Speculation: 2014 - 2015 New York Rangers :: Roster building / proposal thread Part III

[NYR Viper]

Or just trade Nash, which would be the true way to go.

Yet another good option

 

[silverfish]

I'm still confused as to how, if Girardi is indeed so awful, he's remained on the top-pairing under two different coaches -- including one who has said he's an advocate of fancy stats -- despite the fact that we allegedly had "better" options available on the roster.

Because he is by far and away our best Right-Handed option? I don't see anyone arguing that (correct me if I'm wrong) but I do believe Staal is the superior defenseman. If Staal was a righty, it would be McDonagh - Staal.

That's just my opinion.

I do think Nash will be traded this coming off-season, barring anything miraculous. Quality for quantity, similar to the deal we got him for.

I also think Staal is gone, just because of how the numbers will end up working. He can get a ton on the open market.

 

[Mac n Gs]

Or just trade Nash, which would be the true way to go.

To whom and for what though?

 

[Savant]

If we sign Staal, we'd go into cap hell until Nash gets traded or his contract is up. No thanks.

Is correct.

 

[haveandare]

I'm still confused as to how, if Girardi is indeed so awful, he's remained on the top-pairing under two different coaches -- including one who has said he's an advocate of fancy stats -- despite the fact that we allegedly had "better" options available on the roster.

Because its HFNYR in the offseason. Everyone is remembered and judged solely by how they played in the later parts of the playoffs. To a degree, it makes sense, because those are the biggest games. On the other hand, we're talking about a tiny sample of games that were 100+ on the year for some of these guys.

I think Girardi is a good D man, and a very good partner for Mac. He stays home and let's McD do his all over the place thing. He wasn't great in the Kings series, but neither was anybody really.

 

[AHB*]

To whom and for what though?

Moving that contract is the biggest win in my eyes. I expect him to bounce back this year, but I find him (especially after last years playoff performance) as a good piece, but not a vital one. That money would be much better used, imo, for going to raises of the true core and signing other players to surround our core.

The Rangers made it to the finals with him, not because of him. High end depth is clearly much more important then having a streaky winger, albeit a very good one.

Regardless, I see that money as having the potential to be used much more wisely. Think of our cracks this year. Had we traded him we probably keep everyone and even add a fairly good winger for 3-3.5.

 

[Trxjw]

Because he is by far and away our best Right-Handed option? I don't see anyone arguing that (correct me if I'm wrong) but I do believe Staal is the superior defenseman. If Staal was a righty, it would be McDonagh - Staal.

That's just my opinion.

I've seen plenty of people arguing that Stralman was a much better option, yet he was never able to supplant an allegedly inferior player on the top-pairing. That's the point I was making.

I think Staal is a better player overall than Girardi, but that's another point entirely.

 

[Ola]

Because its HFNYR in the offseason. Everyone is remembered and judged solely by how they played in the later parts of the playoffs. To a degree, it makes sense, because those are the biggest games. On the other hand, we're talking about a tiny sample of games that were 100+ on the year for some of these guys.

I think Girardi is a good D man, and a very good partner for Mac. He stays home and let's McD do his all over the place thing. He wasn't great in the Kings series, but neither was anybody really.

Spot on.

 

[Fletch]

Because its HFNYR in the offseason. Everyone is remembered and judged solely by how they played in the later parts of the playoffs. To a degree, it makes sense, because those are the biggest games. On the other hand, we're talking about a tiny sample of games that were 100+ on the year for some of these guys.

I think Girardi is a good D man, and a very good partner for Mac. He stays home and let's McD do his all over the place thing. He wasn't great in the Kings series, but neither was anybody really.

didn't he have issues in handling the puck? Wasn't his finger broken? Could the two have been related? I like Girardi. Don't always think of him as a top d-man, but I like him.

 

[NYRFAN218]

Because its HFNYR in the offseason. Everyone is remembered and judged solely by how they played in the later parts of the playoffs. To a degree, it makes sense, because those are the biggest games. On the other hand, we're talking about a tiny sample of games that were 100+ on the year for some of these guys.

I think Girardi is a good D man, and a very good partner for Mac. He stays home and let's McD do his all over the place thing. He wasn't great in the Kings series, but neither was anybody really.

He was also playing with a dislocated finger that series. His passing was completely off so I definitely think that played a part in his crappy series.

 

[haveandare]

I'm sure his injury was related to his poor play that season. I like the guy a lot. He seems to be the new scapegoat though for others for whatever reason.

 

[Cassano]

I've seen plenty of people arguing that Stralman was a much better option, yet he was never able to supplant an allegedly inferior player on the top-pairing. That's the point I was making.

I think Staal is a better player overall than Girardi, but that's another point entirely.

McDonagh had significantly better numbers with Stralman than Girardi, especially possession wise...

Girardi was a great player and he can play just 'fine' in a top pairing role, but the Rangers signed the wrong player.

 

[SupersonicMonkey*]

Because he is by far and away our best Right-Handed option? I don't see anyone arguing that (correct me if I'm wrong) but I do believe Staal is the superior defenseman. If Staal was a righty, it would be McDonagh - Staal.

That's just my opinion.

I do think Nash will be traded this coming off-season, barring anything miraculous. Quality for quantity, similar to the deal we got him for.

I also think Staal is gone, just because of how the numbers will end up working. He can get a ton on the open market.

And if my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle...

Staal is not the superior defenseman. In any capacity. Not anymore, and not any time recent, either.

Staal has missed 78 games since 10-11. Girardi has missed all of 5 in his entire career. Girardi has averaged far more ATOI. Consistently puts up more points. Spends less time in the penalty box.

Girardi is consistently among the leaders in the league in blocked shots, hits, and minutes played.

"Because I said so" isn't a valid reason why Staal is a better player. He isn't. He could have been in his career, had his entire career not been derailed by multiple head injuries and the fact he has one functional eye now.

Girardi is the better player now, has been for the last couple of years, and will continue to be better value moving forward based on salary.

Girardi is a rock. He has been the most consistent Rangers defenseman since Leetch.

He had a bad couple of games in the Final...that isn't an indictment on his career and what he will be moving forward. And if it is, then Staal, who was infinitely worse, should be getting hammered because of it.

 

[Trxjw]

McDonagh had significantly better numbers with Stralman than Girardi, especially possession wise...

Girardi was a great player and he can play just 'fine' in a top pairing role, but the Rangers signed the wrong player.

And again, Girardi spent the vast majority of the season on the top pairing with McDonagh seeing tougher minutes and tougher matchups. So can you explain the reasoning behind keeping an allegedly superior player on the 2nd pairing, and allegedly superior pairing apart?

Like I said, for all of his "better numbers" he was never able to solidify himself as a regular top-pairing defender.

 

[Cassano]

And again, Girardi spent the vast majority of the season on the top pairing with McDonagh seeing tougher minutes and tougher matchups. So can you explain the reasoning behind keeping an allegedly superior player on the 2nd pairing, and allegedly superior pairing apart?

Like I said, for all of his "better numbers" he was never able to solidify himself as a regular top-pairing defender.

Coaches give the benefit of the doubt to veteran players. Which is why we've seen Callahan get absurd minutes over the years on the Rangers.

Perhaps AV wanted to keep Staal and Stralman together because Staal-Girardi weren't nearly as good. Spread out the defensive contribution.

 

[Vinny DeAngelo]

Can we at least make our new scapegoat someone bad? Girardi is a top pairing defencemen.. Sure he was bad against the kings but the entire team except lundqvist was bad in that series. I vote for cam talbot to be the new scapegoat. He's so god damn lazy all he does is sit on the bench and only shows up to play for about 15-20 games

 

[Infinitum Vitae*]

Glass is the scapegoat

 

[Fletch]

Coaches give the benefit of the doubt to veteran players. Which is why we've seen Callahan get absurd minutes over the years on the Rangers.

Perhaps AV wanted to keep Staal and Stralman together because Staal-Girardi weren't nearly as good. Spread out the defensive contribution.

I think you'd want your top defense pairing to be your top two defensive players who make-up your top pair. If Staal/Girardi would have been that bad because Stralman was that good, then McDonagh/Stralman would have been an awesome pairing. Spreading around the wealth is great, but I think that the pairing was the result of the coach deciding those were the best-suited for a top pairing. But, hey, I'm jaded - I'm more of a Girardi fan than Stralman. Thought Stralman had some growing pains in the couple seasons before last season and Girardi was more steady.

 

[silverfish]

And if my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle...

Staal is not the superior defenseman. In any capacity. Not anymore, and not any time recent, either.

Staal has missed 78 games since 10-11. Girardi has missed all of 5 in his entire career. Girardi has averaged far more ATOI. Consistently puts up more points. Spends less time in the penalty box.

Girardi is consistently among the leaders in the league in blocked shots, hits, and minutes played.

"Because I said so" isn't a valid reason why Staal is a better player. He isn't. He could have been in his career, had his entire career not been derailed by multiple head injuries and the fact he has one functional eye now.

Girardi is the better player now, has been for the last couple of years, and will continue to be better value moving forward based on salary.

Girardi is a rock. He has been the most consistent Rangers defenseman since Leetch.

He had a bad couple of games in the Final...that isn't an indictment on his career and what he will be moving forward. And if it is, then Staal, who was infinitely worse, should be getting hammered because of it.

Woah, easy killer.

People are entitled to their own opinions.

I think Staal is a stronger all-around defenseman than Girardi. You don't. That's okay.

This post is just the epitome of irony - it's really fantastic. So thank you for that, at the least.

Staal is not the superior defenseman. In any capacity. Not anymore, and not any time recent, either.

"Because I said so" isn't a valid reason why Staal is a better player. He isn't.

In the same post! Classic HF. Love this place.

Opinions, baby. Opinions.

 

[Trxjw]

Coaches give the benefit of the doubt to veteran players. Which is why we've seen Callahan get absurd minutes over the years on the Rangers.

Perhaps AV wanted to keep Staal and Stralman together because Staal-Girardi weren't nearly as good. Spread out the defensive contribution.

Callahan never had a superior player playing behind him who, based on "the numbers", should have taken his minutes. Saying two different coaches both gave Girardi the benefit of the doubt for entire seasons of play is ridiculous.

So the coach deliberately made his top-pairing worse just so his 2nd pairing would be marginally better than what it otherwise might have been? That makes no sense at all.

 

[AHB*]

And again, Girardi spent the vast majority of the season on the top pairing with McDonagh seeing tougher minutes and tougher matchups. So can you explain the reasoning behind keeping an allegedly superior player on the 2nd pairing, and allegedly superior pairing apart?

Like I said, for all of his "better numbers" he was never able to solidify himself as a regular top-pairing defender.

When was Stralman given the chance to show himself on the top pair? Our top two pairings were so strong that AV would have been a moron to change anything and he didnt. Hockey is very chemistry based as we Rangers fans should know. Lumping together names and players doesn't always work. We had a good thing going with G and McD and Staal and Strallsy, why change that? Like it or not, players and coaches are rarely in their positions for individual performances, most want the team to win. Stralman may have been 1st pairing quality, but him being on the 2nd pair was best for chemistry and for team success/depth. Frankly, I think he was the better player this year.

I'm not saying Stralman was better, but he was certainly trending upward. I think he will continue to peak over the next few years, while there's a good chance Girardi will begin to decline.

 

[Trxjw]

When was Stralman given the chance to show himself on the top pair? Our top two pairings were so strong that AV would have been a moron to change anything and he didnt. Hockey is very chemistry based as we Rangers fans should know. Lumping together names and players doesn't always work. We had a good thing going with G and McD and Staal and Strallsy, why change that? Like it or not, players and coaches are rarely in their positions for individual performances, most want the team to win. Stralman may have been 1st pairing quality, but him being on the 2nd pair was best for chemistry and for team success/depth. Frankly, I think he was the better player this year.

I'm not saying Stralman was better, but he was certainly trending upward. I think he will continue to peak over the next few years, while there's a good chance Girardi will begin to decline.

I assume he was given an ample number of chances on the top pair considering how often the "McDonagh posted better numbers with Stralman" drum is beaten.

The chemisty bit is all well and good, but if the numbers are to be trusted, then McDonagh supposedly played better with Stralman than he did with Girardi, and doesn't better play indicate chemistry? Not to mention Girardi and Staal have a history of playing well together to boot.

I'm not advocating that the pairings should have been changed. I'm simply waiting for someone to explain to me how Stralman can be a much better player, and yet he was never able to solidify himself as such in the lineup. People always imply that McDonagh carried Girardi and he had much better numbers without him, so why in the world would a coach whose priority is winning put an anchor around his best player just so he could "spread the defense around"?

 

[JESSEWENEEDTOCOOK]

I assume he was given an ample number of chances on the top pair considering how often the "McDonagh posted better numbers with Stralman" drum is beaten.

The chemisty bit is all well and good, but if the numbers are to be trusted, then McDonagh supposedly played better with Stralman than he did with Girardi, and doesn't better play indicate chemistry? Not to mention Girardi and Staal have a history of playing well together to boot.

I'm not advocating that the pairings should have been changed. I'm simply waiting for someone to explain to me how Stralman can be a much better player, and yet he was never able to solidify himself as such in the lineup. People always imply that McDonagh carried Girardi and he had much better numbers without him, so why in the world would a coach whose priority is winning put an anchor around his best player just so he could "spread the defense around"?

an error in judgment?

coaches aren't infallible.

 

[Trxjw]

an error in judgment?

coaches aren't infallible.

So two different coaches, with two different systems, both made the same error and were unable to see, or correct that error over the duration over dozens of regular and post season games?

Coaches aren't infallible, but that's certainly pushing the limits of reality. Not to mention that error in judgement -- by a coach who pays attention to the advanced stats, mind you -- got the team to it's first finals appearance in 20 years. Was Stralman an important piece? Absolutely. However, I don't for a second buy that he's a better player than Girardi.

 

[Fletch]

an error in judgment?

coaches aren't infallible.

they aren't, but on the defensive side of the equation, perhaps you give AV the benefit of the doubt last season since his defensively-oriented team did get to the Finals.