Value of: Kreider or Buchnevich to SJ

[themelkman]

What a terrible argument.

Connor McDavid’s team was second last in their division as well.

Your argument was that they were a great team with him as the first line winger and I showed you proof that that was false.

 

[TomasHertlsRooster]

Your argument was that they were a great team with him as the first line winger and I showed you proof that that was false.

My argument was that they were a great team with him on the ice. You didn’t prove anything. All you showed was that their terrible performance without him out-weighed their great performance with him.

 

[themelkman]

My argument was that they were a great team with him on the ice. You didn’t prove anything. All you showed was that their terrible performance without him out-weighed their great performance with him.

Whatever man this argument is pointless, I guess we will have to see what the rangers get back when they trade him.

 

[Eklund72]

My argument was that they were a great team with him on the ice. You didn’t prove anything. All you showed was that their terrible performance without him out-weighed their great performance with him.

If your top line is on the ice I would hope that your team is controlling more of the goals. Those stats are not evidence of Kreiders contribution to the goals scored. Points are evidence of contribution to goals scored. Its not so off to understand the oppositions argument that 50 points is not enough for a legit 1st liner.

When evaluating whether a player is top line the first thing that comes to mind is their point production. Kreider doesnt even PK that often either.

 

[TGWL]

If Kreider gets first line value then he is the worst guy we could pick up for that cost. I would prefer just about any other first liner in the league

I mean, I have my list of 1st line players I'd rather as well, but there's this problem with them not being available, costing too much, or being signed by other teams that seems to get in the way. I guess I'll sit around and hope a team offers me one for 1st + prospect...

 

[BPD]

Chris Kreider is not an elite first line winger, but arguing that he is not a first line winger at all leads me to believe not only that one does not consistently watch or have a background on the players they comment on, but that one is simply stat-watching and espousing a baseless opinion.

Even stat-watching, Kreider makes the list exactly as you'd described - first line, not elite.

 

[themelkman]

I mean, I have my list of 1st line players I'd rather as well, but there's this problem with them not being available, costing too much, or being signed by other teams that seems to get in the way. I guess I'll sit around and hope a team offers me one for 1st + prospect...

I’m just saying a team wouldn’t be all that smart to make an offer that amazing to New York. If they do then good for them but they would be getting ripped off. Doesn’t mean it couldn’t happen but it won’t be Doug Wilson getting fleeced

 

[doomscroll]

Even stat-watching, Kreider makes the list exactly as you'd described - first line, not elite.

Some people are still of the mindset that a player needs to compile at least 60-70 points in a season in order to be considered a first-liner.

 

[themelkman]

Some people are still of the mindset that a player needs to compile at least 60-70 points in a season in order to be considered a first-liner.

On a good team you have ‘first’ liners like Kreider on the second line. Call him what you want but he’s not the guy who’s going to carry any team on his back

 

[BPD]

On a good team you have ‘first’ liners like Kreider on the second line. Call him what you want but he’s not the guy who’s going to carry any team on his back

You've got two points here that are very....very different.

First - good teams probably don't have first line wings on their second line - quite the opposite actually. They probably have first line wings on the first line. What good teams are getting is greater than expected WAR/insert reasonable stat here out of their depth. The Penguins are a good example; they have two first line centers, one first line wing, and probably nobody in the true second line tier. Last year's Sharks are a great example as well; three true first liners (Pavs, Couture, Meier), but really getting the most out of their next tier; Labanc, Hertl, Thornton, etc). What you're seeing there is the salary cap in action; you need better returns from depth positions to be truly successful.

Much as it pains me, this years' Rangers are likely to be a really good example of this going sorta wrong. We're likely to get exactly what we need from our first line; heck, they may even overperform their WAR, their salary, their expectations, whatever, but we're going to be replacement level across the board below that in all likelihood. Maybe even worse. In this case, it's probably not bad players so much as it is inexperience, but we're going to lose a lot of games in spite of having a pair of true first line forwards.

Second - you're defining a first line player as someone who dominates play, is clutch, scores ppg-ish levels, etc; that isn't true anymore. By that definition, there are like...20 first line forwards in the whole league, and that cannot be a mathematically nor perceptively accurate statement. You're not delineating between an elite player and a first liner; there's actually not a whole lot of overlap.

 

[themelkman]

You've got two points here that are very....very different.

First - good teams probably don't have first line wings on their second line - quite the opposite actually. They probably have first line wings on the first line. What good teams are getting is greater than expected WAR/insert reasonable stat here out of their depth. The Penguins are a good example; they have two first line centers, one first line wing, and probably nobody in the true second line tier. Last year's Sharks are a great example as well; three true first liners (Pavs, Couture, Meier), but really getting the most out of their next tier; Labanc, Hertl, Thornton, etc). What you're seeing there is the salary cap in action; you need better returns from depth positions to be truly successful.

Much as it pains me, this years' Rangers are likely to be a really good example of this going sorta wrong. We're likely to get exactly what we need from our first line; heck, they may even overperform their WAR, their salary, their expectations, whatever, but we're going to be replacement level across the board below that in all likelihood. Maybe even worse. In this case, it's probably not bad players so much as it is inexperience, but we're going to lose a lot of games in spite of having a pair of true first line forwards.
.

First of all, you must be crazy if you think Hertl isn’t a first liner. Also we had Kane on that wing who is just as good as Kreider, however he isn’t treated like our first line winger because we have depth to use him as a second, the same as a good team would do with Kreider. He isn’t a need, he’s an add on that helps us to remain at the top of the league with his play on the second.

 

[TomasHertlsRooster]

First of all, you must be crazy if you think Hertl isn’t a first liner. Also we had Kane on that wing who is just as good as Kreider, however he isn’t treated like our first line winger because we have depth to use him as a second, the same as a good team would do with Kreider. He isn’t a need, he’s an add on that helps us to remain at the top of the league with his play on the second.

Yes and we also have Goodrow on our 4th line, he’s just as good as McDavid.

If your top line is on the ice I would hope that your team is controlling more of the goals. Those stats are not evidence of Kreiders contribution to the goals scored. Points are evidence of contribution to goals scored. Its not so off to understand the oppositions argument that 50 points is not enough for a legit 1st liner.

When evaluating whether a player is top line the first thing that comes to mind is their point production. Kreider doesnt even PK that often either.

Kreider doesn’t just control more goals than his team without him. He controls more goals than any Sharks player over that 3-year span! And the degree to which he improves his team is not the same as other decent players who play on bad teams; it is on par with players like Sidney Crosby and Mark Stone.

How do you know Kreider doesn’t contribute to goals scored? There are plenty of analytical models which exist and suggest that Kreider is a great offensive driver of play who contributes to many goals for his team. Watching him play leads you to this conclusion as well.

And again, he scored 46 5-on-5 goals and 95 5-on-5 points over that span. Those goals rank 20th and points rank 25th for left wingers. Even if you think points are the only measure of offense, you would conclude that his offense is low-end first line and his defense is high-end first line. And he provides this while playing against 1st liners.

Some people are still of the mindset that a player needs to compile at least 60-70 points in a season in order to be considered a first-liner.

And of the mindset that points are the best way to evaluate a player.

 

[BPD]

First of all, you must be crazy if you think Hertl isn’t a first liner. Also we had Kane on that wing who is just as good as Kreider, however he isn’t treated like our first line winger because we have depth to use him as a second, the same as a good team would do with Kreider. He isn’t a need, he’s an add on that helps us to remain at the top of the league with his play on the second.

Hertl was a 45 point player until last season. That actually kinda proves my point more than yours - you got PHENOMENAL production out of a lower-line player.

Hertl's not a first liner by your own definition. He is by mine.

 

[themelkman]

Hertl was a 45 point player until last season. That actually kinda proves my point more than yours - you got PHENOMENAL production out of a lower-line player.

Hertl's not a first liner by your own definition. He is by mine.

In my opinion, Hertl is better than Kreider and has more potential to go. Hertl is the guy who can be your first Liner, but right now you would be much more happy to split that duty with Couture like we are.

 

[themelkman]

Yes and we also have Goodrow on our 4th line, he’s just as good as McDavid
.

I don’t know what your deal with Kreider is, but he is no elite top ten player. I would not pay him anymore than I do Kane because they play similar roles and score similarly.

 

[Nolan11]

Hertl was a 45 point player until last season. That actually kinda proves my point more than yours - you got PHENOMENAL production out of a lower-line player.

Hertl's not a first liner by your own definition. He is by mine.

Hertl was our best forward during our finals appearance (Including Couture who had 30 points that playoffs). Losing him to injury sealed the series for the Pens. Hertl has been our best or one of our best forwards ever since (Meier may have supplanted him this year). Points don't always spell out who is driving play.

Kreider is not arguably a first liner. He is absolutely a first liner. If your goal is shedding cap, would you take a 2020 2nd, a 2021 1st and 3rd for Kreider and a 2021 2nd? If so, I'd pull that trigger in a hearbeat.

 

[TomasHertlsRooster]

Last year’s 46 point Hertl is actually quite similar to Kreider. Great defensive player, definitely a first liner in a complementary role but not good enough to be the best player on a Cup team. Sharks fans seemed to understand back then that more than just points mattered, and Hertl was definitely a first line player (albeit in a complementary role). Kreider is better than that Hertl was, though.

 

[charliemurphy]

In exchange for Chris Kreider, I would offer San Jose’s 2021 1st, Dylan Gambrell, and a conditional 2nd round pick in 2022 that transfers over if SJ wins the Cup in 2020 or Kreider re-signs.

What's the story with Gambrell? Is he just being blocked right now or is he not in the long term plans? Would he be centering the 2nd line if Hertl wasn't on the roster? If I'm Gorton I take this deal. I'd take any one of Gambrell, Chmelevski or Chekhovich in a trade for Kreider along with those conditional picks.

 

[Erep]

Our center depth is Couture, Hertl, (presumably) Thornton, and then we have a 4-5 guys competing for the last spot including Gambrell. We also have a lot of wingers with center experience.

We have lots of depth at center, and are trying to convert them to wingers, but they are all young and not first line guys yet.

 

[charliemurphy]

Our center depth is Couture, Hertl, (presumably) Thornton, and then we have a 4-5 guys competing for the last spot including Gambrell. We also have a lot of wingers with center experience.

We have lots of depth at center, and are trying to convert them to wingers, but they are all young and not first line guys yet.

Gotcha. What's the impression of Gambrell from SJ fans?

 

[themelkman]

Gotcha. What's the impression of Gambrell from SJ fans?

Its looking like he will be a 3C, but he is still young and could get better given the right chances. If not traded will be full time on the sharks third/fourth lines this season as center.

The Two C's have much more potential than him, but are probably further out from being NHL players.

 

[TomasHertlsRooster]

What's the story with Gambrell? Is he just being blocked right now or is he not in the long term plans? Would he be centering the 2nd line if Hertl wasn't on the roster? If I'm Gorton I take this deal. I'd take any one of Gambrell, Chmelevski or Chekhovich in a trade for Kreider along with those conditional picks.

Gambrell is going to be 23 years old at the start of next season and he has not proven that he is an NHLer. He hasn’t even taken the 3rd line center spot from a 40 year old Thornton, so I don’t see any reason he would be #2C if Hertl wasn’t on the roster. I think you’re overrating him just a bit lol.

 

[Juxtaposer]

What's the story with Gambrell? Is he just being blocked right now or is he not in the long term plans? Would he be centering the 2nd line if Hertl wasn't on the roster? If I'm Gorton I take this deal. I'd take any one of Gambrell, Chmelevski or Chekhovich in a trade for Kreider along with those conditional picks.

In my opinion, Gambrell is by far the worst of the three. He’s been quite good in the AHL, but hasn’t shown much scoring pop in the NHL in my opinion. To be fair, it’s not like he’s playing with offensive dynamos or anything, but I have a hard time seeing him become a top-6 forward. I personally was not very high on him even when he was getting rave reviews at DU. Whenever I watched him, he just never impressed me. I’d be perfectly fine giving him up for Kreider as a rental, but wouldn’t give up either Chmelevski or Chekhovich.

 

[charliemurphy]

Gambrell is going to be 23 years old at the start of next season and he has not proven that he is an NHLer. He hasn’t even taken the 3rd line center spot from a 40 year old Thornton, so I don’t see any reason he would be #2C if Hertl wasn’t on the roster. I think you’re overrating him just a bit lol.

I think you should chill out a little Big Team Guy. Nobody is overrating anyone. He was a player that was mentioned in a trade scenario and simply following up. Glad you don't speak up for all SJ fans. By the way, you're allowed to scroll on... that's how these things work.

 

[charliemurphy]

In my opinion, Gambrell is by far the worst of the three. He’s been quite good in the AHL, but hasn’t shown much scoring pop in the NHL in my opinion. To be fair, it’s not like he’s playing with offensive dynamos or anything, but I have a hard time seeing him become a top-6 forward. I personally was not very high on him even when he was getting rave reviews at DU. Whenever I watched him, he just never impressed me. I’d be perfectly fine giving him up for Kreider as a rental, but wouldn’t give up either Chmelevski or Chekhovich.

That's exactly why I was asking about Gambrell and him being blocked, getting enough minutes, bouncing up and down between AHL and NHL, whatever the case is. Thanks for the input.