Round 2, Vote 15 (HOH Top Centers)

[Canadiens1958]

Pierre Turgeon

That is incorrect. Turgeon was the best forward on a president's trophy winning team. And by that I do not mean a run and gun, high powered team. The Blues were just 10% better than average offensively, but were 27% better than average defensively, indicating the defensive focus. And he was contributing to 42% of their goals when in the lineup.



The 1995 and 1996 seasons (the Montreal stretch) are certainly two of the weakest he had in the 1989-2002 stretch. And still, he scored 143 points in 129 games those two seasons. I'm not sure this is a bad thing...

But is it a factual thing:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/t/turgepi01.html

As you can see in the above Pierre Turgeon played only 104 games with the Canadiens over three seasons. You do get 129 if you blend the Islanders and Canadiens in 1995 which is not the accurate picture that the project deserves. Bottom line is that with the Canadiens and throughout his career if part of a deep team, Pierre Turgeon was a very marginally better player than Vincent Damphousse without the added benefit of playing a wing.

Not top 60 worthy.

 

[MadArcand]

Perhaps an advocate for McGee could discuss what he provides other than offense

Why not at least read the bio linked in the ATD master bio thread? Physical play, backchecking, leadership... Stamkos has none of that.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Why not at least read the bio linked in the ATD master bio thread? Physical play, backchecking, leadership... Stamkos has none of that.

I'm sure not many people are going to go hunting for a bio that you aren't linking to. Anyway, I get that McGee was something of an all-round player, but I have to think that you are probably overrating his physical game. He was a pretty small man, even for his era. Also, his linemate Alf Smith basically made a HHOF career doing the dirty work for a line of talented centers, including McGee and later Marty Walsh.

Anyway, I think McGee is worth considering; I just don't want to throw him in at the end of the list as a nod to historical significance like we did with his teammate Harvey Pulford during the defensemen project. McGee was definitely considered more of a star than Pulford though

 

[MXD]

C1958 - For the purposes of this round, any word on the QSHL during the 40ies would suffice.

 

[sr edler]

H Sedin & LaFontaine are most likely in my top 3 but the last spot feels open for influence. I'll probably slot a PCHA guy in there because I'm weak for them, but nothing is set.

I'll also say it's been kind of fun to participate in the project. Now I only look forward to get my original list ridiculed.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Neil Colville

C1958 - For the purposes of this round, any word on the QSHL during the 40ies would suffice.

Neil Colville during his Army days.

League was very transient. A lot of NHL players were in Québec City, Montréal and Ottawa. Besides the loosely scheduled games there were a significant number of war effort games whose stats would not have been formally recorded. Travel restrictions impacted the remote cities. Quality was solid but not mega competitive. Stay in shape to play again after the war approach. You also had the various National Defense leagues that featured the younger future NHL playares.

After the war you had a number of quality players who preferred the certainty of a civil service job in Ottawa or Québec City or an industrial job in industrial Québec cities - Sherbrooke, Chicoutimi, Shawinigan, etc.plus a QSHL salary over the uncertainty of a vagabond minor league career with the possibility of an NHL try-out. So the league remained solid into the fifties.

The basic difference between the NHL and the QSHL during Colville's stint was the level of conditioning. From memory touching on game stories where non-military QSHL players made the NHL was that it took awhile for the players to be able to sustain NHL shift time as it was.Will try to find links to exhibition games that were played between NHL and QSHL teams to illustrate.

 

[MXD]

Neil Colville during his Army days.

League was very transient. A lot of NHL players were in Québec City, Montréal and Ottawa. Besides the loosely scheduled games there were a significant number of war effort games whose stats would not have been formally recorded. Travel restrictions impacted the remote cities. Quality was solid but not mega competitive. Stay in shape to play again after the war approach. You also had the various National Defense leagues that featured the younger future NHL playares.

After the war you had a number of quality players who preferred the certainty of a civil service job in Ottawa or Québec City or an industrial job in industrial Québec cities - Sherbrooke, Chicoutimi, Shawinigan, etc.plus a QSHL salary over the uncertainty of a vagabond minor league career with the possibility of an NHL try-out. So the league remained solid into the fifties.

The basic difference between the NHL and the QSHL during Colville's stint was the level of conditioning. From memory touching on game stories where non-military QSHL players made the NHL was that it took awhile for the players to be able to sustain NHL shift time as it was.Will try to find links to exhibition games that were played between NHL and QSHL teams to illustrate.

Thanks. And that league wouldnt paticipate in the Allan Cup, right ?

I saw Colville, Schmidt (amongst others) participate for the Allan Cup, but it doesn't appear to be related to the QSHL...

 

[Canadiens1958]

Allan Cup

Thanks. And that league wouldnt paticipate in the Allan Cup, right ?

I saw Colville, Schmidt (amongst others) participate for the Allan Cup, but it doesn't appear to be related to the QSHL...

The league was Allan Cup eligible winning it a few times in the 1940s:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allan_Cup

Problem was that a semi pro team - Montreal Royals as Allan Cup winners could not represent Canada at the 1948 Olympics.

What source data are you using for Colville and Schmidt

 

[MXD]

The league was Allan Cup eligible winning it a few times in the 1940s:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allan_Cup

Problem was that a semi pro team - Montreal Royals as Allan Cup winners could not represent Canada at the 1948 Olympics.

What source data are you using for Colville and Schmidt

Just their individual pages on LOH. Maybe SIHR would be better ? I don't have access... AFAIK.

 

[Canadiens1958]

I See....

Just their individual pages on LOH. Maybe SIHR would be better ? I don't have access... AFAIK.

Hockey-reference.com or hockeydb.com has workable but at times incomplete individual pages.

Problem seems to be at three levels.

The Allan Cup was a long process. Team had to win the playoffs in their league to start the path to the Allan Cup Final.

The league and playoff stats, if available, are found under the regular season and playoff sections.

The non-league war benefit games were not recorded.

The series played after the league playoff champion was determined are usually entered under playoffs but titled Allan Cup to denote it was a playoff beyond the actual league.

Trust this helps.

 

[Hardyvan123]

IMO, the only reason to rank Novy under Nedomansky is because Nedomansky had a pretty good North American career after the age of 30, while Novy tried the NHL at the age of 31, scored in his first game, but quickly got homesick and performed fairly poorly over the full season, before leaving for Europe again.

I don't know if there's room for Novy in the top 60, but he's definitely the next non-NHL European to be added to the list if it would go that far.

we seem to have a lot of "well this guy is in and this guy is really close to him arguments" going on lately but maybe it's because we are out of the stone cold locks for top 60 Centers here and the divergence is going to be greater.

The thing is with Novy and only 3 posts available, it's hard to make the case for him over over guys, even his contemporaries like Lemaire. I don't think that Novy was a better player over that time frame than Jacques was and I'm not sure Lemaire is going to be top 3 this round either.

Novy's time in the NHL really hurts his case too, it would be stronger if he hadn't come over IMO as there would at least be the question of what if.

What was , Novy 2 years younger than Hlinka and Ivan basically blows him out of the water in NA in 82-83 and Hlinka wasn't really that great either.

Novy wasn't done but instead was content, like many Cold War stars to play in the easier European leagues at the time to fill out the rest of their hockey days.

It's hard to blame them as the money was good and schedule's shorter and much closer to their homes and cultures but the hockey was drastically weaker and doesn't help his resume in this case.

The accolades in the Czech league and internationally in the 70's and the quality of play there doesn't make up enough of the red flag in his one and only NHL season IMO.

 

[Hardyvan123]

should 30 missed games be the difference between being possibly top-50 all-time and not having a realistic chance at top-60? that's the big question, and a lot of you are uncomfortable answering it.

I really doubt that even if Turgeon played in all 82 games that season that we would have considered him for top 50 here. Jagr, Bure and Sakic all missed considerable time as well, just like other guys that season, Mario, Feds Lindros and Forsberg among centers.

I mean it's possible that he stays healthy and wins the NHL scoring crown but then the first thing people would say is that he manged to stay healthy all year and played in more games (man that sounds familiar doesn't it).

Anyways if he stays healthy maybe best case scenario he wins the Art Ross (with a hell of alot of other talent missing huge chunks) and it would look H Sedin like maybe if he actually won the Hart, which again is unlikely but I guess could have happened.

That is incorrect. Turgeon was the best forward on a president's trophy winning team. And by that I do not mean a run and gun, high powered team. The Blues were just 10% better than average offensively, but were 27% better than average defensively, indicating the defensive focus. And he was contributing to 42% of their goals when in the lineup.

The thing is in the clutch and grab era % like 10% better offense downplays the fact they 3rd in goals for and 1st in GA, probably more to do with Roam Turek's peak year and guys named Chris and Ian on Defense than Turgeon up font though. Plus his pace in 00 was really out of step with the year before and after on the same team so it really has that outlier feel to it.

The 1995 and 1996 seasons (the Montreal stretch) are certainly two of the weakest he had in the 1989-2002 stretch. And still, he scored 143 points in 129 games those two seasons. I'm not sure this is a bad thing.

No his scoring wasn't a bad thing at all, in fact it's the highlight of his resume, well in the regular season at least, in the playoffs and intangible factors his resume is uninspiring in many ways.

That being said we should probably look at him a little more closely and seriously than his reputation would suggest.

He kind of reminds me of a better version of Vinny Damphouse, but that's probably his biggest problem, the perception of what he was.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

I mean it's possible that he stays healthy and wins the NHL scoring crown but then the first thing people would say is that he manged to stay healthy all year and played in more games (man that sounds familiar doesn't it).

Anyways if he stays healthy maybe best case scenario he wins the Art Ross (with a hell of alot of other talent missing huge chunks) and it would look H Sedin like maybe if he actually won the Hart, which again is unlikely but I guess could have happened.

we rarely agree, but yeah. i honestly don't know what it is with seventies and turgeon.

my henrik sedin mega-post to come later, by the way.

 

[tarheelhockey]

I repeat:

General discussion of the VsX system is off topic. It would be distracting enough in a normal round, but we have a lot to get done in a limited time here. Take it to PM or an appropriate thread.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Yeah out of the remaining PCHA guys, I don't think Morris or Dunderdale really have a case to be ahead of Keats or Foyston, and presentations in the last round make Keats the pretty clear choice out of the four, at least to me.

I'm looking forward to the different debates that so many players will bring...and glad I don't have to actually vote myself, haha.

Well, technically, Keats isn't a PCHA guy (I know, I know, sorry), but I realize you are using "PCHA guys" as shorthand for the guys who played out west in the PCHA/WCHL.

Anyway, I'll just link the posts on the WCHL/PCHA guys from last round for easy access:

Duke Keats Part 1 - the NHA (ages 21-22), WW1 (ages 23-24), and the Big-4 (ages 25-26)
Duke Keats Part 2 - the WCHL (ages 27-30)
Duke Keats Part 3 - the consolidated NHL (ages 31-33)
Frank Foyston and Bernie Morris
Frank Foyston

Summary of Keats' career:

• Top 5 scorer in the NHA in 1916 and 1917 when the NHA was one of two professional leagues. (1917 is projected from where he was when he left to fight WW1)
• Missed 2 more full years due to WW1.
• Came back and dominated the Big-4 semi-amateur league and was offered a huge contract to come back East to the now-NHL (which he seems to have declined). The Big 4 contained several HHOFers in their 20s and was likely paying its stars under the table.
• Star in the professional WCHL for 5 straight seasons
  • Might have been the best player in the world in 1921-22 - hard to tell, the league was clearly the weakest of the 3 professional leagues at this point, but Keats flat out owned it.
  • Definitely the best forward in the WCHL in 1922-23 - the league was a bit weaker than the PCHA still.
  • Top 3 scorer in the WCHL in 1923-24 (when it was much stronger than the PCHA), and again in 1924-25 when it had absorbed the PCHA.
  • 6th in scoring in the WCHL in 1925-26 as a 30 year old (6 of the top 10 NHL scorers in 1926-27 were in the WCHL this season)
• After the fall of the WCHL, Keats finished 9th in 10th in a consolidated NHL at the ages of 31 and 32.

Keats was a dominant player in the Big-4 and WCHL for most of his career. His accomplishments in more known leagues bookending this time - the NHA as a rookie and sophmore player (top 5 offensive player in the NHA both seasons) and the NHL as a 31 and 32 year old (top 10 offensive player in the consolidated NHL both season) - is pretty compelling evidence that Keats was probably a top 10 offensive player in the world in every season that he played hockey between 1915-16 and 1927-28. He may have been the best offensive player in the world in 1921-22, but it's hard to tell.

We also have evidence that Keats was considered a strong back checker over the course of his career, beginning with his rookie season.

Sturminator can quote parts of his own posts if he wants, but it seems like the conclusion was that Morris somewhat ahead of Foyston offensively, but that Foyston brought a stronger all-round game and was considered more of a star. Also, Foyston was a great "money" player.

___________

Seems we agree on the order of this bunch, Kyle. Keats first, then Foyston (among available players of this generation). Dunderdale vs Morris would be a worthwhile discussion if we were doing a top 70 list, but I doubt it would affect our top 60 list (I know Dunderdale was a great goal scorer but pretty poor playmaker).

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I repeat:

General discussion of the VsX system is off topic. It would be distracting enough in a normal round, but we have a lot to get done in a limited time here. Take it to PM or an appropriate thread.

The appropriate thread to critique or defend the VsX system is here: http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=1361409

By this late round, I can't see anyone changing their minds as to whether VsX is a useful shorthand for prime regular season offensive production or not, so if you don't think it's useful, just ignore the table I posted.

(If you want to explain why a specific player available this round is overrated or underrated by ANY evaluation method, including VsX, that's fine. But leave the generalized critiques to the other thread)

 

[tony d]

Surprised to see Stamkos here, guy's had a great start to his career but not top 60 centre of all-time great.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Surprised to see Stamkos here, guy's had a great start to his career but not top 60 centre of all-time great.

4 Top 5 finishes in NHL scoring. Every other center with more than 2 (other than Clint Smith who played during WW2) is already added.

I realize that Stamkos likely misses the list and I understand why, but he's already accomplished something of historical note.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

I agree with you. I think Stamkos is closer to Crosby than McGee was to Bowie. On the other hand, McGee's career was a much closer to a normal career length back when players got poor medical treatment and were mostly amateurs. Though it was short even for that era.

I think Stamkos and McGee have comparable peaks at this point. Heck, you may as well say comparable careers, because peak is the entire career for them. Main difference is McGee was the leader of a dynasty, Stamkos has not yet experienced much team success. Stamkos plays in an era where expecting him to spearhead a dynasty is unreasonable of course, but it still must be considered a plus for McGee I would say.

I'm not sure about Stamkos being closer to Crosby than McGee to Bowie. I don't think any reasonable person would prefer Stamkos to Crosby on a per game basis, or say that "Stamkos is better" in a discussion about hockey players. I could see somebody preferring McGee to Bowie from 1903-1906. I don't think the gap in per-game value is very big, Bowie just established himself as the top center well before McGee arrived on the scene, and remained so after McGee was gone.

There is of course the competition/era discount factor associated with McGee. But Crosby, Malkin, Thornton, Datsyuk, and Zetterberg (elite centers playing at an elite level for the bulk of Stamkos' career) are already on the list. Only Bowie is on the list from McGee's era. Is the era difference so large that a 6th player from one era should be rated ahead of the 2nd from another (assuming of course that one feels McGee and Stamkos are very close in comparison)?

Of course, you may not feel McGee is very close to Bowie, and Stamkos is indeed much closer to Crosby. If that is the case though, it's pretty much conceding that Bowie was by leaps and bounds the greatest center of the pre-NHA generation. In which case, his placement outside of the top 40 seems unreasonably low. (Mr. Bonvie mentioned this in the previous discussion).

 

[seventieslord]

I've come around on Jacques Lemaire. He's not going to be an automatic N/A for me this time; he is back in the running.

The reason for this is, he actually does stand out defensively among this group of players. Not better than Carbonneau, obviously. Not more substantiated than Brind'Amour either. But, very arguably third in this group.

I was incorrect when I said that the complete handbooks of pro hockey did not speak of his defense. I was going from a memory of nearly selecting him in an ATD (at another board) as a 3rd line, two-way center, based on anecdotal evidence floating around that he was good defensively. However, the guides that I had at the time did not speak highly of his defense. But I was in the process of building my collection at the time, and clearly I must not have had the 1977, 1978 or 1979 guides, because in these last three guides of his career, he goes from very good to excellent defensively before retiring. Selke caliber? no, or he'd have some votes. But excellent nonetheless. Even though this was just the last three years of his career (as the anecdotal evidence tended to say), it's more than we can say for most of these players, and it's worthy of me issuing a correction and declaring my consideration of Lemaire's case.

Did it taint the project? No.

I agree with this, by the way. Use of vsX did not taint this project. Sturminator is absolutely correct; this is a shorthand for determining the offensive value of a player - a starting point. I don't think anyone based their votes entirely off of it, so no one need worry if the system has limitations that are being exposed. Any system is going to have limitations.

Your concerns, though coming from the right place, don't take away from what vsX is supposed to be, or from what it is.

The drum I'm beating is only in regards to a couple of very specific limitations with the system that happen to devalue a quite specific profile of player (had his best seasons in years with a punishing benchmark, got injured in most impressive per-game seasons) and should not discredit the whole endeavor. While I do agree that basic adjusted points are more accurate at this point, if we were using raw adjusted point totals the way we currently use vsX, I'd still be beating this same drum to an extent.

I agree with you. I think Stamkos is closer to Crosby than McGee was to Bowie. On the other hand, McGee's career was a much closer to a normal career length back when players got poor medical treatment and were mostly amateurs. Though it was short even for that era.

In addition, McGee missed a few games. He pretty much played three seasons' worth of regular season games.

 

[seventieslord]

This again? I realize you think Turgeon is underrated by the general public (and while I think you take it to the extreme, I actually agree), but stuff like this is out of control. Turgeon was effectively tied for 3rd in points-per-game in 2000 with Bure, and behind Jagr (the actual Art Ross winner) and Sakic. And everyone who finished ahead of Turgeon in PPG played more games!!!!!

This again? If everything happened exactly the way it did and Turgeon didn't get injured, he would have a scoring title, just like Sedin.

And it would be the same kind too, the one where despite leading the league in points it would have a "tainted" feel to it, as though he was not actually the best player, just the one who had the more points, and he would not find himself top-3 in postseason player lists like the THN one, for example.

Edit: Thinking about it more, is your point that in comparing Turgeon to Sedin, everything went right for Sedin in 2010? Ovechkin was on pace to run away with the Hart and Art Ross until his second suspension of the season (he did win the Lindsay), and Sedin's brother got injured, which gave him extra "valuable to his team" cred.

Yes, that is definitely a part of it.

You could say there was a perfect storm that allowed Turgeon to lead the league in scoring in 2000, and he was, but then he got injured too.

back to my main point - there are certainly defensible reasons to pick 8 players over Turgeon at this point. Most of them have an advantage over him in one area or another that is significant - arguably as significant as his production advantage. I just wanted to make it clear who the best offensive player is in this round, and that's Turgeon. That doesn't mean he should be a shoo-in for anyone (certainly many voters in this project have considered the top offensive player each round a shoo-in though), but it should at least preclude other one-dimensional players from surpassing him in votes.

 

[seventieslord]

But is it a factual thing:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/t/turgepi01.html

As you can see in the above Pierre Turgeon played only 104 games with the Canadiens over three seasons. You do get 129 if you blend the Islanders and Canadiens in 1995 which is not the accurate picture that the project deserves. Bottom line is that with the Canadiens and throughout his career if part of a deep team, Pierre Turgeon was a very marginally better player than Vincent Damphousse without the added benefit of playing a wing.

Not top 60 worthy.

You're right, he was not a Hab the entire time. But he was better as a Hab in 1995 than as an Islander. His actual Habs numbers are 116 points in 95 games... a better average than I originally said... and 16% higher than Vincent Damphousse over those two seasons... and still, he was not as good a Hab as he was an Islander or Blue.

The old shorthand method was comparing top-X finishes on leaderboards, or comparing raw scoring or what have you...all considerably worse methods of evaluation across eras because they do not account for the changing size of the league or the talent pool. VsX is a new and improved shorthand, nothing more.

Agree.

Why not at least read the bio linked in the ATD master bio thread? Physical play, backchecking, leadership... Stamkos has none of that.

and an animal rhythm!

H Sedin & LaFontaine are most likely in my top 3

what about an equally one-dimensional player who was an even better point producer?

I really doubt that even if Turgeon played in all 82 games that season that we would have considered him for top 50 here. Jagr, Bure and Sakic all missed considerable time as well, just like other guys that season, Mario, Feds Lindros and Forsberg among centers.

I mean it's possible that he stays healthy and wins the NHL scoring crown but then the first thing people would say is that he manged to stay healthy all year and played in more games (man that sounds familiar doesn't it).

I absolutely agree! I just said the same thing myself. But that hardly matters in the long-term to the trophy counting public.

Anyways if he stays healthy maybe best case scenario he wins the Art Ross (with a hell of alot of other talent missing huge chunks) and it would look H Sedin like maybe if he actually won the Hart, which again is unlikely but I guess could have happened.

I doubt it, it likely goes to Pronger still. But there are intriguing possibilities there... does he split votes and cause Jagr to win it? Meh, who cares...

The thing is in the clutch and grab era % like 10% better offense downplays the fact they 3rd in goals for and 1st in GA, probably more to do with Roam Turek's peak year and guys named Chris and Ian on Defense than Turgeon up font though. Plus his pace in 00 was really out of step with the year before and after on the same team so it really has that outlier feel to it.

Not so. His adjusted PPG that season was 1.38. his next 3 best were 1.30, 1.28 and 1.25. A very reasonable splashing of numbers for any player if you were to look at a good sample of them. His 2000 production was his best level of production ever, but it was not an outlier, unless you can call someone's best season an outlier just by virtue of it being his best season.

Anyway, I'm not trying to say he was the reason the team was 1st overall; the credit goes to the defense most of all. The team was 3rd in offense but as you can see, there were really only two special offensive teams; the rest were in the pack.

We give credit all the time to the likes of Mats Naslund, Brian Propp, Patrik Elias, Rick Middleton, etc, and rightly so, for being a frequent high scorer on a team that was successful but defensively oriented. The thinking is that they were probably somewhat "shackled" by the system and gave up points to win. Not saying Turgeon was always or even often this player, but he fit the profile in 2000 at least. Considering the context, it's likely his points are worth more that year.

we rarely agree, but yeah. i honestly don't know what it is with seventies and turgeon.

well go ahead then. Don't just snipe at me, respond to the content of my posts.

On an adjusted basis, in their respective 700 game primes, Turgeon was 10% better at scoring points than Henrik Sedin. Explain to me why this isn't true.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

well go ahead then. Don't just snipe at me, respond to the content of my posts.

On an adjusted basis, in their respective 700 game primes, Turgeon was 10% better at scoring points than Henrik Sedin. Explain to me why this isn't true.

the "snipe" wasn't that what you said re: scoring isn't true, though yes i will take on what you say about henrik in a little bit (though spoiler: no, i don't think henrik is a top 60 all time center). the "snipe" is that while i usually find you to be a very fair and reasonable assessor of players, you seem to be going out of your way and bending over backwards to play the "what if" game for turgeon. i mean like sundin-fan-level stuff. i would elaborate, but that has been done for me upthread by multiple other posters.

 

[sr edler]

what about an equally one-dimensional player who was an even better point producer?

Turgeon? I don't know if he was an even better point producer than LaFontaine, or even spike Sedin. But he probably was somewhere in that area. He was on my list, Turgeon, but he never seemed to provide that extra dimension, whatever it is.

Turgeon was good in St. Louis but he wasn't the guy on that team. It had Pronger, MacInnis and an underrated Demitra. Or as a fellow poster pointed out in the recent Chris Pronger plus minus thread, the Blues went

21-5-4 without Turgeon that year.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

back to my main point - there are certainly defensible reasons to pick 8 players over Turgeon at this point. Most of them have an advantage over him in one area or another that is significant - arguably as significant as his production advantage. I just wanted to make it clear who the best offensive player is in this round, and that's Turgeon. That doesn't mean he should be a shoo-in for anyone (certainly many voters in this project have considered the top offensive player each round a shoo-in though), but it should at least preclude other one-dimensional players from surpassing him in votes.

This is extremely debatable. There are several players in this round who have sustained periods of time where they were on Turgeon's level offensively. I mean, you've got an Art Ross winner, a two-time goal scoring leader, and three-time assist leader who was also 2nd in points twice, a guy who lost an Art Ross to prime Mario Lemieux, a guy with multiple 50 goal/100 point seasons....Turgeon could well be the best overall offensive player available, but it is not nearly as open-and-shut as you seem to be implying.

This is definitely a "can of worms" line of thinking, but one thing that has to bug somebody about Turgeon is that the guy was traded twice in his prime. First for a declining Kirk Muller....second for Shayne Corson. Turgeon was coming off a 96-point season and was 27 years old...Corson was aged 30 and coming off a 46-point season (which was his normal scoring output) and already had a reputation as a dressing room cancer from his previous stop in Edmonton. That paints a pretty ugly picture of contemporary opinion of Turgeon amongst league general managers.