JB: I’ll make the phone call about the 1st overall pick

[SabreFan1]

2 hours ago, IBatch said:

He’d be awesome in today’s game, checking isn’t illegal, just checks to the head and he played all but his first couple years in the dead puck era (and even those years scoring was on a decline).  He was built for that era given he could bulldog away from the hooks and holds, but imagine what he could do without that hooking and holding in the first place.  It was a rodeo back then, watch some Lemuiex highlights and it’s amazing how much I have forgotten about how the game was played, he’s always scoring while getting taken down or two or three guys on him with holds and hooks (no penalties of course). 

 

Remember who else was playing at the time, Bure, Federov, Yzerman, Sakic, Selanne, Kariya, Hull....there was a huge list of guys and during that time for a three or four year period he was considered the best of them all.  How would these guys fair today?  Pretty awesome I’d say.

 

Imagine how many goals Bure would have playing today too...I feel bad for guys that spent the bulk of their careers in a ten year time period from the time NJ won their first cup until the lockout year.  Hockey needed a shot to the arm by then.  Lindros was Uber skilled and Uber sized.  A tank on skates that moved with the best of them (his stickhandling was better than his skating IMO, as was his passing and shot).

 

edit:  As per the hype I’d say he did live up to it, what was it his third year in he won his hardware?  It was short lived (like I say three of four years) but it was there, and PHI entered their final the favourites to win and Detroit spoiled their party.   Shanny talks about it how all the press were telling them it was Eric’s time and they didn’t have a chance, and how three shifts in he knew they were going to beat them on toughness which they did...that 97-98 two cup team was ruthless.

I +1'd you then read your edit.  Do you remember analysts back in the day calling Lindros, "The Next One"?  He turned out to be an excellent player, but in no way did he approach his hype.  Would he have won another Hart if he was more durable?  Possibly.  The same can be said about former prize fighters though. 

 

That's where my occasional musings of Lindros in today's game come in.  Would he have dominated today's game?  Goalie's are better now as a whole than they were back then (even though some of the greatest ever played in the 90's) and the game has more skilled big guys than it's ever had.  And defenses are much tighter these days. 

 

If I had to guess, he'd be comparable to his middle years, but his career would have lasted much longer.  So I think he'd still end up as a borderline HoF'er even in taday's game.  His skating and accuracy on that large frame would be fun to watch these days.

[TimberWolf]

Even Bowman couldn't get the first with anything on this team we would be willing to part with but nothing wrong with due diligence

[SabreFan1]

11 minutes ago, Alflives said:

Lindt is was great, but the Flyers gave the Nordiques/Avs a couple cups with the traded assets used to get him, didn’t they?  

Pretty much since Thibault was essentially part of the package and since he was the toss-in that sealed the Roy trade, they were able to win the Cup.

[SuperJr]

18 hours ago, DeNiro said:

Obviously Pettersson, Boeser, Horvat, and Hughes are off the table. I think most GMs would realize that.

 

If there's a trade to be made that doesn't absolutely destroy our prospect depth, I'm sure Benning will consider it.

I would move Horvat as part of the deal. If u got Hughes and Petterrson down the middle, u don’t need Horvat as your 3rd C when u also have Adam G.

[Alflives]

Just now, SuperJr said:

I would move Horvat as part of the deal. If u got Hughes and Petterrson down the middle, u don’t need Horvat as your 3rd C when u also have Adam G.

I was thinking the same thing.  Would our 10 OA + Bo be enough to get that first pick?  I don’t think it’s enough though.  I think the 

Devils would expect our 2020 first too.  

[greenbean30]

12 minutes ago, SuperJr said:

I would move Horvat as part of the deal. If u got Hughes and Petterrson down the middle, u don’t need Horvat as your 3rd C when u also have Adam G.

I wouldn’t do this personally. Hughes is small, and not gritty, Petey is tall and will probably fill out a bit, but he´s by no means a tough to play against player. Horvat is a great 2 way forward, who can drive the net and can also play that gritty game when need be. I would also say that by the time he’s done developing he will be a 70-80pt a year player who will be a beast in the Playoffs.

You don’t want your top two centers to be the same type of player. You need the balance of a two way guy who can put up points and the guy who is strictly offence, not that Petey is strictly offence, but that’s his main purpose on our team.

 

I don’t think Jack Hughes is going to be better than Bo Horvat and whoever we select at 10th Overall combined. Hell, he might not even turn out to be as good as Horvat is now. Not worth the risk in my opinion to trade our upcoming captain and best two way forward for an unknown.

[Nuxfanabroad]

38 minutes ago, SabreFan1 said:

Most people believe Hughes will be a star, but for sure the hype has dimmed a little over the last couple of years.

 

Lindros was the poster boy for the danger of hyping up a superior junior player too much.

He was a natural extension of what defined the 80's. After a decade of Gretz, Mario(& to lesser extent), Hawerchuk, Lafontaine & Stevie Y, fans believed a star C was ingredient #1. Then factor in this behemoth star/giant was developing perfectly in hockey-rabid Ontario..well, Quebec was smart to make that deal. The market was primed. Was so smart they couldn't help themselves & traded him TWICE :^)

 

It's SO hard to see where things are going, as opposed to reviewing(& being heavily influenced by) recent history of the past 5, 10 yrs.

 

Also recall that the Nords had THREE straight #1's..& would deal them all(within a few yrs). So many riches accumulated, of COURSE they'd transfer the franchise to the *******States!

[Glug Datt]

19 hours ago, NewbieCanuckFan said:

Lou isn’t going to accept to change a dollar for a few dimes (eg., anybody not named EP, Boeser, Hughes and Woo).

what would balance out 10th + Markstrom for 1st + Schneider? 

[IBatch]

1 hour ago, SabreFan1 said:

Most people believe Hughes will be a star, but for sure the hype has dimmed a little over the last couple of years.

 

Lindros was the poster boy for the danger of hyping up a superior junior player too much.

I don’t think Lindros disappointed other than a career shortened to injuries, much like Bure and Forsberg.  Daigle is the guy you should use about hyping a superior junior player, he was hyped pretty much to the same degree as Lindros, Crosby and McDavid, and was a huge bust based on that.  It screwed things up royally for the Sens as Yashin was obviously the better player yet he wasn’t getting paid as much, which ignited the whole contract issue and eventual trade to the Islanders.  

 

Hughes has all the markings for a future star...but you never really do know.

[shiznak]

46 minutes ago, SuperJr said:

I would move Horvat as part of the deal. If u got Hughes and Petterrson down the middle, u don’t need Horvat as your 3rd C when u also have Adam G.

Come playoff time you win with guys like Horvat.

 

You ask any Chicago fans out there, who was more important to the team when they won those three Cups, Toews or Kane? I would say the majority of them will say Toews.

 

[IBatch]

46 minutes ago, SabreFan1 said:

Pretty much since Thibault was essentially part of the package and since he was the toss-in that sealed the Roy trade, they were able to win the Cup.

In a re-do Forsberg would have been a fair trade plus maybe a second.   They also got Ricci, Simon and picks...not a fair trade.  But they did the right thing in drafting him despite Lindros saying he’d never play for them.  Their GM said at the time come play with us and you will be a God.  Eric never wanted that which is why he didn’t go, but it ended up creating optics that he didn’t like French people etc.  When he went there for his first game the fans threw soothers at him and wore diapers ... calling him a baby etc.  

 

Dont think that COL would have been as good with just Lindros...and they never ever in a million years would have got Roy if they stayed in Quebec as they wouldn’t send him to a team in the same conference let alone their biggest rival at the time. 

 

Still i I felt bad that a year after they moved COL won a cup.  Nords fans have about as much reason to feel slighted and wronged as we do, more actually because they don’t have a team despite meeting all the criteria Buttman layed out.  They built a 400 million (800 relative to today’s costs in a US city) arena that’s selling concerts and collecting dust.  Why don’t they just move ARI there, they would sell out for years if not decades from fear alone (of losing another franchise), and create a lot more income than at least the bottom ten currently in the NHL.  It’s ludicrous that Miami, CAR and ARI wouldn’t survive without revenue sharing and the league sits on a market that’s starving for hockey, and is no different than WNP or even CAL in market size...all seven Canadian teams are gold...why not add another or bring one back?

[peaches5]

1 hour ago, The Great Canucks said:

Umm, no. Horvat isn't expendable, especially for a player who is actually projected to play wing in the NHL.

Projected by who? One blog, you found off the internet? 

[greenbean30]

12 minutes ago, shiznak said:

Come playoff time you win with guys like Horvat.

 

You ask any Chicago fans out there, who was more important to the team when they won those three Cups, Toews or Kane? I would say the majority of them will say Toews.

 

Oh 100%. There were people on this board saying that Toews was the best center in the game and better than Crosby. I mean they were obviously nuts, but that’s how good Toews was for the Blackhawks for their cup runs. 

Kane was good, but Toews was their warrior and that is what you need.

[IBatch]

21 minutes ago, greenbean30 said:

Oh 100%. There were people on this board saying that Toews was the best center in the game and better than Crosby. I mean they were obviously nuts, but that’s how good Toews was for the Blackhawks for their cup runs. 

Kane was good, but Toews was their warrior and that is what you need.

Not that Kane is chopped liver, didn’t he win a conn smythe one year?  It’s like Crosby and Malkin, both play their part and together they are golden, but without the other no cups are won.  Both Kane and Toews had their best seasons since their big contracts, and of the two Kane has by far been their better player overall.  Yes Toews was important during their cup runs, and he also had a career year (for all those that think Karlsson is done please wake up, he won’t be done until he’s on his second UFA contract, guys that play at the very top don’t decline until after 35, heck Burns is peaking right now and that’s actually more common for defenseman than you’d think, Keith did too, Lidstrom, Visnovksy, Zubov, Chelios, Borque, Blake, Mcinnis, Pronger, Coffey all had monster seasons in their thirties and Karlsson is right at the very top of defenseman all-time ....  when did Cooke stomp on his ankle again and sever his Achilles’ tendon?  He played some great hockey since, this year it was his GROIN.    Enough about that, yes he obviously comes with some risk but to suggest his best hockey is behind him is very naive.  A lot of people thought Crosby was done five or six years ago...turns out he wasn’t and still is one of the top three players in the league.  From Dec until his GROIN injury (I’m yelling for all those that keep saying ankle, I mean at least find out WHEN he had that injury hint it was way before he took OTT to one goal from the final) he was on pace to obliterate his previous individual records and that includes a slow start (and if your interested about that google what Wilson had to say about that, hint it took the entire team a while to anticipate what EK could do, and once they did they were both hard to beat and Karlsson had a monster six weeks before back to the infirmary) he was piling up points at a ridiculous rate. 

 

These top hundred all-time types (and yes Malkin shouldn’t have been snubbed), don’t grow on trees, they are remarkable players.  And Karlsson is one of three other defenseman EVER to be in the top ten in scoring as many times as he’s done it.  Joining only Coffey, Orr (who won Art Ross trophies) and Potvin, guys in my mind could be top three all-time.  At least top five maybe Borque should be added.  No Lidstrom sorry if you couldn’t beat those guys (Borque, Mcinnis, Coffey, Chelios) in your prime you don’t get a top five all-time handle ...top ten maybe.

[Rindiculous]

20 hours ago, Generational.EP40 said:

This should make for an interesting scenario. 1) A trade is agreed to for 1st overall 2) Possibly Hall is discussed for #10 if a player we like isn’t there come our selection 3) Stand pat 4) Maybe trade down and recoup more picks 5) regardless of all those, maybe even trade back into the 1st round by packaging the 2nd round pick along with a mid round pick. 

I'm actually very intrigued about this possibility.  Love a player like Taylor Hall who would immediately fix our lack of top end talent on the left side that's why I want a guy like Panarin in free agency.  Plus if we ever miss the playoffs with him, we're definitely gonna win the lottery.  One will have to break, Hall's luck, or Canuck's unluck, and I think the force with Hall is too big.

[SabreFan1]

53 minutes ago, IBatch said:

I don’t think Lindros disappointed other than a career shortened to injuries, much like Bure and Forsberg.  Daigle is the guy you should use about hyping a superior junior player, he was hyped pretty much to the same degree as Lindros, Crosby and McDavid, and was a huge bust based on that.  It screwed things up royally for the Sens as Yashin was obviously the better player yet he wasn’t getting paid as much, which ignited the whole contract issue and eventual trade to the Islanders.  

 

Hughes has all the markings for a future star...but you never really do know.

I guess disappointment is in the eye of the beholder.  To me not living up to his billing was disappointing.  I understand some of the biggest of reasons why he didn't, but as far as I'm concerned, they only explain what happened, they didn't negate it.

 

Of course there are loads of guys that disappointed much worse.  Anybody who still thinks that Eichel will develop into a generational player will be disappointed.  He will eventually go from star to superstar once the Sabres get their act together, but like I said early in his first season, he will never go above the superstar level.  For some that will be disappointing that he won't live up to that hype, for others they'll just enjoy watching his play.

[Me_]

Bettman goes up on stage.

 

Crowd boos Bettman.

 

”I think your gonna wanna hear this. We have a trade to announce.”

 

Crowd gets into it.

 

“New Jersey trades the first overall pick of the twenty nineteen entry draft to Vancouver...”

 

Crowd goes absolutely wild.

 

”...for the tenth overall in the twenty nineteen entry draft, Markstrom, Edler and Virtanen”

 

[greenbean30]

14 minutes ago, IBatch said:

Not that Kane is chopped liver, didn’t he win a conn smythe one year?  It’s like Crosby and Malkin, both play their part and together they are golden, but without the other no cups are won.  Both Kane and Toews had their best seasons since their big contracts, and of the two Kane has by far been their better player overall.  Yes Toews was important during their cup runs, and he also had a career year (for all those that think Karlsson is done please wake up, he won’t be done until he’s on his second UFA contract, guys that play at the very top don’t decline until after 35, heck Burns is peaking right now and that’s actually more common for defenseman than you’d think, Keith did too, Lidstrom, Visnovksy, Zubov, Chelios, Borque, Blake, Mcinnis, Pronger, Coffey all had monster seasons in their thirties and Karlsson is right at the very top of defenseman all-time ....  when did Cooke stomp on his ankle again and sever his Achilles’ tendon?  He played some great hockey since, this year it was his GROIN.    Enough about that, yes he obviously comes with some risk but to suggest his best hockey is behind him is very naive.  A lot of people thought Crosby was done five or six years ago...turns out he wasn’t and still is one of the top three players in the league.  From Dec until his GROIN injury (I’m yelling for all those that keep saying ankle, I mean at least find out WHEN he had that injury hint it was way before he took OTT to one goal from the final) he was on pace to obliterate his previous individual records and that includes a slow start (and if your interested about that google what Wilson had to say about that, hint it took the entire team a while to anticipate what EK could do, and once they did they were both hard to beat and Karlsson had a monster six weeks before back to the infirmary) he was piling up points at a ridiculous rate. 

 

These top hundred all-time types (and yes Malkin shouldn’t have been snubbed), don’t grow on trees, they are remarkable players.  And Karlsson is one of three other defenseman EVER to be in the top ten in scoring as many times as he’s done it.  Joining only Coffey, Orr (who won Art Ross trophies) and Potvin, guys in my mind could be top three all-time.  At least top five maybe Borque should be added.  No Lidstrom sorry if you couldn’t beat those guys (Borque, Mcinnis, Coffey, Chelios) in your prime you don’t get a top five all-time handle ...top ten maybe.

Oh I agree, Kane isn’t chopped liver at all and was pivotal to their cup runs as well. You need a balance, the Kane’s and the Toews. My point was, Toews was the warrior for them, like Horvat would be for us. Trade Horvat and run with EP and JH as our top two centers, I don’t think it’s set up for playoff success. (Yes I know Kane isn’t a centerman)

[IBatch]

1 hour ago, SabreFan1 said:

I +1'd you then read your edit.  Do you remember analysts back in the day calling Lindros, "The Next One"?  He turned out to be an excellent player, but in no way did he approach his hype.  Would he have won another Hart if he was more durable?  Possibly.  The same can be said about former prize fighters though. 

 

That's where my occasional musings of Lindros in today's game come in.  Would he have dominated today's game?  Goalie's are better now as a whole than they were back then (even though some of the greatest ever played in the 90's) and the game has more skilled big guys than it's ever had.  And defenses are much tighter these days. 

 

If I had to guess, he'd be comparable to his middle years, but his career would have lasted much longer.  So I think he'd still end up as a borderline HoF'er even in taday's game.  His skating and accuracy on that large frame would be fun to watch these days.

Sorry I don’t buy into that hockey players are better in general, goalies are better in general, players are fitter in general BS.  Roy popularized the butterfly and that is the only difference in goaltending, and the fact they are way way bigger now and cover more net (which percentage wise would mean more saved plus the size of the equipment to cover these monster sized goalies).  The butterfly alone added .10 on everyone’s save percentages, it’s smart given prior to it 9 out of 10 goals were scored along the ice.   What’s easier to do be a five foot seven stand up hybrid (Vernon) or a 6’6” butterfly hybrid with way more overall pad size?

 

The only thing that’s better now is diet, if you re-call by the eighties fitness and exercise was all the rage.  Those guys were just as ripped as anyone after them.  The 70’s yes I’d agree we are better than those guys, not to say there weren’t some incredible athletes then too because there was.  Howe was as fit as a heavyweight champion boxer when he was tested...was Ali not a good boxer because he was from a different era?

 

Also goalies like Parent and Dryden and Esposito have elite sp even by today’s standards, and don’t forget what Hasek did.  His was insane too.  Hockey is faster now, but they also had fast players back then too.  McDavid hasn’t beaten Gartners record yet because they made the starting position easier which cuts time. I’d say the nineties wasn’t any better or worse than today and those players would do just fine with no inference or obstruction...those guys were just as good as who is playing right now.

[SabreFan1]

11 minutes ago, IBatch said:

Sorry I don’t buy into that hockey players are better in general, goalies are better in general, players are fitter in general BS.  Roy popularized the butterfly and that is the only difference in goaltending, and the fact they are way way bigger now and cover more net (which percentage wise would mean more saved plus the size of the equipment to cover these monster sized goalies).  The butterfly alone added .10 on everyone’s save percentages, it’s smart given prior to it 9 out of 10 goals were scored along the ice.   What’s easier to do be a five foot seven stand up hybrid (Vernon) or a 6’6” butterfly hybrid with way more overall pad size?

 

The only thing that’s better now is diet, if you re-call by the eighties fitness and exercise was all the rage.  Those guys were just as ripped as anyone after them.  The 70’s yes I’d agree we are better than those guys, not to say there weren’t some incredible athletes then too because there was.  Howe was as fit as a heavyweight champion boxer when he was tested...was Ali not a good boxer because he was from a different era?

 

Also goalies like Parent and Dryden and Esposito have elite sp even by today’s standards, and don’t forget what Hasek did.  His was insane too.  Hockey is faster now, but they also had fast players back then too.  McDavid hasn’t beaten Gartners record yet because they made the starting position easier which cuts time. I’d say the nineties wasn’t any better or worse than today and those players would do just fine with no inference or obstruction...those guys were just as good as who is playing right now.

 

You make a very fair case, but I'm still reluctant to compare one era to another in any sport.  Not just hockey. 

 

It's like the argument of would Gretzky still become "The Great One" or would Lemiuex be his close second if you transported them in their prime into today's NHL?  Even though I watched both play the game, I stay away from arguments like that with a 10 foot poll.