Ranking the Capitals: #24
by J.P. on Aug 26, 2009 9:08 PM EDT
Email
PrintIn an effort to beat the summer doldrums, we're undertaking to rank - with your help - the Washington Capitals, from Ovechkin to, well, we'll see (only players under contract will be considered). The criteria is simple: who at this moment is the most valuable player in the organization who hasn't already been ranked? Put another way, if you could only keep one of the remaining players - because of what he brings on the ice or off it, his upside, what he could fetch in trade, and so on - who would it be? Consider age, potential, contract status, organizational depth, etc. - it's your call. And after you vote and defend your selection in the comments, help us out and suggest a name to add to the next poll. [Note: previous "Ranking the Capitals" posts can be found here."]
Welcome Anton Gustafsson to the list, and Michael Nylander to the poll...
- Alex Ovechkin
- Nicklas Backstrom
- Mike Green
- Alexander Semin
- Semyon Varlamov
- Brooks Laich
- Karl Alzner
- Mike Knuble
- Tom Poti
- David Steckel
- John Carlson
- Jeff Schultz
- Brendan Morrison
- Tomas Fleischmann
- Michal Neuvirth
- Eric Fehr
- Boyd Gordon
- Jose Theodore
- Oskar Osala
- Shaone Morrisonn
- Brian Pothier
- Matt Bradley
- Anton Gustafsson
If this FanPost is written by someone other than one of the blog's editors, the opinions expressed in it do not necessarily reflect those of this blog or SB Nation.
125 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
by J.P. on Aug 26, 2009 9:14 PM EDT reply actions 2 recs
I don’t know why this hit me as so funny, but I’m crying here. My son is looking at me very strangely.
by HateOffSeason on Aug 27, 2009 7:57 AM EDT up reply actions
Fun Bourque fact of the day:
Bourque is part of the famed draft class of 2004, that includes Alex Ovechkin, Jeff Schultz, Mike Green, Chris Bourque, Mikhail Yunkov, Sami Lepisto, Clayton Barthel, Oscar Hedman, Pasi Salonen, Peter Guggisberg, Andrew Gordon, Justin Mrazek, and Travis Moren. He was the 33rd overall selection, early in the second round.
Okay, not all of the draft class is famous.
Winterion Game Studios
Visit us online at : http://winterion.com
I’d like to add Peter Guggisberg to the list next, based on he has the funniest name of all of our 2004 draft picks.
I'm so sick and tired of the refs explaining the calls like this is the NFL.
by Whiter Mage on Aug 27, 2009 10:10 AM EDT up reply actions
Agree 100% with Bourque. I think I came off as anti-short players yesterday. I really meant to come off as I don’t think Perreault has the chutzpah to play in the NHL with his size. Chris Bourque does. He may not ever be higher than a 3rd liner, but he has second line potential (and won’t reach it with this team if only because the rest of the squad is so much better), and I think will, at least as far as getting on the team, be a replacement for Chris Clark on the roster some day (I don’t think he’ll fill the leadership role Clark did, though). I’m of the opinion that with Brashear’s departure and Fehr’s not being ready to start the year, that Chris Bourque ought to be the guy to come up.
I'm so sick and tired of the refs explaining the calls like this is the NFL.
by Whiter Mage on Aug 27, 2009 10:14 AM EDT up reply actions
That’s what I’ve been lobbying for, anyway. =) I made a pretty comprehensive argument back in the.. 19? 18?th installment. Perhaps I’ll re-reference it today. It’s time to get Chris on the list, just like it’s time to get him on the Washington roster.
Winterion Game Studios
Visit us online at : http://winterion.com
Finally! I vote for Nyla… never mind – I can’t even say that in jest. ’S Bourque for me.
Beagle next?
At this stage, I’ll take a broken Clark over a fresh Juice.
by ChrisAm on Aug 26, 2009 11:19 PM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
JP, did you break the tie between AnGus and Erskine? I saw that the poll for 23 was closed with a tie, and now Anton has one more vote. Not that I’m complaining or anything, but just curious.
Chowdah Chatter
Fear the Rebel Polar Bears
Is that because you think he’s that good? Or you just aren’t sure that the rookies will pan out? Or that it’s always good to have insurance in net? Or other?
A man must have a code.
He’s impressed the hell out of me. I think he’s a winner. Only guy left on the list with the legitimate potential to be a real game-changing player. Everyone else projects out to be a role player at best.
Atta dinnin stick a who!
by Gould Old Days on Aug 27, 2009 2:45 AM EDT up reply actions
I understand your unease with the word, but GMs value potential, plain and simple. Further, just because something is more “proven,” doesn’t mean that it’s either proven to be good or proven to be something that’s difficult to replace.
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
by J.P. on Aug 27, 2009 7:41 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Understood. I just believe that people are placing too much value on potential. Borque over Jurcina?? I just don’t see it, but everyone has different opinions and I am ok with that.
At the trade deadline, I posed a hypothetical question of “Would you trade Alzner for Pronger if you were guaranteed of winning the SC this year.” I was amazed at the number of people that said no (you said that you would, I believe). Again, putting too much value on potential.
All that being said, it will interesting to see how much a new defensive coach will help Jurcina this year. Regardless of where we individually rank the Caps, we can all agree that we want each of them to far exceed our expectations of them.
by Moonage Daydream on Aug 27, 2009 9:07 AM EDT up reply actions
I would trade anyone – yes, anyone – for a guaranteed Cup win.
And while I think part of rating Bourque ahead of Jurcina is about Bourque’s potential, it’s also about Jurcina’s replaceability. Odds are very, very good that the Caps could easily find someone with a skillset comparable to Jurcina’s at a price comparable to Jurcina’s without much trouble. That, in and of itself, means his value isn’t tremendous.
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
But look, when we talk about Jurcina we’re talking about “potential” too. Just because we’ve watched him play for three years doesn’t mean he’ll play the same way next year. And it’s his future performance that matters. Who cares how he’s played in the past?
Anyone can have a career year. Anyone can go off a cliff. Michael Nylander was paid for his “potential” three years ago. It hasn’t worked out. Tom Poti was paid for his “potential” in the same offseason. He’s worked out very well, but in unexpected ways.
All it means that guys have already played in the NHL is that we have a better idea of what their “potential” really is. And as JP intimates, in Jurcina’s case this is not necessarily a good thing for him.
Atta dinnin stick a who!
by Gould Old Days on Aug 27, 2009 9:42 AM EDT up reply actions
(three years ago means three offseasons ago)
Atta dinnin stick a who!
by Gould Old Days on Aug 27, 2009 9:42 AM EDT up reply actions
Michael Nylander wasn’t paid for his potential, he was paid for past performance and the assumption that he could continue to perform at that level or similarly. Sure, you can call that the “potential to keep playing at that level,” but it’s not development potential like we’re talking with Bourque and, yes, Jurcina.
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
Potential’s potential. I don’t think there’s any real distinction. It’s all just “what do I think this guy is going to do over the next few years” and “how much is that worth?”
If any team actually pays someone for past performance then they’re the New York Rangers crazy. Nylander was paid for his potential to be a quality 1st or 2nd line center for this team for four years. We even had better information about his potential to do that, given that he’d already done it at a high level for a decade throughout the decade, some of it with the Caps. But it didn’t work out.
I think a guy like Gustafsson can absolutely be ranked on the same scale. We have less information about Gustafsson, but enough to draw some conclusions. He ain’t going to be an NHL contributor this year, and probably not the next. After that, he’s got the chance to be a very solid two-way center. Given what we know about his history and how prospects work out in general, it’s maybe a 25% chance of being a very good second line center.
I think we can value that expected future performance the same way we value the odds of Nylander continuing to perform the way he had been performing. In fact, I think we have been doing it. Knuble is 8 ranks above Fehr and 11 above Osala. That strikes me as the right ranking, given the information we have about what these guys could do.
Atta dinnin stick a who!
by Gould Old Days on Aug 27, 2009 10:58 AM EDT up reply actions
Potential’s potential. I don’t think there’s any real distinction.
I couldn’t disagree more. Bourque and Jurcina have the potential to become better hockey players. Nylander – at ~35-years-old – really didn’t have that potential.
To put it another way, I consider potential to be the gap between where a guy currently is and his absolute upside. Clearly, Bourque or Juice have more “potential” – that is, a bigger gap – than Nylander did when signed.
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
Yeah, I’m clearly using the word potential a different way. What I really mean to capture is that the future capabilities of veterans is not set in stone either. Maybe “possibilities” would be a better word for me to use.
Atta dinnin stick a who!
by Gould Old Days on Aug 27, 2009 1:06 PM EDT up reply actions
Odds are very, very good that the Caps could easily find someone with a skillset comparable to Jurcina’s at a price comparable to Jurcina’s without much trouble. That, in and of itself, means his value isn’t tremendous.
The same can be said for with anyone that remains in the voting. We are at #24.
by Moonage Daydream on Aug 27, 2009 10:58 AM EDT up reply actions
I disagree on Holtby and Della Rovere. Prospects like that don’t fall out of trees.
Atta dinnin stick a who!
by Gould Old Days on Aug 27, 2009 11:02 AM EDT up reply actions
More than half of them. Crosby, P-M Bouchard, Radulov, and Brad Richards are all very good players. Other than those, in the last 20 years, only Thibault and Yannick Perrault stand out. I don’t see anyone else who had a good NHL career, but I’m not sure I’d recognize all of them. So that’s less than 1/3 of them.
Atta dinnin stick a who!
by Gould Old Days on Aug 27, 2009 1:22 PM EDT up reply actions
I hear you but both of those 20 year olds were pre-lockout. It’s simply not as hard to be productive and small anymore.
A man must have a code.
Depends against whom you’re playing.
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
by J.P. on Aug 27, 2009 2:30 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Good point and an interesting read. I’m not sure how you’d be able to figure out which match-ups are favorable, ex ante, though; and I don’t think the point is limited to size factors. AO had a hard time with the Rags because of the defensive shell they fall into (and the goalie, obviously). I’d suspect he had an easier time against high-flying teams, but that’s an empirical question I haven’t explored. Match-ups will always be a part of hockey (notwithstanding BB’s purported philosophy) and finding out how to use your small players effectively is a prime responsibility of the coach. Every single day of the week I’ll take skill over size.
A man must have a code.
Yeah, I just threw that out there b/c I saw it this morning, and thought it both mildly thought-provoking and somewhat applicable.
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
It is definitely thought provoking. You’d expect a guy with size that can skate like J. Staal would be able to handle smaller players. It seems counterintuitive that Staal would be a better match-up against a guy like Getzlaf than a guy like Briere. I do like that it also highlights the limits to judging by size.
Forgot to remind everyone before, but Sid is only 5’11" and we saw what kind of damage he did against the Caps last year (one of the biggest teams in the league, recall).
A man must have a code.
That was a great writeup you found. Very well written and thought provoking. The line about patience made me think of Schultz.
Atta dinnin stick a who!
by Gould Old Days on Aug 27, 2009 3:58 PM EDT up reply actions
Looking at the list I think that since 2000 the Q MVP has been a pretty solid player. Simone Gamache and Joel Perreault were the only two busts on the list. Francis Pare is DET property, so take that fwiw if you have faith in the DET scouting department. The most recent winner is a goalie so I don’t properly know how to compare him to the skaters (though it is a pretty tough league to be a goalie in so it probably means something). I think my point stands that CHL (any league) MVPs don’t just fall out of trees, either. I’ve paid close attention to Perreault since he became Caps property and the only thing I’ve ever heard as a knock on him is his size. To me, that’s not sufficient to overcome his skill, especially with the current rules.
A man must have a code.
There was talk last year that his D leaves something to be desired. Not terrible, but not NHL-caliber yet, even for an offensive player. And I’m not sure how good he is on the dot.
Atta dinnin stick a who!
by Gould Old Days on Aug 27, 2009 4:01 PM EDT up reply actions
He’s from the Q so I assume he’s not that developed in his own end yet. I don’t take that as a specific knock against him, I can’t remember any Fs that came out of the Q that didn’t need work in their own end.
A man must have a code.
And I’m not trying to just avoid or dismiss the knocks on him, I’m just trying to put it in perspective. Knocking a F from the Q for his D play is like critiquing an 18 yr old at the draft because he has maturity issues; it just kinda comes with the territory. I think Perreault definitely needs to work on his play in his own end to reach the NHL, but the fact that I haven’t heard any Caps or Bears brass/reporters note that his D was particularly deficient leads me to believe he’s at least on the curve.
A man must have a code.
I got ya, I was just responding to “the only thing I’ve ever heard as a knock on him is his size.” There are other knocks against him. But he’s definitely still got a chance to develop those parts of his game.
Atta dinnin stick a who!
by Gould Old Days on Aug 27, 2009 5:31 PM EDT up reply actions
At this point potential is much more valuable than proven mediocrity, and that’s basically all that’s left up there from the NHLers (unless Clark returns to 30-goal form, which is probably a long shot in most voter’s minds).
That’s not meant to be a dis on the NHLers; they have roles to fill and they’re important roles, mostly, but they’re still somewhat marginal and pretty easily replaceable.
Reasonably realistic potential is more valuable than proven role-playing limits, if you will.
by brs03 on Aug 27, 2009 9:41 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Great photo!
Perfect for this…
Let's go Caps!
by MikeL-Pivonka on Aug 27, 2009 9:44 AM EDT up reply actions
Where is “relevance” among the criteria? And what do superficial designations such as nominal place on the depth chart and a letter on a guy’s sweater have to do with value?
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
And what do superficial designations such as nominal place on the depth chart and a letter on a guy’s sweater have to do with value?
Bingo. Yeah, the “number one goaltender” is 18th but the overpaid, mediocre, inconsistent, easily-replaceable-at-a-lower-price goaltender is 18th.
I’ve said it before – going to the depth chart for value is clearly flawed, as considering Zubrus more valuable than Semin in 2007 because one was the first line center and one was the second line left wing.
I understand the heart of your argument but I think when you are talking about goalies the depth chart positioning means more than when talking about a position player. Being the #1 goalies means you get the lions share of starts etc. Being the 1st line center means almost nothing.
I’d be surprised if Theodore got the lion’s share of the starts this season, provided Varlamov is healthy.
Ok.
My point was that referencing the depth chart does have meaning for goalies. If the depth chart is incorrect, that’s a different argument.
I didn’t mean just that the depth chart as stated is incorrect (though I think it is), I meant that the distribution of playing time between goalies varies from team to team and goalie to goalie. There are guys who are going to start 70+ games and there are guys who are number ones on their teams who start 50 or 55 games. My guess is that Theo, even if he is and stays the number one, is the latter.
That still means that he gets ~25 more games than the #2 goalie… (~1500 minutes/season) The ice time difference between the #1 center and the #3 center is 12 minutes a game (~1000 minutes/season)? 500 minutes is a lot of ice time especially when you are the most important player out there.
Good point. I suppose it’s just than when I hear ’lion’s share’ for a goalie I think of those guys who play 70+ games for the very reason you point out – that number one goalies inherently play a whole lot.
Looking at some quick numbers, only four goaltenders (Kiprusoff, Turco, Backstrom, and Lundqvist) started 70 or more games last year for their teams, and then 6 more were 60+. Last year, Theo started more games than Tim Thomas (Rotation), Luongo (Injury), and Osgood.
My point is a different argument – the top 10 save percentages for goaltenders last year all started 59 or fewer games except for Niklas Backstrom (71). With the exception of Vokoun, all were well over 500% in winning percentage. When you look at GAA, the top ten are all under 61, again with the exception of Niklas Backstrom. Of those, only three lost 20 or more games (Steve Mason, Backstrom, and Chris Mason).
Admittedly, without injuries to Brodeur and Luongo, the number of 70+ game goaltenders goes up, but I don’t think that most teams WANT their “Lion’s share” goaltender to start more than 60 games anymore. This also underscores the need for a top back-up.
I'm so sick and tired of the refs explaining the calls like this is the NFL.
by Whiter Mage on Aug 27, 2009 10:32 AM EDT up reply actions
when I hear ’lion’s share’ for a goalie I think of those guys who play 70+ games
Probably because the lion’s share is all
Atta dinnin stick a who!
by Gould Old Days on Aug 27, 2009 11:01 AM EDT up reply actions
I’d be surprised if any goaltender in Washington started more than 48 games this season.
I'm so sick and tired of the refs explaining the calls like this is the NFL.
by Whiter Mage on Aug 27, 2009 10:19 AM EDT up reply actions
Does that include the 28 in the playoffs (since this team doesn’t know how to finish a series in fewer than seven games)?
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
by J.P. on Aug 27, 2009 10:40 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Well played. No, it does not.
I'm so sick and tired of the refs explaining the calls like this is the NFL.
by Whiter Mage on Aug 27, 2009 10:52 AM EDT up reply actions
Quit smoking, ease back on the booze (unless its red wine). Our hearts are going to need all the strength they can get.
The thought of 4 – 7 game series actually made my chest tighten.
Rec’d for that. I actually skipped a home game against the Pens “to save some money for the next round.” FAIL!
by Scott in Shaw on Aug 27, 2009 12:50 PM EDT up reply actions
Not a Fail if the game he skipped was Game 7 of that series…
: (
"Life moves pretty fast. If you don't stop and look around once in a while, you could miss it."
- Ferris Bueller
by war_capitals on Aug 27, 2009 5:10 PM EDT up reply actions
I wish I had skipped that one. I skipped the third period, though (no need to bash me for not sticking around to applaud the season; that was addressed at the time).
by Scott in Shaw on Aug 27, 2009 5:53 PM EDT up reply actions
Likewise, I’m sad to admit. Giving the standing “O” after the Philly game was a lot easier, since it all happened so suddenly. By the time it was 4-0, I knew where that game was headed and it made me physically sick to my stomach. I just couldn’t take it…
"Life moves pretty fast. If you don't stop and look around once in a while, you could miss it."
- Ferris Bueller
by war_capitals on Aug 28, 2009 9:37 AM EDT up reply actions
Absolutely. Being the #1 goaltender means on any given night you will play and impact the game, where the #2 goalie will only skate for 3 minutes in warmups. Being the #2 center vs the #1 center means that you’ll get 4 minutes less icetime? Maybe?
Backstrom was a top 10 scorer in the league. Theo was like 30-something in every individual goalie stat. Backstrom will be the most important C for the Caps every game this season. Theo won’t be the most important goalie for the Caps this season. I absolutely do not give one tiny piece of shit what BB “calls” Theo. He benched the guy after one bad start. He has no confidence in him and if Varlamov doesn’t come out and fall flat on his face he’ll be the No. 1 by the Olympics. Being the No. 1 goalie means something if you are actually a No. 1 goalie. Hey, if you want me to take a dump in a box and mark it [No. 1 goalie], I will. I got spare time.
A man must have a code.
My point, from the very start, has been that the depth chart has more meaning when talking about goalies than it does when talking about position players. If you are talking about Varly, being the #1 goalie matters. Backstrom being designated the #1 or #2 center matters not a lick. I mean Laich is listed as a center right?
Not once have I claimed that Theo is a #1, and I haven’t claimed that he is more valueable to the team than Neuvirth, to say nothing about Backstrom.
But I get it, you just wanted to use your “sh** in a box” line…
I actually threw that line in at the end. Go cuddle your depth chart at night. I’ll be watching hockey and I’ll feel free to explain to you why being the “No. 1 goalie” didn’t help Theo one bit in his performance; nor did being “No. 1 goalie” help the Caps one bit. Play matters. Depth chart doesn’t.
A man must have a code.
Take it easy man. You are so f***ing serious.
Its a measurment, just like +/-, or wins for a goalie. Take it for what it is worth.
See G.O.D. on existing rapport. I’m not that serious, it’s hockey, it’s just a game, why you have to be so mad?
I just don’t see how you can put so much stock in the No. 1 label when that label is only valuable insofar as it accurately represents play on the ice. “No. 1 goalie” in no way accurately reflects what you can expect from Theo on the ice. I don’t care what Theo’s mid-August place on the depth chart is. How’d he look last we saw him?
(And the shit in a box line is a classic, if I may say so myself)
A man must have a code.
I appreciate the box line. I’ll take one more shot at explaining myself before I pass you that aforementioned box.
I think that my argument has been muddled because Theo has the #1 label right now and none of us really think he’s the #1 goalie (myself included).
My point is that there is more to be inferred from a goalie’s position on the depth chart than there is from a positional players spot there. I buy that in August it means very little, after all, there is no depth chart right now, they don’t even have a roster. Come January though, the title #1 goalie (if someone is the clear #1) will be a solid indicator of valuable play, and it will mean a whole lot more to be the #1 goalie than it will to be the #1 center.
My point is that there is more to be inferred from a goalie’s position on the depth chart than there is from a positional players spot there.
I dunno, to me they both just say ‘this is the best guy at this position on the roster’, which is something that varies widely from team to team. Last season being the number one center in Atlanta would have been the fourth center in Pittsburgh and the number one goalie in Colorado would have been third string in Florida.
‘this is the best guy at this position on the roster’
You’ve lost me… doesn’t being the best guy at the goalie position mean something? There’s only two slots for the goalie, there are 12 forwards. So while Semin might be a better player than Knuble, he might not be on the first line.
Being the best guy at the position on the roster doesn’t mean you are good, just that nobody else is better. Like DMG said, being the No. 1 G in COL, LAK, TBL or a few other teams doesn’t mean much objectively. A crappy player on a crappy team is going to have a better depth chart position than a decent player on a great team (where would Helm, Abdelkader, Ericsson, and Leino be in another organization?) That’s what I meant.
A man must have a code.
I agree with DMG above me, but also I’ll add that it completely depends on the relative depth of the team. When ANA had Giggy and Bryzgalov and then Getzlaf and no real 2C (I believe they did this for a little bit in 07-08, but roll with me if I’m wrong) Getzlaf was a lot more valuable because his loss killed their O while a loss of Giggy could be survived (and the same thing on their D ranks). I don’t think the depth chart has too much meaning without the context of the rest of the roster.
I’d also like to remind everyone of the conversations we had down the stretch this last season when we talked about whether we needed to get a veteran back up to replace BJ. The general consensus, IIRC, was that “if we need to turn to a back up in the playoffs we are f***ed anyway so it doesn’t really matter.” Well, we turned to the back up and how did that turn out? Especially with goalies (and especially one like Theo) the depth chart is pretty fluid.
A man must have a code.
I’m not arguing that its a good way to compare the value of a skater to the value of a goalie When comparing forwards to other forwards, the depth cart doesn’t mean anything. When comparing goalies to other goalies, there is information to be garnered from the depth chart.
Got ya. I guess the problem is determining “clear #1.” Are we talking about the guy that the coach calls the No. 1 or the guy that started all but 1 playoff game? The main reason I’ve dug in on this issue is that I vehemently dispute Theo getting the benefit of the doubt attendant to No. 1 status simply because BB claims that he’s the No. 1 in August. I think you’re right that if you look at almost every team on Jan. 1, No. 1 G probably means something, but you still need to adjust for team depth/skill.
A man must have a code.
Being #1 for a goalie means you have a greater chance to impact the game… either way.
Theo could do a great deal more harm if he’s used as a #1 (regardless of what BB calls him) than he could as a #2. He could also do more good if his play is on the positive side of things. Even if Backstrom plays poorly the difference between his impact as a #1 and his impact as a #2 wouldn’t be huge (perhaps on the powerplay, but still, considering the replacement options…). If Theo plays poorly but still gets leaned on as a #1, well that’s going to have a much bigger impact on the team than it would if he were relegated to the #2 spot.
The goalie depth chart in practice is going to have a big impact on team success in most cases, even for only one spot. It’s not nearly as pronounced for skaters.
Your right, it doesn’t matter what BB calls him. Theo may end up the #1 or he may end up the #2 (or he may end up out of town). We’ll have to wait and see how many games he plays to figure that out.
- has nothing to do with ability in terms of labeling, and everything to do with how much time they play. Now, obviously the ideal situation is to have your better goalie be your #1, but maybe it doesn’t work out that way.
Theo could easily be our #1 this year, even if he’s not playing well. Especially if Varly doesn’t show any improvement in durability/stamina.
Hey, if you want me to take a dump in a box and mark it [No. 1 goalie], I will. I got spare time.
Rec’d guy in a little coat.
http://wewintrophies.com/ - 12 major trophies in national and international competitions. Be a part of the next one.
by Bald Pollack on Aug 27, 2009 3:54 PM EDT up reply actions
Superficial they may be, JP, but look at Pittsburgh’s captain and nominal #1 tender and assess their value. I’d say Crosby is first and Fleury is #3, behind Malkin.
Look at the Red Wings: Captain Lidstrom is no lower than say, 2nd? And Osgood 5th or 6th at worst?
And go down the line among contenders. Boston’s captain Chara, is 2nd,IMO, right behind the #1 tender Timmah Thomas.
Am I making my point?
Not really, unless your point is that some other teams have more established (and better) starting goaltenders and more skilled captains than the Caps have.
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
Tim Thomas won a Vezina, so calling him No. 1 isn’t as superficial as calling Jose “I lost my job in one start” Theodore the No. 1. Crosby and Malkin have Art Ross trophies, that’s why they are more valuable than MAF. But MAF being 3 on the MVPen vote isn’t that big an indictment anyway. That’s comparable to Green over here.
A man must have a code.
What is the point? No one’s denying that as a general rule number one goalies and captain are important members of the team, the issue is causation. Guys tend to be captains and starting goalies because they’re important. They don’t become important because they’re the number one or the ‘C’.
Clark may be the captain but he’s still been hurt most of the last two years and was ineffective when he played in 08-09 – the fact that he wears the ‘C’ doesn’t change that. Boudreau may say Theo is the number one but he’s still a mediocre goalie with a fairly big contract.
by David Getz on Aug 27, 2009 4:34 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
I admittedly thought that by the end of 08-09, Laich was going to be the captain of this team. Yet, going into the 09-10 season, we could very possibly have a clipboard captain. It doesn’t seem right. I would love some insight into how Chris Clark impacts this team off the ice, because in these last two really good years, he sure as heck hasn’t done it on the ice.
Winterion Game Studios
Visit us online at : http://winterion.com
You’re never going to get it. Leadership is a locker room thing that doesn’t make it out to the public. Some of the best leaders ever (as judged by their peers/teammates) were guys that didn’t draw a ton of media attention or make their points by screaming and shouting. Joe Sakic comes to mind off the bat. On ice production <> leadership.
A man must have a code.
But Joe Sakic had amazing on-ice production, even in his twilight years nearly a point per game.
Winterion Game Studios
Visit us online at : http://winterion.com
True. How about Dave Andreychuk who was basically a role player by the time he won a Cup?
Sabres C: Craig Rivet
‘Canes: Brind’Amour
Oilers: Ethan Moreau
Devils: Jamie Langenbrunner
Coyotes: Shane Doan
Blues: Eric Brewer
None of those guys are the best player on their team. If Clark is healthy he’s better than Moreau, and comparable to Langenbrunner and Doan.
A man must have a code.
“My cat’s breath smells like cat food.”
Winterion Game Studios
Visit us online at : http://winterion.com
by winterion on Aug 27, 2009 9:56 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
To be honest, I’m having a tough time picking these guys now. I went with bourque, but I honestly don’t know that he’d fetch much more than Erskine or Juice in a trade.
I almost went with Perrault because I think he has the skill to be a decent offensive player if his size doesn’t hold him back.
I almost went with Holtby because while he gets lost in the talk behind Neuvy and Varlamov, he’s still very much a prized goaltending prospect.
Because now I can justify browsing and commenting during the work day with the argument that I am promoting my business.
I don’t think it’s crazy at all. Dude was a starter and played pretty well in the playoffs last year. How many guys on this list are you sure will be a starter for the Caps in their careers? There’s a lot of “ifs” on this list, but Juice is a known commodity.
Atta dinnin stick a who!
by Gould Old Days on Aug 27, 2009 5:34 PM EDT up reply actions
That’s true, but he’s also replaceable. If Jurcina goes down in camp, no way do I want the Capitals to trade Bourque or Holtby for another defenseman prone to mistakes and penalties who only plays at even strength.
by David Getz on Aug 27, 2009 5:40 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
What do you mean by starter? Do you mean the guy that was on the ice for the opening face off? Or the No. 1 on the depth chart (/winks at Sct112, but not in a sexual way)? Steckel took the opening face off in some playoff games, but nobody calls him the starter over Backstrom. Juice is a bottom pair D. Maybe someday he becomes a second pair D. The guy has a methane factory where his brain should be, he’s not a starter in the sense the word is used in other sports (best at his position).
A man must have a code.
Nylander with as many votes as Perreault, Holtby, and Bouchard combined? Equal to SDR? Do we need a Japers’ Rink Poll Eligibility Test or is this a result of bitter out-of-town fans?
A man must have a code.
I’m pondering future votes Nyls here on out to see how many drink the punch.
http://wewintrophies.com/ - 12 major trophies in national and international competitions. Be a part of the next one.
by Bald Pollack on Aug 27, 2009 7:19 PM EDT up reply actions
I’m more likely to attribute this to people recognizing names, having familiarity, known quantities, etc. with the guys that were in Washington, and attributing people in Hershey as unknown-quantity minor-league guys, whom by definition should theoretically be worse players.
I also blame the AHL for charging to watch their games, rather than being thrilled people even want to watch an SD stream of minor league hockey, and just give the thing away for free + ad revenue.
Winterion Game Studios
Visit us online at : http://winterion.com
Nylander is both a financial liability and a performance liability. Putting him in the Capitals books as an asset is improper accounting of Arthur Anderson re:Enron levels.
Winterion Game Studios
Visit us online at : http://winterion.com
by winterion on Aug 27, 2009 8:53 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Japers' Rink
Related FanShots on Japers' Rink
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recent FanShots
The Vault
In Association With
Latest Puck Daddy - NHL from Yahoo! Sports
- Why the Devils and the Kings are evidence the Capitals shouldn’t trade Alex Ovechkin
- Eulogy: Remembering the 2011-12 New York Rangers
- Stanley Cup Final: 5 keys for New Jersey Devils and Los Angeles Kings
- Friday’s Three Stars: Devils head to Final; Brodeur, Kovalchuk the difference in Game 6
- Devils eliminate Rangers in Game 6, ending fear of the past, setting course for the future
