Auston Matthews

[Zee]

One or two at most.  The very term is literally one of description of a player of talent so rare that we'll see one once in a generation, give or take.  And generations are long;  a long life witnesses just a handful of generations.  So to designate a generational talent, we should be talking about Orr and Gretzky level talent.  It is a term intended to indicate one of a select few all-time greats.

Matthews is a wonderful player, already an elite one, and I think one destined to be among the best players in the league throughout his career.  He's an extremely special player, but he's not Orr and Gretzky special.  But I'd be thrilled to be wrong about that.

Agreed. "Generational talent" is a phrase that's starting to get thrown around a little too much these days. Like you said, Matthews is a wonderful player, a true #1 center, etc., but, he's not a Gretzky/Lemieux/Orr level talent - and there's nothing wrong with that. Very few players have that level of skill.

Ok. If "generational" is face-of-the-game or put-em-on-a-postage-stamp level, Matthews isn't that. But he has the talent to be on the next tier down, with the handful of guys who define their era.

How could he not be? His rookie season, without even accounting for scoring differences between eras or upticks in penalties called, is among the best in league history.

He'd be the first rookie since Ovechkin to hit 40 goals, and like you mentioned this era of hockey is ALOT more difficult to get to 40.  Currently only Sid is over 40, and 3-4 other guys are knocking on the door of 40, Matthews included.  So yeah, he's a hell of a talent.

 

[bustaheims]

Ok. If "generational" is face-of-the-game or put-em-on-a-postage-stamp level, Matthews isn't that. But he has the talent to be on the next tier down, with the handful of guys who define their era.

How could he not be? His rookie season, without even accounting for scoring differences between eras or upticks in penalties called, is among the best in league history.

Yeah. No one is denying that. He has potential to be one of the league's stars for the next 20 years. He's just not likely to be involved in the "best players in the history of the league" type discussions that generational talents are.

 

[Redleaf]

One or two at most.  The very term is literally one of description of a player of talent so rare that we'll see one once in a generation, give or take.  And generations are long;  a long life witnesses just a handful of generations.  So to designate a generational talent, we should be talking about Orr and Gretzky level talent.  It is a term intended to indicate one of a select few all-time greats.

Matthews is a wonderful player, already an elite one, and I think one destined to be among the best players in the league throughout his career.  He's an extremely special player, but he's not Orr and Gretzky special.  But I'd be thrilled to be wrong about that.

Agreed. "Generational talent" is a phrase that's starting to get thrown around a little too much these days. Like you said, Matthews is a wonderful player, a true #1 center, etc., but, he's not a Gretzky/Lemieux/Orr level talent - and there's nothing wrong with that. Very few players have that level of skill.

"generational" face-of-the-game or put-em-on-a-postage-stamp level.

Its funny, because if Matthews and co. can bring a cup to Toronto, they will find a way to put Matthews face on a Canadian stamp.

 

[disco]

https://twitter.com/LeafsNews/status/849007728324472832
https://twitter.com/LeafsNews/status/849007837246369793

 

[bustaheims]

So, one of the crazy things about his season is that, if Hyman was a better finisher, Matthews could easily have 10-15 more assists.

 

[Beowulf]

I'm sorry but I don't think there should be any talk of Matthews getting the 'C' until we know a little bit more about how assertive he in the locker room.

I mean does he drive straight to the music player with authority or just float around the periphery

 

[disco]

https://twitter.com/JeffVeillette/status/849038586452332544

 

[OldTimeHockey]

Ok. If "generational" is face-of-the-game or put-em-on-a-postage-stamp level, Matthews isn't that. But he has the talent to be on the next tier down, with the handful of guys who define their era.

How could he not be? His rookie season, without even accounting for scoring differences between eras or upticks in penalties called, is among the best in league history.

Yeah. No one is denying that. He has potential to be one of the league's stars for the next 20 years. He's just not likely to be involved in the "best players in the history of the league" type discussions that generational talents are.

I'm not sure. In my books, Gretzky, Lemieux and Orr are from different generations. I'd even consider Crosby and Ovechkin to be from a different generation then Matthews and McDavid. I've always viewed the tags by the generation that placed those players on that pedestal. My generation for example placed Lemieux and Gretzky on a pedestal. My father's probably had Howe and Rocket Richard. My older daughter(16 years old), has Crosby and Ovechkin as their generation's superstars. My youngest daughter(8 years old) is placing McDavid and now Matthews on that same pedestal.

I guess the point is from generation to generation, the superstars change. It's tough to compare players from one generation to another.  I wouldn't go as far to anoint Matthews as a generational talent just yet, but he very well could be.

 

[Bender]

One or two at most.  The very term is literally one of description of a player of talent so rare that we'll see one once in a generation, give or take.  And generations are long;  a long life witnesses just a handful of generations.  So to designate a generational talent, we should be talking about Orr and Gretzky level talent.  It is a term intended to indicate one of a select few all-time greats.

Matthews is a wonderful player, already an elite one, and I think one destined to be among the best players in the league throughout his career.  He's an extremely special player, but he's not Orr and Gretzky special.  But I'd be thrilled to be wrong about that.

Agreed. "Generational talent" is a phrase that's starting to get thrown around a little too much these days. Like you said, Matthews is a wonderful player, a true #1 center, etc., but, he's not a Gretzky/Lemieux/Orr level talent - and there's nothing wrong with that. Very few players have that level of skill.

Could you not argue generational doesn't have to be compared to Gretz or Lemieux? Like what if Matthews is the best player in a ten year period? Would that not count for something?

 

[Kin]

Could you not argue generational doesn't have to be compared to Gretz or Lemieux? Like what if Matthews is the best player in a ten year period? Would that not count for something?

Sure. Except it seems pretty unlikely that Matthews will even be the best player in a two year period.

 

[disco]

https://twitter.com/serpajulian/status/850076604411916288

AM34 Centennial jersey in front of Big Ben

 

[AlmosGirl]

Awesome job disco.

 

[Kin]

He's really had a nice season.

 

[Heroic Shrimp]

I'm going with a little hyperbole here, but nonetheless I'll say Matthews sealed two trophies with one empty net goal:  the Calder and the Jack Adams.

 

[disco]

Awesome job disco.

Thanks.

 

[disco]

I'm going with a little hyperbole here, but nonetheless I'll say Matthews sealed two trophies with one empty net goal:  the Calder and the Jack Adams.

x2

 

[Kin]

I'm going with a little hyperbole here, but nonetheless I'll say Matthews sealed two trophies with one empty net goal:  the Calder and the Jack Adams.

Definitely on the Calder, I still think Tortorella is the front-runner for the Adams.

I know this isn't the only consideration and I think it's kind of overblown but in term of year to year improvement the Leafs right now are actually only 3rd in terms of points at +26.

 

[Heroic Shrimp]

I'm going with a little hyperbole here, but nonetheless I'll say Matthews sealed two trophies with one empty net goal:  the Calder and the Jack Adams.

Definitely on the Calder, I still think Tortorella is the front-runner for the Adams.

I know this isn't the only consideration and I think it's kind of overblown but in term of year to year improvement the Leafs right now are actually only 3rd in terms of points at +26.

Maybe extra hyperbole on the Jack Adams for Babcock.  But the reasons (legitimate or not) that Tortorella may not win the Jack Adams include 1) the fact that he's won it before and voters often like to spread it around, 2) a lot of people personally don't like him (although it's broadcasters, not writers, voting on the award), and 3) Columbus has lost 8 or its last 10 games closing out the regular season.

The case for Babcock winning it includes the fact that he's never won it before despite how well-regarded he is, the significant turnaround this season from worst to playoffs, and the fact that the turnaround been on the backs of rookies and other very young players.

Edit to add this:

https://twitter.com/AGretz/status/850797567000670208

 

[Kin]

I'm going with a little hyperbole here, but nonetheless I'll say Matthews sealed two trophies with one empty net goal:  the Calder and the Jack Adams.

Definitely on the Calder, I still think Tortorella is the front-runner for the Adams.

I know this isn't the only consideration and I think it's kind of overblown but in term of year to year improvement the Leafs right now are actually only 3rd in terms of points at +26.

Maybe extra hyperbole on the Jack Adams for Babcock.  But the reasons (legitimate or not) that Tortorella may not win the Jack Adams include 1) the fact that he's won it before and voters often like to spread it around, 2) a lot of people personally don't like him (although it's broadcasters, not writers, voting on the award), and 3) Columbus has lost 8 or its last 10 games closing out the regular season.

The case for Babcock winning it includes the fact that he's never won it before despite how well-regarded he is, the significant turnaround this season from worst to playoffs, and the fact that the turnaround been on the backs of rookies and other very young players.

I think Babcock's got a very good case for it in terms of the way the award tends to be awarded. Some counter-points though, for the sake of devil's advocacy:

1) In the 11 years since the cancelled season, a coach has only won the Adams without getting to 100 points three times. Just at a glance I'd guess the average point total of the winners to be about 10 points higher than where the Leafs might finish.

2) If Babcock wins he'd do so with the lowest win total in the history of the award(excluding lockout seasons) and be the only one to not have more wins than losses. There's some "loser point" backlash out there.

3) I don't know that if team composition gives Babcock a huge edge. Similarly to the reason neither of us are mentioning McLellan I wonder if there won't be a "It's less coaching, more an infusion of high impact talent" attitude to explain the jump in points. Tortorella has basically taken the same team to a much better season and done so on getting better seasons from less remarkable talents like Sam Gagner an Alexander Wennberg.

"Worst to playoffs" has a nice narrative to it but Babcock will likely go up against "2nd worst to potentially division winner" and "4th worst to top 5 record in NHL".

 

[ZBBM]

I'm going with a little hyperbole here, but nonetheless I'll say Matthews sealed two trophies with one empty net goal:  the Calder and the Jack Adams.

Definitely on the Calder, I still think Tortorella is the front-runner for the Adams.

I know this isn't the only consideration and I think it's kind of overblown but in term of year to year improvement the Leafs right now are actually only 3rd in terms of points at +26.

There's maybe a hidden moral in that stat, which is that the Leafs weren't as abysmal last year as they seemed.  They obviously had at least 4 good players in JVR, Kadri, Gardiner, & Rielly, none of whom are even close to being over the hill.  I guess there was a lot of strategic losing to thank last year for AM34.