New Team, Who You Got?

You get to start a new team with any one player currently on the Capital's roster. Who do you pick?

7 months ago Drubert90 23 comments 0 recs |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

No Brainer: Ovechkin

Winnipeg? Winnipeg??? Oy! (And now it's official...)

by MikeL-Pivonka on Nov 2, 2011 9:16 AM EDT reply actions

Not necessarily. Do we take into account age and contract status? Because then I may be tempted with Backstrom or one of the D. Maybe.

Red Line Station and @RedArmyLine, featuring coverage of the most frustrating team in the NHL
I believe in next year.

by red army line on Nov 2, 2011 11:39 AM EDT up reply actions

Yeah, when I was thinking about this contract status and age all came into play.

by Drubert90 on Nov 2, 2011 12:02 PM EDT up reply actions

with the cap seemingly increasing a little each year,and ovechkin’s age, I don’t see how “age and contract” could change the decision from being ovechkin at all.

The idea of this is to select a player to build your team around. Meaning, you WOULD be keeping them long term anyway. While Nick would be certainly be a good choice, I think I’d still have to go with the generational talent in #8.

by aaw6848 on Nov 2, 2011 12:26 PM EDT up reply actions

Backstrom is two draft years younger, just entering his prime, plays a more important postiion, and on a better contract.

Red Line Station and @RedArmyLine, featuring coverage of the most frustrating team in the NHL
I believe in next year.

by red army line on Nov 2, 2011 1:40 PM EDT up reply actions

I’m with you, don’t think it’s a no-brainer. I’d probably have Nick or Carlson, but Carlson needs a new deal soon.

Please, call me F&B.

by Rob Parker on Nov 2, 2011 1:45 PM EDT up reply actions

just to clarify, I wasn’t the one saying it was a no-brainer. Just that “age and contract” as the deciding factors doesn’t do it for me.

by aaw6848 on Nov 2, 2011 1:47 PM EDT up reply actions

“Plays a More important position” – Yes

“Two draft years younger” – Yes

“Just entering his prime” – Didn’t we determine statistical prime was 27 to 31? Either way, 23 years vs 26 years old shouldn’t make THAT big of a difference – particularly when discussing players of such high caliber.

“Better contract” – Maybe. Being frustrated at ovechkin’s recent play isn’t enough to cause me to totally turn my back and think his contract is bad.

I wouldn’t want Ovechkin to be on any other team in the league. IF push came to shove, I’d feel more comfortable with my team lining up against Backstrom over Ovechkin.

by aaw6848 on Nov 2, 2011 1:46 PM EDT up reply actions

I’m with F&B – Backstrom or Carlson.

Once you take the fisting element out, it's not romantic anymore.

by Steckel Me Elmo on Nov 2, 2011 3:47 PM EDT reply actions

I’m with Pivonka – I think it’s Ovechkin and think it’s pretty simple. Love NB and RAHJC, but I don’t think they’re franchise cornerstones, and I still think Ovie is that. Backstrom is the only other slightly tempting candidate for me, if only because his deal is more palatable and he’s hot right now.

by grapejoos on Nov 2, 2011 4:12 PM EDT reply actions

Two big things stopping me from choosing Ovechkin:

1) He plays the least important position on the ice.

2) His contract is terrible. That contract is going to be a 13 year anchor; there is no way he is going to live up to this contract.

It also doesn’t help that he hasn’t shown great evolution in his game since he’s come into the league.

Once you take the fisting element out, it's not romantic anymore.

by Steckel Me Elmo on Nov 2, 2011 4:26 PM EDT up reply actions

1) True, but it doesn’t mean he’s not valuable

2) We don’t know that he won’t. So far he’s lived up to it quite nicely.

Winnipeg? Winnipeg??? Oy! (And now it's official...)

by MikeL-Pivonka on Nov 3, 2011 12:53 PM EDT up reply actions

1) True, but it doesn’t mean he’s not valuable

There’s talent everywhere. You could pay market or above market for talent—that’s likely how AO is going to end up, since I don’t see the cap increasing as quickly as it is today—or pay below market with a guy like Backstrom and use the extra money for a strong supporting cast.

2) We don’t know that he won’t. So far he’s lived up to it quite nicely.

In the prime of his career, scoring-wise. Unless he turns into a defensive stud, well, off the top of my head the only guys I can think of who can play like $10 million players and are over 30 years old are Datsyuk and Lidstrom.

Red Line Station and @RedArmyLine, featuring coverage of the most frustrating team in the NHL
I believe in next year.

by red army line on Nov 5, 2011 5:23 PM EDT up reply actions

In fairness, he’s had one down season at 32-53-85. Prior to that, he put up three straight 100-point seasons, and hit 110 in two of them (and missed 110 by one point in the third).

I think it’s way too early to start calling his contract an albatross. If last year turns out to be a fluke and he’s back to 100/110 point seasons, I’m completely okay with it.

That said, if he has another couple of years like last season, yeah, the contract starts to look pretty bad. But we’re not there yet.

by Murshawursha on Nov 3, 2011 7:30 PM EDT up reply actions

My fear with Ovie’s deal is that he’s had one down season, true, but to me he hasn’t been the full-out, joyful player he was before the Campbel suspension. He has been a very good player since then, but not arguably the best player on the planet, which he clearly was before that day in Chicago. His contract is not one you would give a very good player…

by Boodgiesdad on Nov 4, 2011 3:59 PM EDT up reply actions

I agree with you, he has seemed more reserved (I also seem to remember he was a bit more happy-go-lucky before he got the captaincy) but I’m still waiting to see how he does this season before I start worrying.

by Murshawursha on Nov 4, 2011 4:33 PM EDT up reply actions

I agree with those points, although does the contract come with him?

On the open market today I doubt he’s getting 9-10M for that long a term. Seems like he’s trending towards perennial all-star rather than generational talent.

It isn’t even anger-inducing. It does not seem to be worth that kind of emotional investment. It might not even be disappointing any more. It is expected.

-Peerless 5.6.2011

by macvechkin on Nov 2, 2011 4:50 PM EDT reply actions

Isn’t a generational talent a guy who’s “generational” for a few years and “only” a “perennial all-star” the others? Few players kick everyone else’s ass for more than three or four years, especially when their careers overlap with those of other generational talents who live up further north (and south, maybe).

Red Line Station and @RedArmyLine, featuring coverage of the most frustrating team in the NHL
I believe in next year.

by red army line on Nov 2, 2011 5:39 PM EDT up reply actions

This makes sense. It is the very rare talent that is at the very top for almost a decade in terms of dominating their sport. There are only a few athletes who can claim long-term clear #1 status. I’m going to limit the list to my lifetime and to North America:

Baseball – nobody
Football – nobody
Basketball – Michael Jordan
Hockey – Wayne Gretzky, Bobby Orr
Tennis – Bjorn Borg
Auto Racing – Jimmie Johnson
Track – Carl Lewis
Golf – Tiger Woods

That’s pretty much it. These guys were champions or MVPs for many years running… and the time range for my list here spans pretty much half a century.

Winnipeg? Winnipeg??? Oy! (And now it's official...)

by MikeL-Pivonka on Nov 3, 2011 12:51 PM EDT up reply actions

Thats way too narrow a list of generational talents. I got to believe they are allowed to overlap. Federer, Sampras, Mario, Bird, Magic, Puljos, Arod, Peyton, Brady

all were/are champions or MVPs for multiple years or both.

in hockey alone i think you have to look at Hasek and Messier as also fitting the bill.

If Ovi wins one more Hart and his Caps win a cup, he’ll only be the 7th player in history to win 3 Harts and at least one Cup.

by 718CapsFan on Nov 4, 2011 12:05 AM EDT up reply actions

Gonna leave out the King Richard Petty? NASCAR’s not a sport where you can use championships to define generational talent. Jimmie Johnson’s team is stellar.

"Don't mind WM...he's an all-around jerk."

by Whiter Mage on Nov 9, 2011 12:31 AM EST up reply actions

Isn’t a generational talent a guy who’s "generational" for a few years and "only" a "perennial all-star" the others?

Dominating the league for 3 years does not make you a generational talent, in my opinion. He’s got a lot going for him, but the days of 50 goals and 100 points, I’d be mildly surprised if those were ever reached again. I think in 5 years the context will be clearer.

It isn’t even anger-inducing. It does not seem to be worth that kind of emotional investment. It might not even be disappointing any more. It is expected.

-Peerless 5.6.2011

by macvechkin on Nov 4, 2011 1:26 PM EDT up reply actions

How do you define generation? 10 years? In 2015 I’m certain AO will be on the shortlist of “best players of the last 10 years” (along with Crosby and a couple of other players). 20 years? A little more iffy, but he should be there, too. I don’t think we’ve seen a guy have a sustained period of dominance over this league, scoring wise, since Lemieux/Jagr in the 90s (at least, none I can remember). We’ve seen a few more clearly be the best for a few years, elite for many more.

Red Line Station and @RedArmyLine, featuring coverage of the most frustrating team in the NHL
I believe in next year.

by red army line on Nov 5, 2011 5:27 PM EDT up reply actions