How important is 'generational player'

[mjd1001]

Ok, it would be great to get a generational player who is drafted #1 overall, this thread is not about saying you are better off NOT getting a chance at McDavid, but I thought about how important is it to your success at winning the cup?

 

I went back through my hockey watching years (close to 30 years now) and came up with 3 'for sure, no doubt' "generational players" who were picked first overall: Crosby, Lemieux, and Lindros. Those are the only 3 guys I can remember getting as much hype as McDavid in their draft year. There have been other players with almost as much hype (Tavares, Ovechkin, Joe Thornton, and a few others) but only 3 guys were this hightly touted.

 

 

So looking at Crosby, Lemieux, and Lindros, what do we get?

-3 Stanley Cups in 38 seasons played between them.

 

I'd take it, and those players were really exciting to watch, but those numbers show that missing out on a #1 overall 'generational' player doest mean much in terms of going on a multiple Cup run.

 

If you look at next tier, the 'almost generational player hype' guys, I would say that group would be Pierre Turgeon, Joe Thornton, Alex Ovechkin, John Tavares, Taylor Hall, and Nate Mckinnon (sorry, Patrick Kane is close to this list, but not quite there). What do you get there?

-0 Stanley Cups in 58 combined seasons.

 

Once again, you have multiple 100 point seaons, 50 goal years, all star games, awards won, but not as much success as we would think from players this highly touted as first overall picks in the draft.

 

So what is my take-away from this? I'm thinking the Sabres will not finish last, and thus not get either McDavid or Eichel. I'm trying to convince myself that over the next 10-15 years, getting McDavid will not guarantee they will be a more successful team. I'd still love to get him, it would bring excitement to the building, hype to the team, but it really isn't needed.

Edited August 22, 2014 by mjd1001

[Hoss]

For me, "generational player" is an extremely exclusive list. I wouldn't say having a "generational player" is a must (considering only one or two teams get them in a "generation" and they don't always win *cough Penguins*). But having truly elite players is big for Cup chances.

[Two or less]

i think the thing missing here is, we're not the Winnipeg Jets who are just terrible from the very bottom, no real serious prospects, bad front office, awful head coach, very few legit current NHLers.... and thinking that just with drafting McDavid he can take us to the promise land. Surely, McDavid if he lives up to his hype will attract some free agents on his own.

 

Thing that really makes exciting and important is McDavid would be joining a very skilled group of players. All our hopes and dreams are on McDavid/Eichel but in seriousness, we could probably draft the 7th best player and still find a way to become a contender soon. So, getting McDavid would really set up really well with what we have now.

[I am Defecting]

I like this topic, and respect the way you go about categorizing the players. For some reason, to me, 'generational player,' made me think only of Gretsky and Crosby, or singular best of the generation. I guess now that I think about it, according to my preconception two generational players couldn't possibly play professionally at the same time.

 

This is a new term though, generational player? The first I've heard it was this year in reference to McDavid.

 

Someone needs generational player as their member title. Spndchz would be funny.

[3putt]

Bobby Orr. Changed how the position was perceived. Also I think you have to put Bossy on the list. Extending the list gets to my point. I don't think hype determines who is a generational but who impacts the game during his generation. So that might mean that being hyped or the top pick is not necessary to be considered generational. Prospect yes. Player no as much. Hasek is an example.

Edited August 23, 2014 by 3putt

[SwampD]

F%#€ the tank!

 

 

 

 

Edited August 23, 2014 by SwampD

[Kristian]

I'm in the camp that says having, and most importantly paying, for a generational talent, is not a healthy thing when it comes to winning it all.

 

If you look at the last 20-30 years of Stanley Cup champs, apart from Mario's Penguins, and Wayne's Oilers, none of those teams has a "generational player".

 

And both those teams were stacked on talent, besides Gretzky and Lemieux.

 

My point being : I'll take a team of Kane's, Hossa's, Keith's, Seabrook's, Sakic's, Forsberg's, Messier's, etc. any day, over a team of Grosek's, Sillinger's, Stillman's and a Gretzky.

[Claude_Verret]

You still have to suck a lot to have the best chance at sub-generational, aka elite talent. DR needed to go, but he was also absolutely correct, suffering was/is necessary with the where this franchise found itself late in 2013.

[Sabres Fan in NS]

I don't really like the term generational talent.

 

In a team sport you can't win with Wayne / Mario alone.

 

Whichever team is fortunate enough to draft McDavid will not win the cup until / unless they build a great team around him.

 

 

I'm in the camp that says having, and most importantly paying, for a generational talent, is not a healthy thing when it comes to winning it all.

 

If you look at the last 20-30 years of Stanley Cup champs, apart from Mario's Penguins, and Wayne's Oilers, none of those teams has a "generational player".

 

And both those teams were stacked on talent, besides Gretzky and Lemieux.

 

My point being : I'll take a team of Kane's, Hossa's, Keith's, Seabrook's, Sakic's, Forsberg's, Messier's, etc. any day, over a team of Grosek's, Sillinger's, Stillman's and a Gretzky.

 

This is spot on. Good post.

 

And, I like Yuri's notion of the impossibility of two generational talents playing at the same time ... like Wayne and Mario did.

 

By the way Yuri, where's your fancy hat? I really liked your recent avatar photo. A so-called *selfie*, right?

Edited August 23, 2014 by Sabres Fan In NS

[TrueBlueGED]

I'm in the camp that says having, and most importantly paying, for a generational talent, is not a healthy thing when it comes to winning it all.

 

If you look at the last 20-30 years of Stanley Cup champs, apart from Mario's Penguins, and Wayne's Oilers, none of those teams has a "generational player".

 

And both those teams were stacked on talent, besides Gretzky and Lemieux.

 

My point being : I'll take a team of Kane's, Hossa's, Keith's, Seabrook's, Sakic's, Forsberg's, Messier's, etc. any day, over a team of Grosek's, Sillinger's, Stillman's and a Gretzky.

 

Of course it's better to have a collection of elite players than a single generational player surrounded by meduocrities. But that's not really the question at hand, since nothing says if you get a generational player then the rest of the roster won't be good. For me the answer is simple: generational players are neither necessary nor sufficient for winning a Cup, but I'd rather have one than not.

 

Edit: worst case scenario is you fall short of the Cup, but get to watch one of the best players ever for a long time. If I'm not winning it all, I'll gladly take that consolation prize.

Edited August 23, 2014 by TrueBluePhD

[IKnowPhysics]

The only pre-draft player in the past ten years to be labeled a generational talent is Sidney Crosby. Examine the Pengunis' win record and their achievement in the playoffs after his sophomore year: 1 Stanley Cup, 1 Stanley Cup Finals loss, 1 Conference Final, 2 Conference Semifinals, 3 Conference Quarterfinals. Eight seasons, eight trips to the playoffs, two SCF appearances with one win.

 

I very much dislike that shithead, but he's an elite talent that contributes to his team. Remember pre-Crosby Penguins? If Pittsburgh doesn't draft Sydney Crosby, they might not have replaced the igloo and may have moved the team. Crosby's existence transformed that franchise.

 

Now, it helps that he's been surrounded by a fundamentally sound roster (at times), including a first selection overall goaltender in Fleury and a second selection overall center in Malkin. The 2nd round picks have contributed as well.

 

Examine the last seven SC winners. Detroit, Pittsburgh, Chicago (x2), Boston, LA (x2). Only Pittsburgh has that generational talent. But every team, including Pittsburgh, has a large amount of elite talent. Think of the "hockey household" names on those teams. Think of how many players on those teams you'd like to have play for the Sabres. Now think about how you acquire a core of elite talent.

 

We need to draft well. We need to hit on our 2nd and some 3rd round selections. We need to acquire guys that support elite and possibly a generational talent. We can draft these players or we can trade for these players. But the players that will ultimately define our team are the elite and generational talent that we'll have to draft. These players are extremely difficult to trade for and you're lucky if you can draft them.

 

But best chance to draft those highly influential players is to tank the ###### out of the season.

[Claude_Verret]

 

 

Of course it's better to have a collection of elite players than a single generational player surrounded by meduocrities. But that's not really the question at hand, since nothing says if you get a generational player then the rest of the roster won't be good. For me the answer is simple: generational players are neither necessary nor sufficient for winning a Cup, but I'd rather have one than not.

 

Edit: worst case scenario is you fall short of the Cup, but get to watch one of the best players ever for a long time. If I'm not winning it all, I'll gladly take that consolation prize.

 

Good post. Spot on.

[deluca67]

Hasek, IMO, was a "generational" player. He may have not gone the traditional route to becoming one but he was as dominant as any forward or even blueliner. Hasek was very important to the Sabres as Perreault was before him. There is a stability that comes with having a "generational player." One of the biggest aspects of having that type of player is the feeling that you always have a chance no matter the odds or the opponent. It's been a while since the Sabres had a player that could carry the team on his back.

[Brawndo]

Schopp (I am not a fan either) did a show about tanking for McDavid/Eichel this past May. He stated that analytics projects his future stats to be worth 2.5 Stanley Cups to what ever team drafts him.

 

I imagine the .5 means he is projected to win between 2 or 3 cups?

[Stoner]

Schopp (I am not a fan either) did a show about tanking for McDavid/Eichel this past May. He stated that analytics projects his future stats to be worth 2.5 Stanley Cups to what ever team drafts him.

 

I imagine the .5 means he is projected to win between 2 or 3 cups?

 

McDavid or Eichel?

[Brawndo]

Sorry PA, McDavid.

[Kristian]

Of course it's better to have a collection of elite players than a single generational player surrounded by meduocrities. But that's not really the question at hand, since nothing says if you get a generational player then the rest of the roster won't be good. For me the answer is simple: generational players are neither necessary nor sufficient for winning a Cup, but I'd rather have one than not.

 

Edit: worst case scenario is you fall short of the Cup, but get to watch one of the best players ever for a long time. If I'm not winning it all, I'll gladly take that consolation prize.

 

I agree, which is why I added the "and paying for" remark - My point being that a generational player, in a very short timespan will be signed to a contract so huge, it could hamper your ability to build a proper team around him.

 

We have an owner who likes to spend crazy cash, but for a Buffalo fan, this is something we rarely see and there's also a salary cap to consider.

 

Do we have a generational player in the game today? Is Crosby, or Ovechkin that player? If not, then will there ever *be* another generational player?

[TrueBlueGED]

I agree, which is why I added the "and paying for" remark - My point being that a generational player, in a very short timespan will be signed to a contract so huge, it could hamper your ability to build a proper team around him.

 

We have an owner who likes to spend crazy cash, but for a Buffalo fan, this is something we rarely see and there's also a salary cap to consider.

 

Do we have a generational player in the game today? Is Crosby, or Ovechkin that player? If not, then will there ever *be* another generational player?

 

Well we have yet to see a crippling contract so I'm not aall top concerned. I think Crosby is clearly a generational player, and arguments could be made for Ovechkin and Malkin.

[Stoner]

I'm embarrassed to say I never figured out how long a generation l

Sorry PA, McDavid.

 

And what if the Sabres got both? 3.75 Cups?

[G-Daddy]

I'm embarrassed to say I never figured out how long a generation l

 

And what if the Sabres got both? 3.75 Cups?

 

Let's shoot for one cup first.

[Kristian]

Well we have yet to see a crippling contract so I'm not aall top concerned. I think Crosby is clearly a generational player, and arguments could be made for Ovechkin and Malkin.

 

Must admit I really don't follow the Pens enough to tell, so I'll take your word for it.

 

I guess I'm old-fashioned, I expect generational players to be head and shoulders above their peers, for at last one or two seasons.

 

But I also think those days are gone, where single players would stand out so much.

[Sabres Fan in NS]

I'm embarrassed to say I never figured out how long a generation l

 

And what if the Sabres got both? 3.75 Cups?

 

More likely, 3.75 *cusps* ........

[Stoner]

More likely, 3.75 *cusps* ........

 

Thank you for that kind homage. If only I received this kind of respect from the rest of the board.

[Sabres Fan in NS]

Thank you for that kind homage. If only I received this kind of respect from the rest of the board.

 

... *my brother from a different mother*

 

I have your back.

[TrueBlueGED]

Must admit I really don't follow the Pens enough to tell, so I'll take your word for it.

 

I guess I'm old-fashioned, I expect generational players to be head and shoulders above their peers, for at last one or two seasons.

 

But I also think those days are gone, where single players would stand out so much.

 

There's no hard and fast definition of what a generational player is (that I'm aware of, anyway), but consider the following:

 

Crosby is 4th all-time in points per game, behind only Gretzky, Lemieux, and Bossy. This season he had 104 points....second place? Getzlaf at 87. Crosby shot one percentage point under his career average, Getzlaf shot three percentage points over his. So Crosby has just a typical season, and still produced 20% more than second place who had a career season. Patrick Kane (who I think everyone agrees is an elite offensive player) is actually under 1 PPG for his career, sitting at 0.96...while Crosby is at 1.40.

 

Point totals of course don't tell the whole story, but possession numbers say the same thing...every metric we have puts Crosby among the best all time, and he's doing it in an era that isn't exactly encouraging fire-wagon hockey. If a player produces offense at a top-5 historical rate, that has to be at least in the conversation for a generational player, right? And he's so clearly head and shoulders above his contempories that I don't think it's even a worthwhile discussion as to who the best player in the game is right now: it's Crosby, and it's really not close.