it shouldn't be debatable. Crobsy also aged much better. Crosby is still a top 20 all around player in the game. Ovi is a goal merchant at this point.
Forsberg is hard to rate accurately IMO At his peak he was an absolute monster, and his career P/G is really high, but his injuries really cut short his career so it's hard to say how gracefully he would have aged had he been healthy.
I should have posted their criteria eh? Now, a few important caveats about the process, beginning with an acknowledgment that any list discussing the greatest of all time is going to be subjective and can involve some recency bias. And again, our focus is strictly on the NHL from 1967 until now. That needs to be made very clear because you won’t find Gordie Howe on our list. Is it sacrilege to have a best-players-of-all-time list without Mr. Hockey? Maybe, but Howe only played 369 NHL games from 1967-68 onward and spent six seasons in the WHA. So he’s out. You also won’t find Bobby Hull or Maurice Richard or Howie Morenz. Our thorniest and most complicated choices involved players who straddled the two ends of the spectrum. Some slipped through the cracks because their greatest impacts came prior to 1967. Some, who will eventually qualify, didn’t make the list because they are still in the early stages of their careers. Our threshold was 400 games completed at the end of the 2021-22 regular season, which is the games-played criteria to qualify for an NHL pension. So Auston Matthews (407 career games) made it, barely. Cale Makar did not; he has only played 173 NHL regular-season games. It is a difficult line to draw, but you have to draw the line somewhere.
One art Ross and hart trophy both in the same year at age 29. Only 5 all star appearances. Less than 250 career goals. That just isn’t a top 10 player of all time. Maybe not top 20
27. One great thing that happened in hockey over the summer: the NHL Alumni finalized a deal with the league and teams where ex-players can go to current facilities for medical examinations. You don’t have to go where you played, so if you live near Los Angeles, but didn’t play for the Kings, you can still get an appointment. Medical coverage is not cheap, which means it is real change. I think there’s still one team that isn’t finalized, but we must get there because this care is critical. https://www.sportsnet.ca/nhl/article/32-thoughts-setting-the-tone-for-a-brand-new-nhl-season/
Buffalo is really banking on all these young players being good. Not a bad gamble but it could be a spectacular fail.
I’ll be that guy and say I don’t see the upside of giving a defensive defenseman with 56 career games a 7 year deal.
Normally I'm a fan of betting on these types of players, but this seems like an unnecessarily large risk with the term and money.
Nobody loves strong defensive defenseman more than goalies, but giving one of these guys 7 years with a 56 game sample size seems absolutely insane.
How would a "spectacular fail" be any worse than the last decade? Give me trusting the young guys who have looked good to continue to grow and improve. Consider it the Atlanta Braves approach.
There is a cap in the NHL though. If a guy like Samuelsson ends up being bad, you can work your way through things. If you have multiple Samuelsson’s, it’s a different animal
Samuelsson is legit. At worst it will be a slight overpay if he only reaches his floor. But more likely it will end up a steal.
I agree. It’s more how the pieces currently fit, I guess. I do think the potential is there for a really dynamic top six though. Curious how the depth develops.
The Panthers are going to have to outsocre their problems this year. IMO it's still a playoff team, but they will be a 1st round exit unless they can find some defense somewhere or the forwards go god mode in the playoffs. I think it's more about wanting to put Tkachuk and Bennett together. They really like Balcers. Cousins and white have been Meh so far. If Balcers can be a 40ish point guy and Lundell progresses a bit, Panthers are in great shape offensively. I don't see how you think Samuelsson is a low floor guy when so far he has been defense only. With that contract, he needs to be an elite defenensive d-man to be worth the money. The bust potential is quite high. The good thing for Buffalo is that he is young so the buyout is only 1/3 instead of 2/3 if they eject on him before he turns 26. To me, I just don't understand the gamble. young defensive D-men aren't the guys you try to lock down early.
Don't see how that benefits the team when the AAV is already at the high end of what those types of players get. Kid got the high term and money, shoutout to his agent. If it was in 2's then yea go nuts.
that guy admittedly took a pay cut because he is a dummy. that doesn't set the market for someone like Samuelsson.
then what point are you trying to make? the sabres signed a young player they believe in to a potentially team-friendly deal. if he remains a top 4 defense man over the next 3 years, his contract will look like an absolute steal. If somehow his play falters, it will look like a long term mistake by Buffalo. Time will tell. Not much more to say
I love how all the hype around the Canadiens right now revolves around their new goon D, Arber Xhekaj. I can’t wait to see him in action tonight.