Speculation: Free Agent Frenzy Part VI: Someone Get Gorton A Vesey Button.

[Savant]

He has no contract but McLeod is a better option when you can sign Hartnell for the same price?
Give me a break..

Who said Hartnell wanted to be a Ranger?

 

[Amazing Kreiderman]

Talks about his lousy hairdresser, so last time he got bald...

Lots of fun every day, key factor

So... You don't know.

 

[Hi ImHFNYR]

Who said that having elite talent guarantees you'll win the Cup?

I am using facts. You are using opinions. Am I wrong that in the last 10 years of the NHL almost every team that has won a Cup had multiple core players that they picked in the top 5 of the draft? I also never said elite talents can't be acquired elsewhere, but they usually come from the top 5.

I also never said to discard our players or anything like that. Maybe one or two of them surprises and turns into a better player than expected, but as of now none look like elite talents. We can't be hoping that they surprise. We have to try to plan with a higher percentage strategy.

What's the percentage and how did you calculate it? WHat's your sample size? 10 years? In a sample size of 10, with so many different factors, literally in a sport with changing rules over the years AND having literally seen teams make it to the ECF, WCF and SCF without following this formula, I disagree with this presumption entirely.

It's possible that coming directly out of the lockout, this formula WAS needed while teams tried to adjust to the chaos of new rules and a new game, the teams that happened to have top 10 talent were able to stand tall.

It's possible those same teams built a winning culture as a result and were able to remain relevant, some of them for years because that top 10 talent stayed.

It's possible that we've seen teams like Ott, LV, NY, NJ, SJ, Nsh all make runs at the cup bc *gasp* there's actually more than one way to reach the cup.

 

[Pavel Buchnevich]

What's the percentage and how did you calculate it? WHat's your sample size? 10 years? In a sample size of 10, with so many different factors, having literally seen teams make it to the ECF, WCF and SCF without following this formula I disagree with this conclusion entirely. It's possible that coming directly out of the lockout, this formula WAS needed while teams tried to adjust to the chaos of new rules and a new game, the teams that happened to have top 10 talent were able to stand tall.

It's possible those same teams built a winning culture as a result and were able to remain relevant, some of them for years because that top 10 talent stayed.

It's possible that we've seen teams like Ott, LV, NY, NJ, SJ, Nsh all make runs at the cup bc *gasp* there's actually more than one way to reach the cup.

You are the one talking about reaching the Cup. I am the one talking about winning the Cup. Its a sample size of ten. I think thats reasonably large for this era of the NHL. 10 times, 9 have a very similar pattern. Trying to use teams that made it to the Cup but didn't win just makes my point. The teams that win are the teams with the elite talent. Teams that get close are the teams that are well built, but without the elite talents that make the difference in the playoffs.

 

[Hi ImHFNYR]

You are the one talking about reaching the Cup. I am the one talking about winning the Cup. Its a sample size of ten. I think thats reasonably large for this era of the NHL. 10 times, 9 have a very similar pattern. Trying to use teams that made it to the Cup but didn't win just makes my point. The teams that win are the teams with the elite talent. Teams that get close are the teams that are well built, but without the elite talents that make the difference in the playoffs.

Do you honestly not get WHY I brought up reaching the cup and why it's relevant? Honestly? Bc if so you really shouldn't even bother discussing this.

Please go ask any scientist or statistician how they feel about using a sample size of ten and failing to have anything resembling a control group, all to draw generalized conclusions. Like that your idea is some arbitrary, unknown "higher percentage" number

The problem I have with your argument is you clearly don't think intelligently, analytically or statistically but you try to present arguments like this as if you do. Don't claim statistics without any sort of baseline understanding of how to use them

 

[Pavel Buchnevich]

I don’t really see what point you’re trying to make here. Chiarelli has been gifted multiple elite players and his team finished 1 point ahead of the Rangers who dismantled themselves 2/3 of the way through the season. There is no logical universe in which Edmonton has bettter management than NYR.

Edmonton's management is not good, but how do we know ours is?

Gorton has undertaken some very basic things that are mostly pretty hard to judge at this point. He's traded guys like McDonagh, Stepan Miller, Grabner, Nash, etc. He got picks and prospects in return. He's had a lot of early picks the last two years. We don't know whether or not those will turn into good picks or not. We should not give him credit for acquiring assets. Thats what you do in a rebuild. You get rid of your older assets, and bring in younger ones.

Fans can sing the praises of guys like Howden, Hajek, Lindgren, Rykov, but how do we know they turn into more than marginal NHL'ers? They are prospects. They've never played a game in the NHL. We still don't know whether Gorton's rebuild will be successful or not. So far, he's attempted to revamp the team with the easy things to acquire, depth in young talent. What he has not done is acquire elite talents. He'll need to do that for the rebuild to be successful, and he'll also need his depth in young talent to turn into NHL level depth, not just prospect depth.

 

[Amazing Kreiderman]

You are quite a comedian

But that's what I find interesting about this board. Some posters really impress me with their knowledge, while others may think they know everything but in reality have no clue.

Oh, the irony

 

[Amazing Kreiderman]

Cole has 2 cups under his belt.
Shattenkirk has ****!!

We all know Dan Carillo is better than Alex Ovechkin, because he has more rings

 

[bobbop]

By now, most players that are getting contracts, have them. In the next few weeks you will see a rush of players agreeeing to PTOs for training camp. The Rangers will almost certainly have one or two. Many players prefer taking a PTO and picking their destination rather than signing a low ball contract.

 

[Lone Ranger]

We all know Dan Carillo is better than Alex Ovechkin, because
he has more rings

And Dan would also crush Ovie in any Jon Snow lookalike contest.

 

[bobbop]

Why is the question whether we are better than those teams? The question is who is best positioned with rebuilding. Being better doesn't necessarily equal being positioned better with a rebuild.

McDavid has won as many playoff series as we have since entering the league, so before you start signing the praises of our organization and management compared to Edmonton's, maybe you should consider what you are saying.

What do I think? I think that it doesn't matter how good or bad Chiarelli is towards the question of whether or not Edmonton will win a Cup nor does it matter about the organization. People rag on their organization, but then conveniently leave out that the Oilers were the league's last dynasty. Chiarelli only has to make some good decisions, which he obviously has done in the past for Edmonton. He doesn't need to make a lot of really good decisions or even make more good decisions than bad decisions. I think Edmonton is actually really close to being a Cup contender. They have two areas to improve, and both should easily improve in the next 2-3 years.

Offense and defense?

 

[bobbop]

Their best line was not Bonino, Hagelin, Kessel. Their best line was whatever line Crosby was on, and their second line was whatever line Malkin was on. They had some other good players besides those two, but we both know that they aren't getting close to winning the Stanley Cup without Crosby and Malkin. If they didn't have those players and they built their team the way they did, they would be at the front of the line trying to acquire the next Crosby and Malkin.

Ranger fans always try to convince themselves that whatever applies for their team is something they all of a sudden have to defend, even if its not really defensible. You are making an argument that is not, at all, backed up by facts. Lets take the last 10 seasons. 3 for Pittsburgh with Crosby and Malkin, 3 for Chicago with Toews and Kane, 2 for LA with Doughty and Kopitar, 1 for Washington with Ovechkin and Backstrom, and then one for Boston. Boston is the only team of that bunch that did not have multiple high picks from their core turn into their star players. And with the exception of Kopitar who went 11th, all of those players were top 5 picks. A number of them were first overall picks. Boston is the outlier. Why are we shooting for being the outlier? Outlier Cup winners happen, but using the last 10 years, there's a 10% chance of the Cup winner being an outlier team with how they were built.

There is a clear formula. Your argument about parity doesn't hold water. Ottawa did not win the Cup, didn't didn't either, neither did we. The teams with the elite talents picked at the top of the draft did. It happens just about every year in the NHL that the Stanley Cup winner has elite talent that they drafted at the top of the draft. How is this not obvious? Why do our fans try to accept what is statistically a terrible strategy?

You are stretching when you include Los Angeles in this conversation. Granted, Doughty was #2 but Kopitar was #11. Beyond that, their other top players came in trade. And you conviently excluded Detroit 2007-08.

 

[Pavel Buchnevich]

You are stretching when you include Los Angeles in this conversation. Granted, Doughty was #2 but Kopitar was #11. Beyond that, their other top players came in trade. And you conviently excluded Detroit 2007-08.

I said Kopitar was picked 11th. Anyway, they still picked in the top 5 three times, so thats pretty different from the Rangers rebuild so far. I didn't conveniently leave out Detroit. That wasn't within 10 years. If you want to use 11 years, I still think don't think 2/11 is a good percentage.

 

[Amazing Kreiderman]

I said Kopitar was picked 11th. Anyway, they still picked in the top 5 three times, so thats pretty different from the Rangers rebuild so far. I didn't conveniently leave out Detroit. That wasn't within 10 years. If you want to use 11 years, I still think don't think 2/11 is a good percentage.

I think, and that's maybe just me, if you are looking at how cup winning teams are built through the draft, you should start in 2005-06 which is the salary cap era.

Detroit and Boston. That's it. 2 out of 13 who won a cup with star players drafted in the top 5. Only Boston (Seguin wasn't really a big part of their cup run) and Detroit, leaves you with 2 out of 13 cup winners who built a team without top 5 picks. LA had several high picks and while not all of them were significant contributors on the Cup winning teams, their returns in trades sure helped solidify those teams.

 

[FIRE DRURY]

He has no contract but McLeod is a better option when you can sign Hartnell for the same price?
Give me a break..

It’s not even August yet. And McLeod is likely going to be in Hartford most of the year.

Maybe you can enlighten me as to why Hartnell would play for a rebuilding team though......

 

[Amazing Kreiderman]

It’s not even August yet. And McLeod is likely going to be in Hartford most of the year.

Maybe you can enlighten me as to why Hartnell would play for a rebuilding team though......

Some people just assume each player is waiting in line to sign with the Rangers. We aren't some legendary team everybody wants to play for. What hockey history does the state of NY have? Look at Massachusetts, or Minnesota, Michigan and the Canadian provinces. How many players want to play for the Rangers because they were a fan as a kid, or because they want to play in NYC?

I think some people need to realize that the Rangers aren't as special as they think they are.

 

[Blue Blooded]

Elite talent, schmelite talent. It is good to have but hardly a requirement. You need players that outperform their cap hit (which elite players are generally great at), a team that does not wilt under pressure, a team that stays relatively healthy and the right bounces.

The 2012-13 Rangers is in my opinion the best Ranger team since 94 and one of the very best cap era teams, but they were decimated by injuries. When healthy they could trot out THREE lines that would put up a +67 5v5 xGF% (Hagelin-Stepan-Callahan, Clowe-Brassard-Nash, Pyatt-Richards-Zuccarello), a fantastic defence when healthy (McDonagh-Girardi, Staal-Strålman, Del Zotto-Eminger) and prime Hank. But Clowe and the entire D got hurt and then Torts and Richards imploded and that was that.

 

[DutchShamrock]

I

Detroit and LA. That's it. 2 out of 13 who won a cup with star players drafted in the top 5. Only Boston (Seguin wasn't really a big part of their cup run) and Detroit, leaves you with 2 out of 13 cup winners who built a team without top 5 picks.

You can't count LA once but the pens and hawks 3 times each.

 

[Amazing Kreiderman]

You can't count LA once but the pens and hawks 3 times each.

Sorry, I meant Boston. Those are the only 2 teams who won cups in the salary cap era without top-5 picks contributing.

 

[NYR Viper]

A team like St Louis is intriguing. They have a million forwards and both Thomas and Kyrou have been discussed as players they want on the NHL roster. Perhaps the Rangers are waiting for things to shake out around training camp and the waiver wire

 

[haohmaru]

I said Kopitar was picked 11th. Anyway, they still picked in the top 5 three times, so thats pretty different from the Rangers rebuild so far. I didn't conveniently leave out Detroit. That wasn't within 10 years. If you want to use 11 years, I still think don't think 2/11 is a good percentage.

So.... in 2015-16 when we had Nash (1st overall) and E. Staal (2nd overall) we didn't have top 5 (picks) "elite" talent on our squad?

 

[Amazing Kreiderman]

So.... in 2015-16 when we had Nash (1st overall) and E. Staal (2nd overall) we didn't have top 5 (picks) "elite" talent on our squad?

More than a decade after being drafted, and having traded for them, you can't seriously compare that to the Cup winning teams who have built their team through the draft. We also had Hamrlik in 2013. Should we count him as well? In that case, we had 2 "elite stars" in 2013

 

[Gardner McKay]

He has no contract but McLeod is a better option when you can sign Hartnell for the same price?
Give me a break..

Is it possible that Hartnell has no desire to play in NY? Or do things that don't fit your agenda just get ignored?

 

[Tawnos]

Some people just assume each player is waiting in line to sign with the Rangers. We aren't some legendary team everybody wants to play for. What hockey history does the state of NY have? Look at Massachusetts, or Minnesota, Michigan and the Canadian provinces. How many players want to play for the Rangers because they were a fan as a kid, or because they want to play in NYC?

I think some people need to realize that the Rangers aren't as special as they think they are.

You keep saying this, but historically when the Rangers have had both the will and the means, they’ve been able to sign nearly every free agent they’ve been after. That was even true in the Dark Ages. They don’t get snubbed very often.

That might have changed for the moment. It’s hard to tell. The guys they were rumored to be after early this year in free agency signed longer deals than the Rangers were offering. In other words, the team didn’t have the will. I think they wanted Stamkos, but didn’t have the cap space. In other words, they didn’t have the means. Despite the fact that people keep bringing up Hartnell, there’s nothing suggesting there was interest on the Rangers side.

On the other hand, this is only the 2nd time since the advent of modern free agency in 1995 where the Rangers are going into a season without planning to be competitive.

 

[Amazing Kreiderman]

You keep saying this, but historically when the Rangers have had both the will and the means, they’ve been able to sign nearly every free agent they’ve been after. That was even true in the Dark Ages. They don’t get snubbed very often.

That might have changed for the moment. It’s hard to tell. The guys they were rumored to be after early this year in free agency signed longer deals than the Rangers were offering. In other words, the team didn’t have the will. Despite the fact that people keep bringing up Hartnell, there’s nothing suggesting there was interest on the Rangers side.

On the other hand, this is only the 2nd time since the advent of modern free agency in 1995 where the Rangers are going into a season without planning to be competitive.

I'm not saying nobody wants to play for the Rangers. Just that there are many reasons to pick a different team. It could be geography (Maroon wants to live closer to his son, for instance), wanting to compete immediately, wanting to play with certain players/for a certain coach. Every reason people can think of to pick the Rangers can be applied to other teams. If, in the case that was discussed, Hartnell turned down the Rangers for any of these reasons, it would not surprise me. Not every player sees the Rangers the way we see it.