Confirmed with Link: NYR/OTT: Namestnikov ($750K retained) to Ottawa for 2021 4th Rnd pick and Nick Ebert

[Machinehead]

I don't love agreeing with Machinehead.

 

[kovazub94]

I'm not playing anything.

I didn't see this glut of depth we have then and I don't see it now.

Even with Chytil and Kravtsov in Hartford, the Rangers only after the trade get to insert McKegg. Hartford also has Nieves and Lettieri ready for a call up. Fogs, Meskanen and Gettinger too. Do you ignore that it is still an ongoing rebuild or the Rangers 4th line should be that of a SC contender now?

 

[Machinehead]

Even with Chytil and Kravtsov in Hartford, the Rangers only after the trade get to insert McKegg. Hartford also has Nieves and Lettieri ready for a call up. Fogs, Meskanen and Gettinger too. Do you ignore that it is still an ongoing rebuild or the Rangers 4th line should be that of a SC contender now?

We keep using the rebuild as an excuse but the Rangers consistently ice terrible 4th lines. Don't think it's a hot take to suggest that they should start giving a shit about it.

 

[kovazub94]

We keep using the rebuild as an excuse but the Rangers consistently ice terrible 4th lines. Don't think it's a hot take to suggest that they should start giving a **** about it.

Disagree with the definition “terrible”. Not SC contender quality - yes, but this level depth is not a priority at the moment and certainly not at $4m price tag.

 

[Machinehead]

Disagree with the definition “terrible”. Not SC contender quality - yes, but this level depth is not a priority at the moment and certainly not at $4m price tag.

They were playing Tanner Glass during Cup runs. It's never been a priority.

 

[Tawnos]

Namesnikov had 31 points last year. McKegg has 24 in his NHL career. You think that doesn't matter because the 4th line does #GrinderThings.

Again, reprehensible take.

That's not my take at all. Not even remotely. But nice assumption.

It has more to do with the limitations of 4th line ice time. A player doesn't have as much opportunity to impact the game, which reduces the amount of difference between a better player and a lesser player. So even if Namestnikov is, hypothetically, 25% better of a player than McKegg, he might only be able to impact the game 10% more than McKegg. Or put another way.... over the course of a year, a player putting up 1.00 p/60 will end up with around 13 points in 82 games on 10 minutes of ice time per game while a player putting up 1.25 points will end up with 17. Comparing 13 points to 17 points is not much.

Yeah, that was a good illustration you gave. But my hypothetical there lines up pretty decently with Namestnikov and McKegg's career NHL p/60. McKegg is at 1.14... which translates to 15-16 points on 10 minutes per game. Namestnikov would be at 20-21. Yes, Namestnikov's numbers are better, but not drastically. And that doesn't even get into how poor Namestnikov's production was last year.

 

[NYR Viper]

Honestly there will probably be players on the waiver wire who can replace Namestnikov in the near future. That or teams will be looking to offload cap with the idea of saving cap room for the deadline. Perhaps this allows Gorton to find someone like that.

 

[aufheben]

We keep using the rebuild as an excuse but the Rangers consistently ice terrible 4th lines. Don't think it's a hot take to suggest that they should start giving a **** about it.

2013-2014 4th line was not terrible lol

 

[Machinehead]

That's not my take at all. Not even remotely. But nice assumption.

It has more to do with the limitations of 4th line ice time. A player doesn't have as much opportunity to impact the game, which reduces the amount of difference between a better player and a lesser player. So even if Namestnikov is, hypothetically, 25% better of a player than McKegg, he might only be able to impact the game 10% more than McKegg. Or put another way.... over the course of a year, a player putting up 1.00 p/60 will end up with around 13 points in 82 games on 10 minutes of ice time per game while a player putting up 1.25 points will end up with 17. Comparing 13 points to 17 points is not much.

Yeah, that was a good illustration you gave. But my hypothetical there lines up pretty decently with Namestnikov and McKegg's career NHL p/60. McKegg is at 1.14... which translates to 15-16 points on 10 minutes per game. Namestnikov would be at 20-21. Yes, Namestnikov's numbers are better, but not drastically. And that doesn't even get into how poor Namestnikov's production was last year.

So for what reason are we preferring the objectively worse player?

 

[Machinehead]

2013-2014 4th line was not terrible lol

That one was awesome and what happened that year?

 

[Machinehead]

Honestly there will probably be players on the waiver wire who can replace Namestnikov in the near future. That or teams will be looking to offload cap with the idea of saving cap room for the deadline. Perhaps this allows Gorton to find someone like that.

I would love to see us actually do something like this.

 

[aufheben]

HFNYR when people were mad about Howden starting over Andersson: "lines literally don't matter."

HFNYR today: "the team will disband if all of our third liners aren't exactly on the third line always."

People didn't say "lines don't matter" they said "lets wait and how the lines are used before freaking out".

 

[Machinehead]

People didn't say "lines don't matter" they said "lets wait and how the lines are used before freaking out".

They were used exactly how everyone said they would be.

 

[Tawnos]

So for what reason are we preferring the objectively worse player?

What I'm trying to tell you is that the difference between the quality of the two is not enough to be a factor when making the decision to trade Namestnikov.

 

[Machinehead]

What I'm trying to tell you is that the difference between the quality of the two is not enough to be a factor when making the decision to trade Namestnikov.

And I'm saying it should be. The Ranger should care about the quality of their 4th line. They've demonstrated repeatedly that they really don't.

 

[aufheben]

The extent to which you think the people running this organization are clueless is bananas, man. You don't have to agree with everything they do but saying stuff like they don't care about having a depth of NHL players is mad. It makes it seem like you don't pay a lot of attention to other teams. I genuinely fear for your health should Haley get the call.

 

[Tawnos]

The extent to which you think the people running this organization are clueless is bananas, man. You don't have to agree with everything they do but saying stuff like they don't care about having a depth of NHL players is mad. It makes it seem like you don't pay a lot of attention to other teams. I genuinely fear for your health should Haley get the call.

I'd be surprised if half the league had a 4th line made up entirely of players that meet his standards for "NHL player."

 

[kovazub94]

And I'm saying it should be. The Ranger should care about the quality of their 4th line. They've demonstrated repeatedly that they really don't.

A. This is not and shouldn’t be a priority right now with other more important issues. As you yourself pointed out it’s possible to achieve success in the nhl with a suspect 4th line.

B. $4m on a forth line is in itself an unacceptable luxury for pretty much any team in the NHL. If it happens it usually is not by design but out of lack of other options.

 

[Machinehead]

I'd be surprised if half the league had a 4th line made up entirely of players that meet his standards for "NHL player."

Probably not, because a lot of teams literally think you need to be bad to qualify for the 4th line.

 

[Machinehead]

A. This is not and shouldn’t be a priority right now with other more important issues. As you yourself pointed out it’s possible to achieve success in the nhl with a suspect 4th line.

B. $4m on a forth line is in itself an unacceptable luxury for pretty much any team in the NHL. If it happens it usually is not by design but out of lack of other options.

Yes, I've said that you generally shouldn't spend on 4th liners. I don't think it was a pressing issue now, but like I said, I understand the cap aspect of the trade.

I never said that your 4th line should be populated with players below replacement level.

 

[SA16]

Does it matter if we don't have bottom line depth now? If we want it and need it we can just try to sign Pominville/Boyle/Vanek/McGinn/Smith-Pelly/Paajarvi. I really don't think it's a big deal they're not in the organization now if we want someone there are guys out there.

 

[tomobson]

let's see how mckegg does on the 4th line first. I don't think we'll be missing names much at all.

 

[Brooklyn Rangers Fan]

My God, reading the last couple of pages has been like watching people on Twitter argue with an account they don’t realize is a Russian bot.

 

[rangersfansince08]

The fourth line should be filled with second and third round picks once you have your core set up.

 

[Raspewtin]

I don't think the Rangers "don't care" or anything about their lower level players; but I certainly think they have a history of valuing the wrong things in players, particularly bottom 6 players.