[FanIn80]

First, some definitions:

ETL (Elite Top-Line): "Generational talent"
TL (Top-Line): Top-Line player. "Legit #1F", if you will.
T6 (Top-Six): A second-line player that is good enough to fill in on the top line.
M6 (Middle-Six): A third-line player that is good enough to fill in on the second line.
B6 (Bottom-Six): Third and fourth line players that are not good enough to fill in on the second line.

My contention is that there are only certain combinations that can reliably produce wins over an extended (measurable) period of time. I also believe that higher talent can compensate for larger combinational gaps than lesser talents can. For example, my belief is that an ETL can produce better results with two M6s than two T6s can with one M6.

Top-six combinations that have won the last three Cups:

Pittsburgh
L1: ETL, M6, M6 (Crosby, Sheary, Guentzel)
L2: TL, T6, B6 (Malkin, Kessel, Hornqvist)

Washington
L1: ETL, TL, TL (Ovechkin, Kuznetzov, Backstrom)
L2: T6, M6, M6 (Oshie, Eller, Wilson)

St, Louis
L1: TL, TL, T6 (O'Riley, Tarasenko, Perron)
L2: T6, T6, M6 (Schenn, Bozak, Schwartz)

Now look at Calgary's roster, and see if we can put anything together comes close to matching any of the three combinations that have won the last three Cups.

TLs
Tkachuk

T6s
Gaudreau
Monahan
Lindholm

M6s
Backlund
Mangiapane
Ryan

B6s
Bennett
Dube
Jankowski
Lucic
Rieder
Rinaldo

So now that brings us to Defence:

ETP (Elite Top-Pair): "Generational Talent" (for Defence)
TP (Top-Pair): A top-pairing defenceman
T4 (Top-4): Second-pairing defenceman who can fill in on the top pairing
B4 (Bottom-4): Third-paring defenceman who can fill in on the second pairing
BP (Bottom-Pair): A bottom-pairing defenceman

My contention is that you don't just need good defence, you need good defence that can transition to good offence (either on their own or by getting the puck up to the forwards). Shot-blockers and zone-clearers are not T4 roles anymore.

Top-four combinations of the last three Cup winners:

Pittsburgh
P1: ETP, B4 (Letang, Hainsey)
P2: T4, T4 (Dumoulin, Schultz)

Washington
P1: ETP, T4 (Carlson, Orlov)
P2: B4, BP (Niskanen, Orpik)

St. Louis
P1: TP, T4 (Pietrangelo, Parayko)
P2: T4, T4 (Bouwmeester, Dunn)

Calgary's roster, for comparison

TPs
Giordano

T4s
Andersson
Brodie
Hanifin

B4s
Hamonic
Kylington

BP
Stone


--------------------------------------------------------------

The point: Talent-Level Combinations should matter when determining value.

For instance, someone might look at an M6 and think there's no trade value there... but an M6 can win a Cup on the top line on the right team. It's all about maximizing combinations.

If a team wants to win, they should't care too much about judging value inside a vacuum. If you look at Hamonic on his own, he's a solid bottom-pair defensive defenceman who can fill in on the second pair. Not a lot of value when trying to upgrade your top-six forwards. But... on a team with the right Talent-Level Combinations, Hamonic can be the piece you need to win a Cup, which makes him much more valuable to that team.

It works the other way, too. People like to think Backlund is too valuable to move, but are they looking at him in a vacuum? Backlund is a great two-way third-line forward that can fill in on the second-line. Sounds pretty good, but we're a team that 1) isn't deep enough to play him on the third line, and 2) doesn't have high enough Talent Level players to make him a full-time second-line player.

And that's my point. It's not just about individual talent. It's about the combinations you can make with those talents.

I look at this team's roster and I can see we can't possibly come up with a top-six combination that can win a Cup. So what do we do? We have the D combinations that can win, but if we dip into that to boost our top-six, aren't we just selling our hair to buy a brush?

I think I've blown past my point now, and I'm starting to get into other areas that this topic isn't really about, so I'll stop there... but I would be interested in reading what people think about all of this.