Sidney Crosby was named captain at just 19-years-old.
It seems as though the trend has been set to designate your young, budding star player as team captain. And I’m not talking fourth or fifth season in. No no, these moves are being made pretty darn quick in a player’s career.
Precedent may have been set back in the 1986-87 season when the Red Wings stitched the “C” on a young 21-year-old Steve Yzerman. Yzerman then went on the lead the Red Wings for the next 20 years before retiring in 2006 and taking home three Stanley Cups. Good choice I’d say.
Yet in recent years we have witnessed this occurrence much more frequently. Conversely, we have also witnessed a few questionable captain selections along the way.
Since Yzerman, the Pittsburgh Penguins followed suit in May 2007 naming their young franchise star Sidney Crosby captain at the ripe age of 19 years, 9 months and 24 days. This move was inevitable, though. Crosby was already slicing up the league and dominating men since he first stepped onto an NHL rink the season before. So in a way, the Pens get a pass making this move so early in his career. It made sense.
Since Crosby, we’ve seen a hefty list of players don the “C” for their NHL clubs at an uncanny young age. Landeskog, Stamkos, Toews, and now McDavid top the list of notable youngsters given leadership over their squads while also not legally permitted to buy a Michelob Light in the USA.
In all honesty, though, three of these four are essentially no-brainers. Stamkos, Toews, and McDavid all performed as a star and one of the best, if not best, player on their respective team making captaincy quite foreseeable.
Landeskog, on the other hand, is somewhat of a question. Since being drafted second overall in the 2011 NHL entry draft and a respectable 52-point rookie campaign, his point totals have stalled in relation to his counterparts. But who knows, Landeskog could demonstrate his leadership qualities best behind closed doors. Unfortunately for the Avalanche, the team has struggled so mightily for the last few seasons, Landeskog’s captaincy hasn’t come under direct heat compared to the team’s overall poor performance.
In the mix of all these kids getting letters on their jerseys, there have been some uh, well, strange moves by NHL clubs.
Take for instance the Vancouver Canucks naming Roberto Luongo team captain just shy of the 2008-09 season. This was simply a terrible decision on so many levels. For starters, goaltending is such a unique position that requires different methods of preparation. Being the face of the franchise doesn’t tend to mesh well when you’re constantly being looked to by teammates and the media for whatever reason.
Secondly, the captain ideally is one who will break down a game for reporters afterward, win or loss. It creates a very touchy area if your goalie is calling out specific plays performed incorrectly by his teammates in front of him. This was largely a fail by the Canucks. Luongo thus stepped down as team captain two seasons later just before the start of the 2010-2011 season.
The Washington Capitals decided in January 2010 that Alex Ovechkin would be the team’s next captain. Individually the move makes perfect sense. Ovechkin had established himself as one of the league’s most gifted and natural goal scorers. He had amassed various individual trophies due to his scoring prowess. However, as of late, many are questioning this move as the Capitals have failed on multiple occasions to get past the second round of the Stanley Cup playoffs despite having highly competitive rosters and numerous Presidents Trophies in their name. Unfortunately for Capitals’ management – and Ovechkin – much of the captaincy’s legitimacy relies on bringing Washington the hardest trophy in sports, the Stanley Cup.
I get it, though. Not every team is fortunate enough to have a young superstar where management just slaps a “C” on him and everyone nods along in agreement. There are many teams in the NHL’s history that have deferred captaincy and simply operated with an extra alternate. I agree with this strategy wholeheartedly. If it doesn’t work and if it doesn’t make sense, don’t force it.
Take a look at the Toronto Maple Leafs. They are riddled with young talent. It feels as though they just plucked standout players from the recent World Junior Hockey Championships. The Maple Leafs also have the privilege of employing one of the most talented youngsters currently playing in the league – Auston Matthews.
This season marks Matthews second full campaign, and it would be an insult to infer he may not live up to the hype. His first NHL game squashed that fear. Yet the Maple Leafs are taking their time naming a captain. I say this somewhat in jest as Matthews is still only 20 years old, however many of the names previously listed had already played an NHL game serving as their team’s captain by that age. Alas, we wait for what should be only a formality when they decide to name Matthews the Maple Leafs’ leader.
Then there’s the Carolina Hurricanes. The Canes have recently decided that if you can’t name one captain – name two! Similar to the Canucks decision to name Luongo Captain, I don’t like this move. Carolina has decided to name Jordan Staal and Justin Faulk “co-captains” of the Hurricanes. Essentially one of these players will serve as captain on the road and one at home. This is just, well, it’s cheesy. It looks passive and it looks lazy. Like I said before, if it doesn’t work or doesn’t make sense, don’t force it.
Here’s hoping your team suffers the envious decision of when to name some blazingly skilled youngster captain.
Follow me on Twitter @heavy__c
