Sakic vs Trottier

[marty 4 hart*]

Who would you rather build around?

Click to read more...

 

[kmad]

Trottier, by a lot actually. Imagine if Sakic was a great hitter, and that's Trottier.

 

[JaymzB]

Trottier. He is IMO the most well rounded centre in NHL history (mainly because he was a better goal scorer than Clarke). There was not really a single weakness in his game.

 

[marty 4 hart*]

I´m not an expert when it comes to hockey history, but wasnt Sakic better for longer? Even if Trottiers prime was better?

 

[Dark Shadows]

I´m not an expert when it comes to hockey history, but wasnt Sakic better for longer? Even if Trottiers prime was better?

He was certainly better longer. Few in history have Sakic's longevity and consistency.

It depends on if you are looking over the long haul or over the players during their best years.

 

[seventieslord]

Trots for peak. Trots defensively. Sakic offensively. Sakic for longevity. A wash in the playoffs. Who would bring you more wins, more cups, more overall success over a full career if 20 years were played out in the exact same situation? Tough to say; it's pretty close to even.

 

[Rhiessan71]

Trots for me but hey, I have both him and Yzerman ranked above Sakic.

 

[revolverjgw]

Sakic for the crazy longevity. If Trottier was better, it was barely, but Sakic was just about immortal before becoming a casualty of the War of the Machines.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Sakic for the crazy longevity. If Trottier was better, it was barely, but Sakic was just about immortal before becoming a casualty of the War of the Machines.

This is why I tend to pick Sakic. Trottier almost certainly a bit better at his peak (probably slightly behind offensively and moderately ahead defensively, while being much more physical). But Sakic was an elite player for just so much longer.

 

[Starchild74]

Sakic was greatand loved watching him play but it has to be Trottier.

Trottier played in what some might say the toughest time to be a hockey player. He was tough and could hit and was one of the toughest centerman to ever play against

Not knocking Sakic but Trottier played against some of the greatest players ever in their prime, and alot of times came out on top. Won 4 cups in a row and if not for the Oilers would have won 5 in a row

He might not have had the longevity as a Sakic but alot of that is how he played. Plus Trottier went on to still be a valuable memeber of the Penguins on their 2 Stanley Cups. His point production wnet down but his leadership and willing to do anything to win never deteriorated.

Bryan Trottier is one of the most underated players in the history of the NHL.

If I was picking the top 10 centers of all time. I would be hard pressed to put Sakic in the top 10 but would find it just as hard to keep Trottier out of the top 10 of all time. Trottier was just that great

At one time Trottier was probably the best centerman in the league. I do not know if that could ever be said about Sakic as much as I liked him

 

[Dipsy Doodle]

Playing in 5 straight Finals took its toll on all the Isles greats.

I'm not going to devalue Trottier on account of longevity simply because he played in so many hard-fought games so early in his career - with no long summers to recover - that he got prematurely worn down.

Think about this:

At age 27, Trottier had already played 138 playoff games (including the 5 year Finals marathon). At the same age, Sakic had only played 34.

I don't care what anybody says, that has to take its toll.

 

[seventieslord]

This is why I tend to pick Sakic. Trottier almost certainly a bit better at his peak (probably slightly behind offensively and moderately ahead defensively, while being much more physical). But Sakic was an elite player for just so much longer.

I know what you're saying, but at the same time this nagging voice inside me keps reminding me that when Sakic played till age 40, so did a few other players, and Trottier was similarly just as old in relation to other graybeards when he retired. He also "lost it" offensively at about the same age that other players of his stature in his era did.

 

[canucks4ever]

Sakic was a more consistent playoff performer and is better offensively, so i have to pick him.

 

[startainfection*]

trots is my ideal player to build a team around

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

really hard for me to accept that sakic has the offensive edge. trots won an art ross (and of course the hart) over a prime lafleur. led the league in assists twice. a tie, i can accept, though i can also see an argument for trottier in terms of peak offense. sakic was definitely the better goal scorer though.

peak vs. peak, i'd take trottier overall, as most probably would. but let's also take a closer look at the stages of their careers:

- they both come in at 19. trots scores 95 points and wins the calder. sakic has a good but not great rookie year.

- trots has a sophomore slump year (by his standards), sakic explodes for 100 points, cracking the top 10.

- but by year three trottier was a top five player in the game and kept this up for the next seven years. sakic was a top ten scorer in the league. big difference.

- sakic hits that truly elite level at 25. by that age, trottier has a hart, ross, three top fives, five top tens, three cups, and a smythe.

- trottier slows down big time after 27, though he still had three decent offensive seasons left in him. meanwhile sakic is almost just getting started.

but to me, the second half of sakic's career is just catching up to what trottier did at an earlier age. if the question is who would you rather build a team around, i have to go with trots because, on top of his more complete game, he peaked earlier. as a GM, you want the quality years as soon as possible. who knows if you will still have your job ten years down the road. who knows if that player hasn't signed somewhere as a UFA by the ten year mark. and with sakic, this is a guy who held out and went back to junior in his draft year and signed an offer sheet a year after his first cup. i'm not saying this to diss sakic, but it goes to show that you have to get what you can out of a guy right away, because he may not be around forever, or he may price himself out of your range. shooting for the guy who is better from ages 30-37 doesn't really make sense to me if the other guy not only has a higher peak, but it comes two years after you draft him.

 

[seventieslord]

really hard for me to accept that sakic has the offensive edge. trots won an art ross (and of course the hart) over a prime lafleur. led the league in assists twice. a tie, i can accept, though i can also see an argument for trottier in terms of peak offense. sakic was definitely the better goal scorer though.

peak vs. peak, i'd take trottier overall, as most probably would. but let's also take a closer look at the stages of their careers:

- they both come in at 19. trots scores 95 points and wins the calder. sakic has a good but not great rookie year.

- trots has a sophomore slump year (by his standards), sakic explodes for 100 points, cracking the top 10.

- but by year three trottier was a top five player in the game and kept this up for the next seven years. sakic was a top ten scorer in the league. big difference.

- sakic hits that truly elite level at 25. by that age, trottier has a hart, ross, three top fives, five top tens, three cups, and a smythe.

- trottier slows down big time after 27, though he still had three decent offensive seasons left in him. meanwhile sakic is almost just getting started.

but to me, the second half of sakic's career is just catching up to what trottier did at an earlier age. if the question is who would you rather build a team around, i have to go with trots because, on top of his more complete game, he peaked earlier. as a GM, you want the quality years as soon as possible. who knows if you will still have your job ten years down the road. who knows if that player hasn't signed somewhere as a UFA by the ten year mark. and with sakic, this is a guy who held out and went back to junior in his draft year and signed an offer sheet a year after his first cup. i'm not saying this to diss sakic, but it goes to show that you have to get what you can out of a guy right away, because he may not be around forever, or he may price himself out of your range. shooting for the guy who is better from ages 30-37 doesn't really make sense to me if the other guy not only has a higher peak, but it comes two years after you draft him.

We're getting too technical now. Assume you get to be a part of the success and enjoy it for the whole 20 years that you have the player. Who brings you more joy? It doesn't matter who peaks earlier, it matters who delivers more value overall. It's very, very close.

 

[Cake or Death]

Sakic was a more consistent playoff performer and is better offensively, so i have to pick him.

Over a career, I can definitely see the consistency favoring Sakic. But in a given span, Trottier sees a level of consistency that is pretty remarkable: 5 straight Finals' appearances, 4 straight Cups, and the all-time NHL record playoff point scoring streak, spread over three seasons.

On topic, I love both guys and it's a tough call, but I like Trottier's overall package a little better. No matter who you choose, you really can't go wrong. These are two great great hockey players and it was an absolute privilege for me to watch both guys over their entire careers.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

When I said Sakic is a bit better offensively, I meant two things:

1) Offense over the course of their careers (Trottier lost much of his offense about halfway through his career, though like others pointed out, it wasn't that uncommon for players of his eras)

2) Peak playoff or clutch offense - Sakic's 1996 playoff run was more dominant offensively than well... almost any playoff run ever.

It's probably not entirely accurate to say "better offensively." I should have said Sakic has better offensive longevity and a slightly higher playoff peak (not that Trottier was anything but excellent).

 

[tony d]

Close but Joe Sakic

 

[Big Phil]

Very close really. Like others have said, Sakic for the longevity. But when evaluating their best seasons (Trotts in 1979, Sakic in 2001) you probably slightly give the edge to Trottier.

Both players were similar early on. They both put up points in the NHL pretty much from the word "go". It took a while for each player to finally take their team to the Cup and in their first Cup each won the Conn Smythe. Trottier was arguably the glue of a dynasty though, while Sakic was not even though if you were picking a player in the postseason overall you wouldn't be wrong if you picked Sakic.

Let me sum it up this way. If I need a guy for 10 years I want Trottier.

If I need a guy for at least 15 years I want Sakic.

Fair enough?

Both spectacular players though

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

We're getting too technical now. Assume you get to be a part of the success and enjoy it for the whole 20 years that you have the player. Who brings you more joy? It doesn't matter who peaks earlier, it matters who delivers more value overall. It's very, very close.

in that case, yes it is very close. i will never make a slanted case against sakic, or diminish him to prop up another player, but i honestly still think i'd go with trottier. overall, i think sakic comes very close to equalling trottier's career value in the second half of his career, but i suspect if you put sakic on those islanders and he plays those five straight grueling runs to the finals, i don't think he scores 100 points at 37 either. at the same time, if you spread out trottier's deep playoff runs, maybe he maintains elite status over a longer haul. arguments have been made about trottier's superior peak (close, but still with noticeable separation), and at the end of the day, if a guy's peak lasts for seven seasons, then i want the superior player, regardless of what happens in his 30s. but yeah, it's a very tough comparison, similar to potvin vs. lidstrom.

sakic was a real treat to watch. i only caught trottier at the disappointing end to his islanders career (disappointing because that team was dreadful) and as young jagr's tutor and defensive safety valve on the pens. joe, i watched his entire career. he scored the OT game winner in the very first game i ever attended, at the old pacific coliseum in late '90 or early '91. growing up in vancouver, he was our own, and easily the greatest lower mainland player in a long time. i watched him grow with those promising but bad nords, and you could always see that he wasn't one of those big scorers on a losing team guys but a bona fide winner that you could build a championship team around. even when i hated hejduk and those other canucks killers during the naslund era, i still always had to smile a bit when sakic killed us. and he killed us a lot.