.
18. Duchene was benched March 22 (played only 7:21 vs. Phoenix) then saw almost 15 minutes two nights later. But then his time-on-ice falls off a cliff. Average for the final five games: 11:40. You can sense an uneasy relationship between he and Sacco. The Avalanche dealt Chris Stewart out of nowhere. If they think Sacco is the right coach, what do they think about Duchene?
I would think the Avs would be nuts to move him, but you can't deny he struggled for whatever reason last year. He's not the biggest guy, but he is fairly solid and would fantastic beside Kessel I would think. No idea what the cost would be, but I would think he wouldn't be cheap. By far a better use of resources than Nash though.
Probably would start with Gardiner and the 5th.
Probably not.
Kush said:Corn Flake said:Kush said:groundskeeper willie said:17. Sports Illustrated's Michael Farber wrote a piece about the Blues that quoted John Davidson as saying they hired Hitchcock to find out if the players they drafted were "capable of carrying a team." Thought a lot about that watching Colorado down the stretch. The team is staying with Joe Sacco and you wonder what that means for Matt Duchene.
18. Duchene was benched March 22 (played only 7:21 vs. Phoenix) then saw almost 15 minutes two nights later. But then his time-on-ice falls off a cliff. Average for the final five games: 11:40. You can sense an uneasy relationship between he and Sacco. The Avalanche dealt Chris Stewart out of nowhere. If they think Sacco is the right coach, what do they think about Duchene?
I would think the Avs would be nuts to move him, but you can't deny he struggled for whatever reason last year. He's not the biggest guy, but he is fairly solid and would fantastic beside Kessel I would think. No idea what the cost would be, but I would think he wouldn't be cheap. By far a better use of resources than Nash though.
Probably would start with Gardiner and the 5th.
Probably not.
For a 21 year old center with star upside? Yeah ok. Schenn + Bozak it is
Corn Flake said:Gardiner has as much upside as Duchene, only in a more difficult position to find a top-end player in. But yeah we should just unload him for a centre who had a dismal 3rd year and might not be any better than the guy we had as our 1st line centre this year.
Corn Flake said:Kush said:Corn Flake said:Kush said:groundskeeper willie said:17. Sports Illustrated's Michael Farber wrote a piece about the Blues that quoted John Davidson as saying they hired Hitchcock to find out if the players they drafted were "capable of carrying a team." Thought a lot about that watching Colorado down the stretch. The team is staying with Joe Sacco and you wonder what that means for Matt Duchene.
18. Duchene was benched March 22 (played only 7:21 vs. Phoenix) then saw almost 15 minutes two nights later. But then his time-on-ice falls off a cliff. Average for the final five games: 11:40. You can sense an uneasy relationship between he and Sacco. The Avalanche dealt Chris Stewart out of nowhere. If they think Sacco is the right coach, what do they think about Duchene?
I would think the Avs would be nuts to move him, but you can't deny he struggled for whatever reason last year. He's not the biggest guy, but he is fairly solid and would fantastic beside Kessel I would think. No idea what the cost would be, but I would think he wouldn't be cheap. By far a better use of resources than Nash though.
Probably would start with Gardiner and the 5th.
Probably not.
For a 21 year old center with star upside? Yeah ok. Schenn + Bozak it is
Gardiner has as much upside as Duchene, only in a more difficult position to find a top-end player in. But yeah we should just unload him for a centre who had a dismal 3rd year and might not be any better than the guy we had as our 1st line centre this year.
I will just assume for now you are adding Gardiner to all trades. You know, save you some time.
Borschevsky-Antropov-Kulemin said:I do Gardiner for Duchene in a heart beat.
Borschevsky-Antropov-Kulemin said:Corn Flake said:Gardiner has as much upside as Duchene, only in a more difficult position to find a top-end player in. But yeah we should just unload him for a centre who had a dismal 3rd year and might not be any better than the guy we had as our 1st line centre this year.
I gotta say I disagree pretty strongly with both the idea that Gardiner has as much upside as Duchene and that it's significantly harder to find a top-end defenseman than it it is a top-end centre.
I do Gardiner for Duchene in a heart beat.
Kush said:Yeah, right. Duchene the 3rd overall pick who had 67 points as a 19/20 year old might not be any better than Bozak. Good one.
If you think that Toronto (or any team) wouldn`t have to pay up the ass to get Duchene, then I don`t know what else to tell ya.
groundskeeper willie said:That may be, but the original post said Gardiner and the 5th pick. Gardiner straight up may be what it takes, but adding the 5th is way too much.