The Prospect Cupboard

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by HighLifeMan

I don't know why people question his offensive upside.. Sean had better numbers as a 16 year old than Alex Galchenyuk for example...this is a player who missed his entire draft year and was still a top three draft pick.

It's not Monahans fault that his team got dismantled and purged of any and all offensive support. The second leading scorer on the 67's was a 15 year old kid for crying out loud, and Sean basically doubled his production.

No he didn't. Galchenyuk had 83 points, Monohan had 47. Now Galchenyuk was 8 months older or so... but it wasn't that close. (Galchenyuk did play with Yakapov, Monohan had a decent team but was used more as a 2nd/3rd line centre as a rookie)

[gargamel]

Originally Posted by GGG

I also think the best 30 criteria is also flawed. You don't want the 30th best center on your team. You want a number 1 center who is capable of being on a cup winning team. So I think there really are only 10 to 20 number one centers in the league.

Same with starting goalies there might be 30 of them but maybe 15 you would be comfortable with going into the playoffs.

So when you say you want a number 1 center you don't want a top 30 center you want a top 15 center because the rest are just filling space on bad teams.

That's the key. By definition, there are 30 first line centers, 30 starting goaltenders, and 60 top pairing D-men in the NHL, but there are maybe half as many of each who are capable of playing those roles on championship teams. Hopefully Monahan develops into that kind of player, but it's way too early for me to make a prediction about that either way.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by GGG

I also think the best 30 criteria is also flawed. You don't want the 30th best center on your team. You want a number 1 center who is capable of being on a cup winning team. So I think there really are only 10 to 20 number one centers in the league.

Same with starting goalies there might be 30 of them but maybe 15 you would be comfortable with going into the playoffs.

So when you say you want a number 1 center you don't want a top 30 center you want a top 15 center because the rest are just filling space on bad teams.

Obviously.

What you want (one of the better ones) and how you define a group (which includes the better and the lesser) are two different things.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

What you want (one of the better ones) and how you define a group (which includes the better and the lesser) are two different things.

Not only that, but even on a championship team it's rare to have a top-15 player at every position. Especially with a salary cap, you're always going to have areas that are comparatively weak.

Even the '89 Flames were that way. This was a team so deep and so dominant that it could have Jiri Hrdina and Theo Fleury fighting it out for ice time on the 4th line. But the top two LWs were Gary Roberts (before he broke out as a scorer) and Colin Patterson — and neither of those was a top-15 LW in the NHL at that time.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Obviously.

What you want (one of the better ones) and how you define a group (which includes the better and the lesser) are two different things.

But in a message board discussion when someone states they want a number 1 center they mean a number one on a championship potential team. We say we wanted a number 1 center for iggy. Well by the definition of top 30 we have had several. Lankow for a few years, Conroy, Joki. But I still think everyone would agree Iggy needed a number 1 center.

So if you want to argue Semantics you are right that there are 30 players who are number 1 centers. If you want to have a discussion with other people the intent of what they mean is more important and when someone says number 1 center they mean championship caliber center not a top 30 center.

[HighLifeMan]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

No he didn't. Galchenyuk had 83 points, Monohan had 47. Now Galchenyuk was 8 months older or so... but it wasn't that close. (Galchenyuk did play with Yakapov, Monohan had a decent team but was used more as a 2nd/3rd line centre as a rookie)

You know what I meant... Sean Monahan had a better numbers than Alex Galchenyuk in the season prior to their respective draft years.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by GGG

But in a message board discussion when someone states they want a number 1 center they mean a number one on a championship potential team. We say we wanted a number 1 center for iggy. Well by the definition of top 30 we have had several. Lankow for a few years, Conroy, Joki. But I still think everyone would agree Iggy needed a number 1 center.

So if you want to argue Semantics you are right that there are 30 players who are number 1 centers. If you want to have a discussion with other people the intent of what they mean is more important and when someone says number 1 center they mean championship caliber center not a top 30 center.

Ummm, that's all true except for the fact that the conversation was actually about what constitutes a #1 C, not who we wanted as a #1 C. At least tat was the aspect of the conversation I was responding to.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Ummm, that's all true except for the fact that the conversation was actually about what constitutes a #1 C, not who we wanted as a #1 C. At least tat was the aspect of the conversation I was responding to.

So did Iggy play with a number 1 center in his years with the Calgary flames?

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by GGG

So did Iggy play with a number 1 center in his years with the Calgary flames?

You and I appear to be in two different conversations.

But to answer your question, I would argue that Conroy, at his best, was a marginal #1 C. And I would probably say the same thing about Langkow.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

You and I appear to be in two different conversations.

But to answer your question, I would argue that Conroy, at his best, was a marginal #1 C. And I would probably say the same thing about Langkow.

And Jokinen.

[Flash Walken]

I think the best way to judge the top tier or elite talents or however you want to call them is in the following way.

If you moved them from the team they are currently on to any of the top 15 teams in the league, would they retain their position?

For example: Bouwmeester. If you put Bouwmeester on half of the teams in the league, would he still be a top pairing defender on that roster? I would say that, yes, he would be a top pairing defender on any team in the NHL. If you apply the same standard to Giordano, who is a top pairing defender for Calgary, the answer is significantly different.

Another example: Alex Tanguay. Is Alex Tanguay a top line winger in the NHL? On the Calgary Flames, he is a top line winger. I would say, no, on the majority of contending NHL teams, he is not a top line winger, he is a depth winger.

There just isn't 30 top centres and 30 top goalies and 60 top defenders in the league.

[Day Tripper]

Originally Posted by GGG

I also think the best 30 criteria is also flawed. You don't want the 30th best center on your team. You want a number 1 center who is capable of being on a cup winning team. So I think there really are only 10 to 20 number one centers in the league.

Same with starting goalies there might be 30 of them but maybe 15 you would be comfortable with going into the playoffs.

So when you say you want a number 1 center you don't want a top 30 center you want a top 15 center because the rest are just filling space on bad teams.

The Bruins had zero centers in the top 15 last season, nor did they have any in the top 15 the year they won the cup. Were Bergeron and Krejci "just filling space on bad teams"?

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Day Tripper

The Bruins had zero centers in the top 15 last season, nor did they have any in the top 15 the year they won the cup. Were Bergeron and Krejci "just filling space on bad teams"?

Exactly.

There is no strict forumla to winning a cup.

There are a lot of teams that have great centres, defencemen, and goalies but can't win due to chemistry/toughness/depth issues.

[FlameZilla]

Who is the better prospect: Monahan or Baertschi?

[standinmotion]

Originally Posted by FlameZilla

Who is the better prospect: Monahan or Baertschi?

Monahan on paper.

[Caged Great]

Monahan without question. Sven is older, so we've seen more of him, but in terms of potential, Sean > Sven.

[Enoch Root]

potential is only one factor (though obviously a very big one)

NHL readiness is a factor as well IMO. And the combination of potential + NHL readiness gives Baertschi the edge for me.

That could change very quickly however.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by Caged Great

Monahan without question. Sven is older, so we've seen more of him, but in terms of potential, Sean > Sven.

Agreed.

Sven will put up more points but Monahan is the total package.

[moon]

Originally Posted by FlameZilla

Who is the better prospect: Monahan or Baertschi?

Monahan is the better prospect but at the end of the day that doesn't mean a whole bunch as we have seen with plenty of "top prospects."

Monahan seems to have a better all round game with similar offensive upside. He also has the added benefit of being able to fit in a secondary role as a top defensive center if he doesn't work out as a top line offensive player. Not sure how effective Sven will be if he is not scoring.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by moon

Monahan is the better prospect but at the end of the day that doesn't mean a whole bunch as we have seen with plenty of "top prospects."

Monahan seems to have a better all round game with similar offensive upside. He also has the added benefit of being able to fit in a secondary role as a top defensive center if he doesn't work out as a top line offensive player. Not sure how effective Sven will be if he is not scoring.

I think Sven has an underrated two-way game in him....