Langkow was already be here. You're right, Tanguay would've likely not been acquired. Huselius may have still been acquired, can't remember if it was before or after the Thornton trade. Conroy and Aucoin weren't on the team. Acquiring a guy like Thornton would've altered the subsequent transactions so it's not even worth going into. My point is I would get that true #1 center and worry about the other stuff later. Build the foundation for the house before you build the kitchen and bathroom.
And I disagree that the defense would've been ugly, it would be average at best but teams have made the playoffs with worse. Teams don't win in the playoffs without a true #1 center though, so that absolutely would've been my priority. After that I would focus on defense, which might have taken a season or two to improve to contender status, but if that's the price for acquiring Thornton, I would've gladly paid it.
Shoot, my bad. I got my wires crossed remembering a defenseman went to PHX...... my apologies. You are right, Langkow would have been here.
But I guess herein lies the point, you have Langkow already at C, we are a team built on team defense.... do you move out your cornerstone 25 year old, who just came back from playing on Team Canada, for another C when you have a consistant, 2-way center who puts up 20 goals / 50 points?
Again, personally, I don't think having Thornton instead of Regehr/Tanguay would have meant we would have had a cup... there are no guarantees.
Since people want to probe exactly who I put blame on, if I really were to put my finger on it.... Mike Keenan. We were a crossbar away from beating Anahaim who I believe won the cup that year, but after that, the whole organization of the team was a gong show, nobody was on the same page, and it pretty much got to the point of no repair by 2011.
__________________
"With a coach and a player, sometimes there's just so much respect there that it's boils over"
-Taylor Hall
I think you've just shown what I said. None of those centres were elite centres. They were a tier below IMO. And that's good enough if you have strong defence, great goaltending and team offence.
The 04 Flames may be an outlier but it was replicated with Pronger and Edmonton, and a few other teams that made it close. It wasn't because of a lack of centre depth they ultimately lost - it was their defence getting very depleted.
Krejci was absolutely elite that spring. Plus they had Chara and Thomas being elite. I already said you could win a cup with a true star #1 D instead of a #1 C, luckily Boston had both that spring. That isn't to sday currently Krejci is an elite #1 C, but for that spring he was.
A Pronger or a Niedermayer might = a #1 Center but a guy like Regehr doesn't even come close IMO. RR was a great defensive dman but had some clear limitations, skating and passing among them. Can't compare him to a couple of star (HoF) two-way dmen, not even fair to Robyn. Those guys were every bit as good as Regehr in their own zone but light years ahead of him in every other way.
Those 2 were light years better, yes, but Regehr was still a Team Canada defenseman.
Also, IIRC its not like Thornton was on a closeout sale because they were overstocked... the critisism on Thornton was that he could not perform in the playoffs. Does it make sense to trade your cornerstone, top pairing defenseman who took you to the SCF... for a guy who a team (Boston) was getting rid of because they did not believe he could perform in the playoffs.
__________________
"With a coach and a player, sometimes there's just so much respect there that it's boils over"
-Taylor Hall
Krejci was absolutely elite that spring. Plus they had Chara and Thomas being elite. I already said you could win a cup with a true star #1 D instead of a #1 C, luckily Boston had both that spring. That isn't to sday currently Krejci is an elite #1 C, but for that spring he was.
I think that's a different definition of elite, then. That's like saying Gelinas was elite in 04. And it means that if you have the elite defenceman/goalie, maybe one of your great forwards plays at an elite level in the POs and you are there.
At the end of the day, I still think Thornton to Calgary, while terrific, would not get a cup if you remove Calgary's best defenceman. Not to mention the rumoured trade involved Calgary's best defensive forward as well.
I think the difference is my own preference when building a team, which is from the bottom, through the centre and outwards. I like to start with a great goalie. However, recognizing the difficulty of projecting that position, then I go top defensive pairing, then top centres, then the supporting cast. Example: this year, while the top line is performing at a high level, there's little doubt the success is mainly due to the top 4 defence and especially Giordano.
The bruins also had Krejci, who was an absolute monster that spring. Carolina had Staal and Brind'Amour, not Koivu. The devils were a bit of an exception but had players like Broten/Holik in 95, Gomez/Nieuwendyk/Madden in 03 and Arnott instead of Nieuwendyk in 2000. The big reasons the devils never need a true star #1 were because of Niedermayer and Brodeur.
Are any of these players that much better then Daymond Langkow?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fire of the Phoenix
That 04 team was an outlier. I love them to pieces but that is not a championship blueprint, it was a Cinderella story of epic proportions. The success of which impacted Sutter's judgment of where the team was truly at in terms of it's development IMO. It was lightning in a bottle that changed the focus from the future to the present. Not the best comparable really, especially considering they lost.
Partially agree, but the following year, we were one of the top teams in the NHL and won the division.
I don't think it impacted Darryl's judgement, as I still remember the first comment he had after the 2004 cup run, when asked what the next step would be was to "get younger"
What Darryl did screw up was he lost touch with the pulse of the dressing room, as we moved towards Mike Keenan's chaotic style, we simply tried to accumulate talent without looking at the chemistry of players. About a month ago, Darryl, Warraner and Gelinas talked about this, the biggest part about the 2004 team (that you see now) was the chemistry of the team - in particular, it was Regehr, Montador and Ference. A large part of it was lost when Ference was delt, and it showed..... you aren't always just trying to accumulate talent and No 1 C's and No 1 D's, its about the team (and I quote from Bob Hartley last week, its not about just a team good players, its a team about good players).... you can see why the decisions that were made make sense from those.
Besides.... if a Thornton was so great, and there is a generic Stanley Cup recipe to build down the middle then you are set..... why doesn't Joe Thornton have a cup?
__________________
"With a coach and a player, sometimes there's just so much respect there that it's boils over"
-Taylor Hall
That's the point... you didn't. But like always, it's what you're insinuating.
Look at where this thread got off topic. When it was quickly brought up that Thornton has a rep for being no-show in the playoffs and how the team that was built around him never got it done you quickly bring up Iginla as a comparison without having the stones to actually come right out and say that.
You've been doing this for years.
You dance around suggesting there was nothing wrong with the way our offense was built from 2005-2012 with the intention of singling out Iginla but never go so far as to come right out and say it. In either case, you're biased and out to lunch.
I think that's a different definition of elite, then. That's like saying Gelinas was elite in 04. And it means that if you have the elite defenceman/goalie, maybe one of your great forwards plays at an elite level in the POs and you are there.
At the end of the day, I still think Thornton to Calgary, while terrific, would not get a cup if you remove Calgary's best defenceman. Not to mention the rumoured trade involved Calgary's best defensive forward as well.
I think the difference is my own preference when building a team, which is from the bottom, through the centre and outwards. I like to start with a great goalie. However, recognizing the difficulty of projecting that position, then I go top defensive pairing, then top centres, then the supporting cast. Example: this year, while the top line is performing at a high level, there's little doubt the success is mainly due to the top 4 defence and especially Giordano.
Krejci was a force throughout those playoffs, on both sides of the puck, can't really describe Gelinas that way. Most of the Gelinas lore is due to his potting 3 SWG that spring. Not that he didn't play well outside of that, but I wouldn't describe him as dominant, not even close. Krejci was seriously dominate, almost to an 04 Iginla level at times, Gelinas was never that.
Agree to disagree on team building, we have differing philosophies, though not that much different. I value C more than D, though not by much. I would rather 1 star C, with 6 serviceable D then 1 star D with 4 serviceable C, if that makes any sense.
Arnott in 2000 was outstanding. That Sykora Elias Arnott line was a legit first line.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
The Following User Says Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
Krejci was a force throughout those playoffs, on both sides of the puck, can't really describe Gelinas that way. Most of the Gelinas lore is due to his potting 3 SWG that spring. Not that he didn't play well outside of that, but I wouldn't describe him as dominant, not even close. Krejci was seriously dominate, almost to an 04 Iginla level at times, Gelinas was never that.
Agree to disagree on team building, we have differing philosophies, though not that much different. I value C more than D, though not by much. I would rather 1 star C, with 6 serviceable D then 1 star D with 4 serviceable C, if that makes any sense.
I realize I just said this above your post, probably just after you hit "reply" ... but if so, why doesn't SJ / Thornton have a cup?
__________________
"With a coach and a player, sometimes there's just so much respect there that it's boils over"
-Taylor Hall
That's the point... you didn't. But like always, it's what you're insinuating.
Look at where this thread got off topic. When it was quickly brought up that Thornton has a rep for being no-show in the playoffs and how the team that was built around him never got it done you quickly bring up Iginla as a comparison without having the stones to actually come right out and say that.
You've been doing this for years.
You dance around suggesting there was nothing wrong with the way our offense was built from 2005-2012 with the intention of singling out Iginla but never go so far as to come right out and say it. In either case, you're biased and out to lunch.
Can you debate him without being so aggressive please? You are melting down over your perception of what he is insinuating. That's hardly fair. And even if that is what he is suggesting - there is no need to go off the deep end.
In short - calm down. He can have his opinion. You can have yours.
So now that Wilson has said Joe isn't going anywhere, how long until he's not on the Sharks? I think Joe is an awesome player and would LOVE him on the Flames but I think as long as he's in San Jose, that team will be average at best.
He isn't going anywhere, he has a NMC and wants to stay. This is Wilson realizing no matter what he does Joe is not getting pushed out so now he is trying to swing the other way and undo as much PR damage as he can.
Besides.... if a Thornton was so great, and there is a generic Stanley Cup recipe to build down the middle then you are set..... why doesn't Joe Thornton have a cup?
They played their centers as wingers? They rarely played Thornton, Pavelski, and Couture down the middle.
