I've really got my heart set on Dubois. Tkachuk would be a nice consolation prize, but it would still feel like a consolation prize to me.
???
I don't see how I'm being 'pedantic'. I'm saying the term "first liner" covers a range of quality players, from the best forward in the league to the 30th. Beyond 30th they are into another tier of quality ("2nd liners") and so forth.
You are the one who is trying to impose fairly arbitrary standards on the term by saying it should only apply to those at or above the median, as if being the 16th or 17th scorer isn't good enough or something.
I'm applying a definition that is purely technical - there are 30 first lines in the league so the top 30 players would set the bar for a "first liner" - while you are bringing personal nuance and bias into it. What if people want an even tighter definition than yours - maybe it should only apply to the top 10 centres. Or maybe a bit looser - like the top 23. Whatever the argument, it ends up changing the definition to suit the tastes of the person.
I'm merely saying to peg it to something objective - 30 first lines is as good as anything - and take the personal subjectivity out of it. That way we can all use the term with a common frame of reference, rather than get sidetracked like we are now.
And I'm baffled by your comment about "not projecting a 1st line prospect that I wouldn't want on my first line". How do you make that leap? If I can draft a kid who projects to put up 60 points a year - making him a lower end "first liner" - I'd absolutely draft him. Why wouldn't I? 60 points is still good production relative to every player in the league. Are you suggesting you wouldn't draft a low end first liner because that somehow would "weaken" you first line? What would you rather draft? A 54 point "high end second liner" instead?
I think you're taking these terms too literally. It is a general measure of quality yes, but a low end first liner is still a damn good player and you draft him every time unless a better player was there instead.
Edit: And again I'll ask you a simple question: If you draw a line at the term meaning an "above average first liner" meaning the 15th highest scorer or higher, then what term would you use to describe the 16th-30th highest scorers? Second liners doesn't work, since that would only apply to the top 15 second line scorers (31-45) if you are being consistent with you terms. Also since many of the 16-30 scorers likely actually do play on a team's "first line", it would be factually incorrect to call them second liners. So what would you call them?
My personal rule of thumb would be the opposite of the one you made earlier-- I think that when the context of discussions assume that you're talking about ideal/adequate scenarios for a team hoping to contend, from the POV of a fan/supporter who wants the team to draft well, the qualifier is necessary for further clarification only when you deviate from the expectation.
If I'm having a discussion with someone about prospects, I would expect that "1st line center" by itself would refer to a player who meets the standard of an average 1st line center (simply because that's what we automatically think of when we hear the term), and if they were talking about someone who would be more borderline but technically is still a top 30 center, I would expect them to call the player a "below average 1st line center."
I'm not arguing that this view must be shared by everyone or that it is authoritatively correct, nor does it bother me that you use it your way, which is also sensible-- but I think if you are attempting to enforce a more literal definition for everyone and criticize a post that doesn't conform to it, that's probably overly anal and pedantic.
I agree with most of what Bitturbo said, and he brings up another good point that I didn't consider. The literal objectively undeniable definition of a 1st liner is probably someone who plays on the highest minute line on the team, irrespective of whether their team lacks talent or has Malkin playing on a second line (and technically being a literal second liner). I would never use the label this way myself, nor would I hold it against anyone for not adhering to this overly literal definition in everyday conversation, but I do think the way we want to use these terms are inherently arbitrary.
Really the argument boils down to this for me:
Person A: "I just don't think he's going to be a 1st line center."
Person B: "Well, I think he can outscore the 30th best center, so technically he is a 1st line center."
Person A: "Uhh, okay, but I'm talking about a normal one, not a borderline one."
Person B: "Then you should have said so! Be more precise!"
While both schools of thought seem valid to me, in that conversation, I definitely think Person B is being overly anal and tedious, and that Person A isn't unreasonable enough with the way he's using the term to warrant that reaction.
