Jump to content
The Official Site of the Montréal Canadiens
Canadiens de Montreal

Rank These Players


BigTed3
 Share

Recommended Posts

Without looking up anyone's stats or contracts or anything, respond to this with your gut instinct... how would you rank the following players in terms of value within each group (i.e. the 1st player on your list is a guy you wouldn't trade 1 for 1 for anyone else on the list, the 2nd guy is a guy you would trade for the first guy but no one below him, etc.)...

 

Group 1:

- Alex Galchenyuk

- Jonathan Huberdeau

- Chris Kreider

- Mitch Marner

 

Group 2:

- Max Pacioretty

- Ryan Nugent-Hopkins

- Phil Kessel

- Wayne Simmonds

 

Group 3:

- Andrew Shaw

- Lars Eller

- Philip Danault

- Alex DeBrincat

 

Group 4:

- Shea Weber

- P.K. Subban

- Drew Doughty

- Brent Burns

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Group 1

  1. Huberdeau - Best track record, and sustained PPG this season)
  2. Marner - Already a high end first line F at age 20 despite weighing approximately 15 pounds)
  3. Galchenyuk - Highest goal scoring ceiling of the group, but in his 6th season is starting to feel a bit Andrei Kostitsyn)
  4. Kreider - Lowest ceiling of any in these group, fine top 6 winger with good speed but doesn't have the upside of other 3.

Group 2

  1. Pacioretty - Truly elite goal scoring and possession driving combo. It's rare a guy scores 35G a year, kills penalties, and drives possession from the wing.
  2. Kessel - Highest overall skill of any of these guys but loses overall to Pacioretty because of a less well rounded game
  3. Simmonds - Similarly high end goal scorer, but IMO a hair below Kessel or Pacioretty in overall talent
  4. Nugent-Hopkins - Hasn't really been a 1st line talent on par with the other 3, but if his 30G pace becomes a new normal he'd start to displace the other 3 as they age.

Group 3

  1. DeBrincat - 20 years old and already looking like a perennial 25-30G scorer. 
  2. Danault - Serviceable 2C with speed and excellent forechecking.
  3. Eller - Strong tough minutes 3C, relatively low points overall but of his ~30 points he has a high percentage of goals.
  4. Shaw - Good top 9 forward, can play anywhere up and down the lineup, solid on the PP. Loses out to Eller because he doesn't have the same ability to carry a shutdown line as a center.

Group 4

  1. Subban - Elite in every facet of the game. Interchangeable with Doughty and Hedman as one of the 2nd-4th best defensemen in the NHL. I put him higher because it's gut feel and my gut feel remembers this and this.
  2. Doughty - Elite in every facet of the game. Interchangeable with Subban and Hedman as one of the 2nd-4th best defensemen in the NHL.
  3. Burns - He is basically what everyone thinks Subban and Karlsson are, super elite goal scorer and offensively, and...adventurous defensively.
  4. Weber - Elite defender, elite penalty killer, high end PP guy. Still overall a strong top pair guy but he Isn't really elite 5 on 5 anymore, and needs to be paired with a complementary puck mover which isn't what you want to be worrying about with your #1D.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting thread BT :)

 

Group 1:   1. Huberdeau - 2. Galchenyuk - 2A. Marner - 4. Kreider

Group 2:   1. RNH - 2. MaxPac  - 2A. Kessel  - 2B Simmonds  (this is a very even group)

Group 3:  1. Debrincat - 2. Danault - 3. Eller - 3B. Shaw

Group 4: 1. Doughty - 1A. Subban  - 3. Weber  - 4. Burns

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, maas_art said:

Interesting thread BT :)

 

Group 1:   1. Huberdeau - 2. Galchenyuk - 2A. Marner - 4. Kreider

Group 2:   1. RNH - 2. MaxPac  - 2A. Kessel  - 2B Simmonds  (this is a very even group)

Group 3:  1. Debrincat - 2. Danault - 3. Eller - 3B. Shaw

Group 4: 1. Doughty - 1A. Subban  - 3. Weber  - 4. Burns

No 1A allowed ;)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have

1: Huberdeau, Marner, Galchenyuk, Kreider

2. Pacioretty, RNH, Simmonds, Kessel

3. Debrincat, Danault, Eller, Shaw

4. Subban, Doughty, Weber, Burns

 

We'll see what order these players end up in when we compile everyone's votes (will give a little more time to see if anyone else has an opinion to contribute to this), but just thought this would add some amount reflection to our trade process, both in terms of who we've already dealt and who we might be looking to trade.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Strange edit function??? Ooops, my bad :(

I chose to list by position, which may or may not be wrong. Another thing I would consider is where in the line-up a player is being used vs.potential if playing either higher or lower in that line-up. A prime example for me was Eller vs. Danault. Also some players are a lot younger and still a work in progress (Debrincat and Marner for example). I wonder if RNH if playing a top center role would be ranked first at center vs.Huberdeau?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Habs_Hockey_Nutz said:

Strange edit function??? Ooops, my bad :(

I chose to list by position, which may or may not be wrong. Another thing I would consider is where in the line-up a player is being used vs.potential if playing either higher or lower in that line-up. A prime example for me was Eller vs. Danault. Also some players are a lot younger and still a work in progress (Debrincat and Marner for example). I wonder if RNH if playing a top center role would be ranked first at center vs.Huberdeau?

You're welcome to comment on any rank order you wish. I grouped the players not by position but based on trade rumors, similarities, and potential roles with our team. For example, some have talked about a Pacioretty for RNH swap. Simmonds is probably the most comparable player in terms of production from the same draft era. And people have talked about a team looking to add Pacioretty being akin to the Pens adding Kessel for their Cup runs. In another group, you have Shaw, who was acquired for two 2nd rounders the same day Eller was dealt for two 2nd's, so there's a link suggesting MB swapped one to make room for the other. Danault essentially took Eller's spot in the line-up. And Debrincat was the guy Chicago drafted with one of the picks we gave up for Shaw and the player Trevor Timmins said he would have taken there too. So this is a thought experiment to see how people value players who's careers or storylines have been linked.

Once people have had the chance to vote, I'll compile them and see what orders the forum as a whole have given the players, which would be a way of looking at how people see our trading record and/or future direction to make deals in terms of our players' values. So feel free to re-rank based on the groupings I left if you would like your opinion counted in the group vote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BigTed3 said:

And Debrincat was the guy Chicago drafted with one of the picks we gave up for Shaw and the player Trevor Timmins said he would have taken there too. So this is a thought experiment to see how people value players who's careers or storylines have been linked.

:6351:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So right now, based on a 5-3-2-1 point system for votes, this is how we've ranked the players (for people who wrote in ties, the player you named first was deemed to be ahead)... apologies if there are any mistakes, but I tallied the numbers in my head. Here is each group with points per player and number of first place votes in brackets:

Group 1:

Huberdeau  = 57 pts (8)

Marner = 47 pts (5)

Galchenyuk  = 34 pts (1)

Kreider = 17 pts (0)

So here, the players were pretty well delineated with a clear order to how people feel. What's evident is that Kreider was seen as the worst of the bunch, despite the fact many in NY were saying a Kreider for Galchenyuk straight up trade would be fair. Clearly it wouldn't be.

Group 2:

RNH = 50 pts (6)

Pacioretty = 45 pts(5)

Simmonds = 31 pts (2)

Kessel  = 28 pts (1)

Here, the group was split into two, with RNH and Pacioretty very close together and Simmonds and Kessel close together but far off the lead two. There seems to be some thought that swapping out Pacioretty for RNH would be fair. Interestingly, Simmonds has played more games than Pacioretty in the NHL but with similar point totals. If you look at the past few seasons, they've been remarkably close in performance, yet he's farther back in voting.

Group 3:

Debrincat = 57 pts (9)

Danault = 41 pts (2)

Eller = 38 pts (3)

Shaw = 18 pts (0)

This group was the least close, with Debrincat running away with the win and 9 of 14 first-place votes. Danault and Eller were about even, suggesting Danault is an acceptable replacement for Eller. However, Shaw was way behind, indicating people feel it was a mistake to swap out Eller to afford Shaw and an even bigger mistake to have given up two 2nd's for Shaw when one would have been Debrincat.

Group 4:

Subban = 52 pts (7)

Doughty = 46 pts (4)

Burns =  37 pts (3)

Weber = 19 pts (0)

In another tight race, Subban eked out Doughty for the win. Burns was a little off the pace, but all three guys were miles ahead of Weber, who not only got no first place votes but no second place votes either. This supports the notion that we lost the Subban-Weber trade by a mile and that Subban and Doughty are in a class apart from Shea.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, BigTed3 said:

So right now, based on a 5-3-2-1 point system for votes, this is how we've ranked the players (for people who wrote in ties, the player you named first was deemed to be ahead)... apologies if there are any mistakes, but I tallied the numbers in my head. Here is each group with points per player and number of first place votes in brackets:

Group 1:

Huberdeau  = 57 pts (8)

Marner = 47 pts (5)

Galchenyuk  = 34 pts (1)

Kreider = 17 pts (0)

So here, the players were pretty well delineated with a clear order to how people feel. What's evident is that Kreider was seen as the worst of the bunch, despite the fact many in NY were saying a Kreider for Galchenyuk straight up trade would be fair. Clearly it wouldn't be.

Group 2:

RNH = 50 pts (6)

Pacioretty = 45 pts(5)

Simmonds = 31 pts (2)

Kessel  = 28 pts (1)

Here, the group was split into two, with RNH and Pacioretty very close together and Simmonds and Kessel close together but far off the lead two. There seems to be some thought that swapping out Pacioretty for RNH would be fair. Interestingly, Simmonds has played more games than Pacioretty in the NHL but with similar point totals. If you look at the past few seasons, they've been remarkably close in performance, yet he's farther back in voting.

Group 3:

Debrincat = 57 pts (9)

Danault = 41 pts (2)

Eller = 38 pts (3)

Shaw = 18 pts (0)

This group was the least close, with Debrincat running away with the win and 9 of 14 first-place votes. Danault and Eller were about even, suggesting Danault is an acceptable replacement for Eller. However, Shaw was way behind, indicating people feel it was a mistake to swap out Eller to afford Shaw and an even bigger mistake to have given up two 2nd's for Shaw when one would have been Debrincat.

Group 4:

Subban = 52 pts (7)

Doughty = 46 pts (4)

Burns =  37 pts (3)

Weber = 19 pts (0)

In another tight race, Subban eked out Doughty for the win. Burns was a little off the pace, but all three guys were miles ahead of Weber, who not only got no first place votes but no second place votes either. This supports the notion that we lost the Subban-Weber trade by a mile and that Subban and Doughty are in a class apart from Shea.

 

first of all, cool thread idea ted!  interesting data here

couple of sad things I noticed in here

1. I was the only person to rank patchy last in his group.....I dont know how kessel , who is 11th in league scoring as we speak, is not ahead of him. Simmonds I would take over patch in a heartbeat. similar numbers but the guy is a tough hombre, physical and an on ice leader.  the only question there is RNH who doesnt have the history, but seems to be coming into his own. if the offence is even close to consistently similar he wins by being a center , and by being a better overall player. 

2. how bad did we screw up. we should have eller and debrincat on this team, instead of shaw. UGH

3. I will spare you all my usual lengthy diatribe on subban/weber, but at this point its not even if theres a debate....we got hosed. you accept that or you dont, but the proof is in the pudding. whats more disturbing to me however, is does anyone really think weber even belongs on that list? thats a legit list of 3 of the tippy top guys...and weber for fun because hes the guy we have.  I dont even think weber is top 10 in the league anymore.....maybe not even 20 if you want to get into kids who are developing who you would absolutely rather have on the habs right now

So in conclusion .....this is some horrendous asset management here.  to quote ray ferraro...dumbfounding. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, jeff33 said:

first of all, cool thread idea ted!  interesting data here

couple of sad things I noticed in here

1. I was the only person to rank patchy last in his group.....I dont know how kessel , who is 11th in league scoring as we speak, is not ahead of him. Simmonds I would take over patch in a heartbeat. similar numbers but the guy is a tough hombre, physical and an on ice leader.  the only question there is RNH who doesnt have the history, but seems to be coming into his own. if the offence is even close to consistently similar he wins by being a center , and by being a better overall player. 

2. how bad did we screw up. we should have eller and debrincat on this team, instead of shaw. UGH

3. I will spare you all my usual lengthy diatribe on subban/weber, but at this point its not even if theres a debate....we got hosed. you accept that or you dont, but the proof is in the pudding. whats more disturbing to me however, is does anyone really think weber even belongs on that list? thats a legit list of 3 of the tippy top guys...and weber for fun because hes the guy we have.  I dont even think weber is top 10 in the league anymore.....maybe not even 20 if you want to get into kids who are developing who you would absolutely rather have on the habs right now

So in conclusion .....this is some horrendous asset management here.  to quote ray ferraro...dumbfounding. 

I think one thing to remember is that this isn't a vote on who is the best right now or who would take for one game. If this were a vote on who I'd take for one playoff series starting tomorrow, I'd have Kessel and Simmonds ahead of Pacioretty and RNH last. But if I'm thinking about who I want on my team long-term that's a different vote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, BigTed3 said:

So right now, based on a 5-3-2-1 point system for votes, this is how we've ranked the players (for people who wrote in ties, the player you named first was deemed to be ahead)... apologies if there are any mistakes, but I tallied the numbers in my head. Here is each group with points per player and number of first place votes in brackets:

Group 1:

Huberdeau  = 57 pts (8)

Marner = 47 pts (5)

Galchenyuk  = 34 pts (1)

Kreider = 17 pts (0)

So here, the players were pretty well delineated with a clear order to how people feel. What's evident is that Kreider was seen as the worst of the bunch, despite the fact many in NY were saying a Kreider for Galchenyuk straight up trade would be fair. Clearly it wouldn't be.

Group 2:

RNH = 50 pts (6)

Pacioretty = 45 pts(5)

Simmonds = 31 pts (2)

Kessel  = 28 pts (1)

Here, the group was split into two, with RNH and Pacioretty very close together and Simmonds and Kessel close together but far off the lead two. There seems to be some thought that swapping out Pacioretty for RNH would be fair. Interestingly, Simmonds has played more games than Pacioretty in the NHL but with similar point totals. If you look at the past few seasons, they've been remarkably close in performance, yet he's farther back in voting.

Group 3:

Debrincat = 57 pts (9)

Danault = 41 pts (2)

Eller = 38 pts (3)

Shaw = 18 pts (0)

This group was the least close, with Debrincat running away with the win and 9 of 14 first-place votes. Danault and Eller were about even, suggesting Danault is an acceptable replacement for Eller. However, Shaw was way behind, indicating people feel it was a mistake to swap out Eller to afford Shaw and an even bigger mistake to have given up two 2nd's for Shaw when one would have been Debrincat.

Group 4:

Subban = 52 pts (7)

Doughty = 46 pts (4)

Burns =  37 pts (3)

Weber = 19 pts (0)

In another tight race, Subban eked out Doughty for the win. Burns was a little off the pace, but all three guys were miles ahead of Weber, who not only got no first place votes but no second place votes either. This supports the notion that we lost the Subban-Weber trade by a mile and that Subban and Doughty are in a class apart from Shea.

 

But if a 4,3,2,1 system was used which would be more correct than a 5,3,2,1 ? it would of been much closer which the votes actually shown.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...