Quote:
Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina
Are there?
If we look at last year's bottom teams:
San Jose: Celebrini 63
Chicago: Bedard 67
Nashville: Forsberg 76
Philly: Konecny 76
Boston: Pastrnak 106 (exception to be sure)
Seattle: McCann 61
Buffalo: Thompson 72
Anaheim: Terry 55
Pittsburgh: Crosby 91 (another exception)
NYI: Horvat 57
Calgary had Kadri at 67.
So of the bottom teams, they almost all have a lack of a high scorer. The 2 exceptions are teams that have an elite player holding over from their competitive days.
|
I guess it depends how we define "high scoring". These are not super star numbers but I would say 70+ points and/or between 0.9-.095 points per game is pretty good (many of the players you listed did not play a full 82). If Huberdeau could put up near a point per game on Calgary, I think that contract becomes tradeable especially with the rising cap and GMs extrapolating what he might be able to do with additional talent around him.
This was not brought up in my original point but I'd also add that context matters as well in terms of player development and my general enjoyment of hockey. Only two of the non playoff teams scored less than Calgary and 63 from a rookie in San Jose (who only played 70 games), 67 from Bedard is not the same as 67 from a 35 year old Kadri in terms of my excitement as a fan. Those teams also have even less talent at the moment (not projected) than Calgary because of their burn it down style rebuild.
So the question, I go back to is... Will top prospects have the same opportunity in Calgary as they do in other markets or are they stapled to the third / fourth lines until they are deemed responsible enough for more minutes while veterans eat ice time? I can't say for sure but it feels like that would happen in our system but the good thing is we won't have to wait long to see with Parekh given our start.