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

[aufheben]

Interesting reaction for a post that was mostly agreeing with and adding to what you originally said.

Again, thats where the depth comes in. Vigneault is a coach that will always try to win the chess match with matchups, zone starts, and any other advantage he can exploit.

If the offense is more evenly distributed, there will be 3 lines he can use to coax the matchups he wants. When i said a particular poster has an agenda, that wasn't directed at you, I'm not naming names. But i will say they think they know it all.

I know, I didn't quote you. No worries. :thumb:

Is just a general peeve of mine.

 

[LaffyTaffyNYR]

Are they going to try to talk with Staal before camp?

 

[AHB*]

You can call them whatever the **** you want, but each line has a clearly defined role under AV.

We use 3 scoring lines, and out of those 3, Brassard's line got the easiest match ups; What the **** else are you supposed to call it? It is what it is.

Calm down, dude. Maybe they did get the easiest matchups over the course of the year, but how about in the playoffs. I would think that would be the Richards-MSL line, no?

Regardless, Brass-Zucc is not your traditional 3rd line, I don't know how anyone can argue that.

 

[BobMarleyNYR]

AV's system is actually the first time I haven't seen defined roles for each line since Low, who sucked. All the lines seem to be about getting the puck out of the zone quick, through the neutral zone quicker, and then contain the O-zone, putting a lot of pucks on net.

Like he said last October, and I still wonder, we might not have the skill he's used to. We were able to make that system work for skill players as well as role players. We have a REALLY good coach, is what it comes down to.

 

[alkurtz]

AV is right in the vanguard of coaches who recognize that the game has changed. No longer is there a high powered 1st line, a checking 3rd line, a 2nd line somewhere in between, and an energy 4th line designed to change momemtum perhaps with physical play.

The way the game is played now is to have talent and skill across all 4 lines: ability spread across the lineup.

While not exactly rolling lines, your top offensive players will still log more minutes, everybody is expected to contribute to an up tempo, puck possession game.

We have a lot of balance across our lines and that is why I would not be surprised to see some of our younger forwards like Fast and Lindberg logging time on the 4th line; a roll that in the past may have gone to less skilled, veteran players.

I continue to be impressed with AV and although some may not want to credit him, to "old foggy" Sather who is evolving along with the game as played today.

 

[Fletch]

AV is right in the vanguard of coaches who recognize that the game has changed. No longer is there a high powered 1st line, a checking 3rd line, a 2nd line somewhere in between, and an energy 4th line designed to change momemtum perhaps with physical play.

The way the game is played now is to have talent and skill across all 4 lines: ability spread across the lineup.

While not exactly rolling lines, your top offensive players will still log more minutes, everybody is expected to contribute to an up tempo, puck possession game.

We have a lot of balance across our lines and that is why I would not be surprised to see some of our younger forwards like Fast and Lindberg logging time on the 4th line; a roll that in the past may have gone to less skilled, veteran players.

I continue to be impressed with AV and although some may not want to credit him, to "old foggy" Sather who is evolving along with the game as played today.

it does help to have a high powered 1st line to get those important goals. Seems as though some teams have had success with them.

 

[TheTakedown]

it does help to have a high powered 1st line to get those important goals. Seems as though some teams have had success with them.

they do work, but the idea is that you cannot be a strictly top heavy team if you want to win.

 

[Tawnos]

it does help to have a high powered 1st line to get those important goals. Seems as though some teams have had success with them.

I think a lot of offense from your first line is important, but a truly top heavy team hasn't won the Stanley Cup since last decade (yeah, we can speak that way now). Boston, Chicago and LA all have had deep lineups when going the distance.

I don't think our lineup could possibly be as balanced as it was last year, but I still think we can ice a deep team whether Nash, MSL or Zuccarello stay as RWs or one of them moves to the left. Even though the strength of our forward corps was RW even before acquiring MSL, the reason we were able to be so balanced was the presence of 3 offensively capable centers.

I go back to even strength time on ice distribution. Last year our top 3 centers were Richards, Stepan and Brassard getting 15, 14 and 13 minutes per game respectively. That kind of balance barely exists anywhere else in the league. How did other deep teams do it? We will go back to the 3 notorious depth teams: Boston, Chicago, LA. Boston had 16, 14, 12. Chicago had 15.75, 12.75, 11. LA had 15.5, 14, 12.5.

We don't have the center balance that we did last year. So, the question is, if Miller, Lindberg or Lombardi aren't capable of playing 13 quality even strength minutes per night, are we really going to reduce one of our great RWs ice time because of it? Or would that player be more effective getting the extra minutes on the other wing?

It's a dilemma. My instinct tells me that it'd be more effective to move one of them over, but that isn't to say that the other way couldn't work too.

 

[Zuccarello Awesome*]

I think a lot of offense from your first line is important, but a truly top heavy team hasn't won the Stanley Cup since last decade (yeah, we can speak that way now). Boston, Chicago and LA all have had deep lineups when going the distance.

I don't think our lineup could possibly be as balanced as it was last year, but I still think we can ice a deep team whether Nash, MSL or Zuccarello stay as RWs or one of them moves to the left. Even though the strength of our forward corps was RW even before acquiring MSL, the reason we were able to be so balanced was the presence of 3 offensively capable centers.

I go back to even strength time on ice distribution. Last year our top 3 centers were Richards, Stepan and Brassard getting 15, 14 and 13 minutes per game respectively. That kind of balance barely exists anywhere else in the league. How did other deep teams do it? We will go back to the 3 notorious depth teams: Boston, Chicago, LA. Boston had 16, 14, 12. Chicago had 15.75, 12.75, 11. LA had 15.5, 14, 12.5.

We don't have the center balance that we did last year. So, the question is, if Miller, Lindberg or Lombardi aren't capable of playing 13 quality even strength minutes per night, are we really going to reduce one of our great RWs ice time because of it? Or would that player be more effective getting the extra minutes on the other wing?

It's a dilemma. My instinct tells me that it'd be more effective to move one of them over, but that isn't to say that the other way couldn't work too.

Really good post. Everyone should read this.

 

[RGY]

Miller, Lindberg, or Lombardi are going to have to step up as the 3C. I think Miller and Lindberg are two good options right there.

 

[Fletch]

I think a lot of offense from your first line is important, but a truly top heavy team hasn't won the Stanley Cup since last decade (yeah, we can speak that way now). Boston, Chicago and LA all have had deep lineups when going the distance.

I don't think our lineup could possibly be as balanced as it was last year, but I still think we can ice a deep team whether Nash, MSL or Zuccarello stay as RWs or one of them moves to the left. Even though the strength of our forward corps was RW even before acquiring MSL, the reason we were able to be so balanced was the presence of 3 offensively capable centers.

I go back to even strength time on ice distribution. Last year our top 3 centers were Richards, Stepan and Brassard getting 15, 14 and 13 minutes per game respectively. That kind of balance barely exists anywhere else in the league. How did other deep teams do it? We will go back to the 3 notorious depth teams: Boston, Chicago, LA. Boston had 16, 14, 12. Chicago had 15.75, 12.75, 11. LA had 15.5, 14, 12.5.

We don't have the center balance that we did last year. So, the question is, if Miller, Lindberg or Lombardi aren't capable of playing 13 quality even strength minutes per night, are we really going to reduce one of our great RWs ice time because of it? Or would that player be more effective getting the extra minutes on the other wing?

It's a dilemma. My instinct tells me that it'd be more effective to move one of them over, but that isn't to say that the other way couldn't work too.

Don't get me wrong, I like depth and credit that depth for this team's Stanley Cup run (and perhaps it stopped them short too). It was evident that what they lacked was that one line, or heck, player. Seemed like LA had it, and they won. They seemed pretty deep too, obviously. And you hate hating on Nash, but the one forward making that kind of money on this team needs to produce more. It doesn't all fall on him, but that's the one player you look at and say, zero points in the finals...really?

And I agree about the center position. Obviously, it's tough for me to comment because I really do not know how Miller will do, or if Lindberg is going to be ready, or if Lombardi will look like a 3rd line NHLer. Such wild cards and you're right. This team has good players on the wing. What can be done? The fourth line centerman (Moore) will take some extra shifts with whoever ends up being the 3rd line. Stepan may get double-shifted here and there. Same with Brassard. Not ideal, but barring a trade for a centerman, what can you do? Lots of question marks going into this season. Could be an exciting season and all those question marks can be answered positively early on, but until then...

 

[RGY]

The Rangers will be a top two team in their division. They have the depth to do it. I think you evaluate Miller, Lindberg, Lombardi in camp. Even evaluate them throughout the season. Make it to the deadline and look to add another center. I think the lines shake out as this to start the season:

Kreider-Stepan-Nash
Stemp-Brassard-Zucc
Hagelin-Miller/Lindberg-MSL
Glass-Moore-Lombardi/Fast

 

[Tawnos]

Don't get me wrong, I like depth and credit that depth for this team's Stanley Cup run (and perhaps it stopped them short too). It was evident that what they lacked was that one line, or heck, player. Seemed like LA had it, and they won. They seemed pretty deep too, obviously. And you hate hating on Nash, but the one forward making that kind of money on this team needs to produce more. It doesn't all fall on him, but that's the one player you look at and say, zero points in the finals...really?

Obviously, you're still going to have a hierarchy of quality of players. Being deep and balanced doesn't negate the need for that. What those teams that won all share in common, besides depth, is that the best players show up on the score sheet. Well, except for Toews and his 3 goals in 2013. Depth doesn't eliminate the need for performance.

Re: Nash. It's not about how much money the player makes, although the reason he makes that is tied into this. It's about the role he's being asked to play. He's your best goal scorer. When he fails to produce, it's a player not filling his role on the team. You need all your players performing to the roles they play on the team. Yeah, Nash didn't score any points in the finals, but our leading scorer on the team during the regular season also had just 1G, 1A in those 5 games and both points came in game 2. He only made $1.1m last year, but that lack of production from Zuccarello was just as devastating to the team, if not more so, than Nash's. It's not about money. It's about role.

It's going to be an interesting year, for sure.

 

[bernmeister]

You were ok until the Stepan trade, let's trade our best center

You are entirely overlooking:
"for major profit".

If it makes sense to move someone, you do.
You either believe we can't get a lot for stepan, which logic suggests is false, or it is not enough and we are better off keeping him (even with his cap going up to 6m+ nxt yr).

I agree don't rush him out the door, but have an open mind.

 

[Infinitum Vitae*]

Really good post. Everyone should read this.

Don't tell me what to do.

 

[bernmeister]

Lol at Hayes. The guy will probably top out as a 3rd line winger. Which is great and all. We should sign him if possible, but he's not a major answer and certainly will not be a top line power forward.

He has the size and strength, it is not clear he has enough skating ability.
He is not today a typical first line RW and there is no guarantee in a vacuum he will become one.

On the other hand, he is a great complement with Kreider, who would make almost anyone look good.

If he latches on with Kreider, who is good enough to be 1LW, and the right C pivots for them, 1RW is not impossible to conceive.

 

[Fletch]

You are entirely overlooking:
"for major profit".

If it makes sense to move someone, you do.
You either believe we can't get a lot for stepan, which logic suggests is false, or it is not enough and we are better off keeping him (even with his cap going up to 6m+ nxt yr).

I agree don't rush him out the door, but have an open mind.

what is a "major profit"? I assume you're suggesting the Rangers trade him for another centerman. Is this a centerman who would command less $$$ than Stepan since it will be tight to even get Stepan next season within the cap, and thus tighter to get another centerman who represents a major profit?

 

[TheTakedown]

He has the size and strength, it is not clear he has enough skating ability.
He is not today a typical first line RW and there is no guarantee in a vacuum he will become one.

On the other hand, he is a great complement with Kreider, who would make almost anyone look good.

If he latches on with Kreider, who is good enough to be 1LW, and the right C pivots for them, 1RW is not impossible to conceive.

assuming Hayes could be a 1RW, then Zucc would have to move left, and Nash down a line, our top 6 gets incredibly stronger, while the bottom 6 now benefits having less workload, but still a crapload of scoring talent

BUT, that's putting too much on a prospect. It's more conceivable that he can make the top 9 and be placed on Millers line, which wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing, but then i'm not sure what you do with Hagelin. It's all dependent on what Hayes is capable of

 

[Mac n Gs]

Putting Hayes in as a top line RW already is ridiculous. Like it's been said, if he signs here and makes the opening day roster, it'll be in the bottom 6.

 

[Wolfy*]

The Rangers will be a top two team in their division. They have the depth to do it. I think you evaluate Miller, Lindberg, Lombardi in camp. Even evaluate them throughout the season. Make it to the deadline and look to add another center. I think the lines shake out as this to start the season:

Kreider-Stepan-Nash
Stemp-Brassard-Zucc
Hagelin-Miller/Lindberg-MSL
Glass-Moore-Lombardi/Fast

Yep, you got them right there.

Take a good look at these lines, will this be a playoff team? They actually don't look so bad...

I just hope Miller has sorted out his personality issues, otherwise AV will kick his butt right back to Hartford.

 

[RGY]

Yep, you got them right there.

Take a good look at these lines, will this be a playoff team? They actually don't look so bad...

I just hope Miller has sorted out his personality issues, otherwise AV will kick his butt right back to Hartford.

IMO its Miller's job to lose. He has had quite a few stints in the NHL. He can taste being an NHL regular at this point. Physically he is there. His skating is there to keep up in the NHL plenty. His defensive play needs to be better, he needs to be more poised with the puck and his decision making ability. I feel like he panics at times in his own end whether he has the puck or not. He is a grind out type player who can possess the puck in the offensive zone because he battles. I think he would be fine with MSL and Hagelin. He will go to the dirty areas and get the puck for Hagelin and MSL. Reminds me a lot of Dubinsky. But he needs to solidify the rest of his game and attitude like you said.

Otherwise he will lose that spot to Lindberg or Lombardi. The reports on Lindberg's second half in Hartford were very encouraging. It appears as though he had to go through that adjustment period of moving from the SEL to the pro level in NA. Lindberg has the playmaking ability to play at the pro level. Lombardi on the other hand has plenty of NHL experience and has the speed to play in AV's system. If Lombardi takes the 3C spot in camp it could be a trickle down effect that helps Fast's case because then I see Fast sliding in on the 4th line. Righty shot with skill. Got a little taste of the NHL playoffs. AV has to see something there he likes for him to put Fast in over some of the others such as Miller and Lindberg.

 

[CommaSynapse]

I think a lot of offense from your first line is important, but a truly top heavy team hasn't won the Stanley Cup since last decade (yeah, we can speak that way now). Boston, Chicago and LA all have had deep lineups when going the distance.

I don't think our lineup could possibly be as balanced as it was last year, but I still think we can ice a deep team whether Nash, MSL or Zuccarello stay as RWs or one of them moves to the left. Even though the strength of our forward corps was RW even before acquiring MSL, the reason we were able to be so balanced was the presence of 3 offensively capable centers.

I go back to even strength time on ice distribution. Last year our top 3 centers were Richards, Stepan and Brassard getting 15, 14 and 13 minutes per game respectively. That kind of balance barely exists anywhere else in the league. How did other deep teams do it? We will go back to the 3 notorious depth teams: Boston, Chicago, LA. Boston had 16, 14, 12. Chicago had 15.75, 12.75, 11. LA had 15.5, 14, 12.5.

We don't have the center balance that we did last year. So, the question is, if Miller, Lindberg or Lombardi aren't capable of playing 13 quality even strength minutes per night, are we really going to reduce one of our great RWs ice time because of it? Or would that player be more effective getting the extra minutes on the other wing?

It's a dilemma. My instinct tells me that it'd be more effective to move one of them over, but that isn't to say that the other way couldn't work too.

The hope is, of course, that one of those three can handle it. I feel like this is truly Miller's time to sink or swim, and, as far I see it, it's his 3C spot to lose.

There's no question Richards' legs were shot at the end of the season. If Miller can step up, add a decent amount of points, and play his physical game, it'd be a big asset for our lineup.

 

[Mac n Gs]

I have a feeling Miller will follow the same path as Kreider. He'll start with the Rangers for a bit, deal with a brief stint in Hartford, and then get called back up to stay.

I wonder if he'll get some PP time at the start of the season as a body to keep near the net.

 

[bernmeister]

Putting Hayes in as a top line RW already is ridiculous. Like it's been said, if he signs here and makes the opening day roster, it'll be in the bottom 6.

Not ridiculous.
Your statement is reasonable and logical.
But it totally ignores the Kreider - Hayes history, like it never existed.

?A lot of that also depends on the C.
Kreider - a good C - Hayes

could = nice
or
could = magic.

If magic, Kreider is pulling Hayes up, not Hayes dragging Chris down.

All I am saying is
GIVE PEACE A CHANCE (LENNON)
GIVE ME LOVE, GIVE ME LOVE, GIVE ME PEACE ON EARTH (HARRISON)
LOVE IS ALL YOU NEED (MCCARTNEY LENNON)
BACK OFF BUGALOO (STARR)

and, see how Hayes and Kreider work after a coupla weeks of practice.

 

[bernmeister]

what is a "major profit"? I assume you're suggesting the Rangers trade him for another centerman. Is this a centerman who would command less $$$ than Stepan since it will be tight to even get Stepan next season within the cap, and thus tighter to get another centerman who represents a major profit?

Major profit is a great return almost too much to pass up.
It does not automatically = swap of centerman for centerman

We have a number of needs/weaknesses.

Steoan alone does not = JVR.
But Stepan + Girardi probably does (possible small adds).

IMO, adding a difference maker like JVR should more than overcome legit reduction of a C.

But again, I said major profit. Not chump change over = value.