[Poll] Zibanejad @10M or Eichel?

[brakeyawself]

This actually reminds me of the people on this board that argued no to Stamkos no matter what and that we were better off with Stepan than taking a risk on Stamkos as a FA years ago. Before that on another board people argued that we absolutely could not trade Jamie Ludmark for Jagr. I argued against that fallacy then and I do now. If Eichel is healthy his ceiling at $5 mill (Buff retaining 5) is well worth the risk of a KK, Krav, Jones and a 1st trade. There are only so many spots. There are only 6 top line forward positions. There are only 4 top D positions. Having a bunch of so so guys does not get things done. You have to turn quantity in to quality if you have an excess of players. Otherwise you end up losing the quantity anyway by them either flaming out, no place to play or due to salary. See Buch this year.

Lol, I would still take Stamkos on this team. Not sure for what in a trade. But if he were say a FA, I wouldn't mind at all.

Still skeptical of EIchel. For numerous reasons. Not just his injury. He has a long way to go to proving his anywhere near Stamkos as an nhl player. Talent aside. There's a difference. Stamkos gets injured a fair amount too so he doesn't have that edge. I just question Eichel's other attributes, like leadership, will to win, drive and the like.

 

[Machinehead]

Lol, I would still take Stamkos on this team. Not sure for what in a trade. But if he were say a FA, I wouldn't mind at all.

Still skeptical of EIchel. For numerous reasons. Not just his injury. He has a long way to go to proving his anywhere near Stamkos as an nhl player. Talent aside. There's a difference. Stamkos gets injured a fair amount too so he doesn't have that edge. I just question Eichel's other attributes, like leadership, will to win, drive and the like.

I've watched every Lightning playoff game the last two years.

Stamkos is a distant 5th best player on his own team.

 

[brakeyawself]

brain fart on Krebs on Vegas not AZ

rest of it, no time for detail but short edition

Matthews will get max on whatever team can make cap room to pay that to him, which prob includes, but may not def be Leafs

but $ is not everything

good will can be huge
it's a legit thing they teach in biz class

if favorite son goes to yotes, they will mortgage everything to win while he is there 2nd half of his career

and then afterwards, he could literally do anything and get a shot
like
run for governor
get in on top opportunities
etc

---------
Again, sure
Leafs want to deal Tavares instead
even retaining which is problematic
Tavares holds nmc

it is either
move Marner instead
- also requires huge cap retention, limits return

make other moves

or move Matthews

unless leafs want to take chances w/more of the same

You're not completely wrong about the good will, and possible future motivation in some political fashion. But I think that is something then that Matthews would have to have, in spades and I am not sure if he does or not. Like if he doesn't have that goal in the future, there's mostly financial downside to returning home. He's going to get the max salary wherever he goes. But his name and likeness are worth 10x more in NY, Toronto, Chicago or any big hockey market. And, while a political future is nice in Arizona, if he came to say NY or Chicago and won a cup or two for those cities, he could probably just run for Mayor there. Toronto also, if he has citizenship their at least. And if he doesn't have a political future in mind, as a businessman, which I would say is just as likely as a goal, he'd have SO much more opportunity in a bigger market. He can buddy up to whatever billionaires are in NY and Toronto, on top of the commercial opportunity. And real estate opportunity to boot.

It would be a huge sacrifice on his part. But maybe he does love home that much and love the Coyotes that much. I just think even if he does love them a normal amount, that's probably just not enough to bring him there. But who knows?

And if the Rangers did get him, from Toronto, the lure of staying there I think would be too much. They'd hand him the keys to the city under the table on day 1. And then officially if/when he won a cup. They'd introduce him to every name he needed to know for the rest of his life to have endless opportunity. And certainly, the Rangers as a club would do everything in their power to keep him there.

I do think the Leafs will just wait for Tavares contract to run out and until then, try different equations with both he and Matthews. If he really doesn't want to stay there, I still think he goes to a bigger market. But if he does want to stay there, they just let Tavares' contract run out if they cant convince him to waive his NMC. If they can convince him, maybe they find a trade partner maybe not. Ugh, I could even see the Rangers going after him, I want him just about as much as I want Eichel. If I had to pick between the two, ugh just shoot me.

And then when Tavares is gone, the Leafs reinvest the money into building a winner differently. I love Marner and Nylander but I think they are shooting themselves in the foot keeping both. I would rather keep Marner, give him his own line with a good goal scoring center and a tough left winger. And play Nylander with Matthews and a good, protector but a better goal scorer than Hyman. Well, either way. If they lose Taveres they could keep all 3. If they don't they probably move one of Marner or Nylander which sucks I think. But they definitely have to build a strong bottom 6. And personally, I don't like the defensive makeup of their top 2 lines that much. Which is why I would want a stronger defensive 2nd line, but also one that can score. They play Matthews, Marner and Nylander substantial minutes, more than Tavares. That pretty much says it all to me. I think honestly, he might be what is holding them back. It's not really one player holding them back, but his contract and cap hit, which is unnecessary, prevents them from building a stronger 4 lines. And they need different defenders. Better defenders even through 3 pairs. I liked what Holl provided this year. Maybe Sandin can finally push for a spot. And obviously they needed to do something about goaltending. Which could make a big difference on its own.

And anyway, Tavares contract is up after the 24-25 season. They just have to make it work a few more years. Matthews, Marner and Nylander are still all fairly young.

 

[brakeyawself]

there is no guarantee that Eich is/will be healthy
you are buying damaged goods
or
if repaired
a guy predisposed to severe injury w/1 critical hit

that is somewhat true for all players
but it is esp true for JE
given his injuries already experienced
AND
that knowing that, some are gonna put a target on his back.

Sabes want the easy route
they don't want mid late 1sts, then wait and develop
they want bluest blue chips now
NO

and even if we were to foolishly entertain that,
which again is NO
then the ? becomes
how readily do we replace
Kakko/Krav/Schneid/KAM/Nils L etc

with later picks?

---------

AND 1 last time
math

need $$$$
for
Shesty/Fox increases
and
ALSO
elcs->rfas->ufas

JE at 5 is not enough
would rather have 5 blue chip elcs = depth and downward pressure vs cap instead

I think JE at 5 does make a significant difference. They still have to hand out all those contracts true. And the Kreider and Trouba contracts are a problem. I think Kreiders NMC is up in the 5th year which sucks. But I agree about the cap space in general. If they ended up with Eichel then I think Panarin is definitely gone in 2026. He may be gone as things stand so Eichel just makes it more certain. At 5 though would allow a substantial amount of leeway. But the thing is, Drury won't include Kakko. I think at this point that is out of the question.

At worst, he gives up Kravtsov, Jones or (Miller or Robertson maybe) and a 1st. But I am really not sure of even that. Would I do Kravtsov and Jones and a 1st for JE at 5? I'd have to think long and hard. But Drury isn't giving up Kakko I don't think, or Chytil, because I doubt they re-sign Ziban with Chytil and JE here, so those are the top two Cs for the future. But then would Sabres still do it @5 without Kakko?

All this is why I just don't see him coming to the Rangers. I think there could be sneaky teams in for him.

And now there are rumors about a few teams, including Rangers being after Dvorak. And that's exaxly what I predicted. I think there's a good chance we could end up seeing a trade for Dvorak to be honest, instead. And I like the idea of Dvorak coming here. He'd make a great 3C and a good temporary 2C if Chytil isn't ready. Then we could decide whether we want to re-sign Zibs depending on his ask. And if he has to go, we have Chytil and Dvorak as our centers. And some people are going to say this isn't enough to contend for a cup. But if Chytil progresses to being a top 6 center, as I think he is, I say it will be enough. It really all then falls on Chytil or us getting a different top 6 Center. But Dvorak will be good regardless. We don't need more than 50-60 points a season out of him. And I think, perfect circumstances, maybe with Panarin on his line, he could hit 70-75.

And then Strome ends up gone or at RW next to either Chytil or Dvorak until his contract up.

 

[brakeyawself]

I've watched every Lightning playoff game the last two years.

Stamkos is a distant 5th best player on his own team.

In what regard? Offense, defense, the whole shebang?

Kucherov, Hedman, Point, and who else you putting him behind?

Regarding Point, I think he's a terrific player. But would he be putting up 90 points on most any other team? I am not sure he's quite as good as some suggest. Well, he's no Kucherov. At least, not on his own. But maybe.

I also think Stamkos peaked early and is a bit beyond his prime. Injuries probably catching up with him too. But he's as smart a player as there is. He's as offensively gifted as there is. He's not as nimble or quick as he used to be and as many others are these days. But he's still a big presence. And he's found ways to evolve his game I think, knowing his weak areas. Still would not mind having him in front of net on a line with Laf and Kakko and I think he'd find a way to get them all near a PPG eventually. Actually, that line would be something to watch. Laf wouldn't have to worry about slowing the game down because Stamkos would force him to. And I think you would need a defensive pair like Hedman and Chara to stand up to them. All though Stamkos probably is slightly overpaid all things considered.

 

[Machinehead]

In what regard? Offense, defense, the whole shebang?

Kucherov, Hedman, Point, and who else you putting him behind?

Regarding Point, I think he's a terrific player. But would he be putting up 90 points on most any other team? I am not sure he's quite as good as some suggest. Well, he's no Kucherov. At least, not on his own. But maybe.

I also think Stamkos peaked early and is a bit beyond his prime. Injuries probably catching up with him too. But he's as smart a player as there is. He's as offensively gifted as there is. He's not as nimble or quick as he used to be and as many others are these days. But he's still a big presence. And he's found ways to evolve his game I think, knowing his weak areas. Still would not mind having him in front of net on a line with Laf and Kakko and I think he'd find a way to get them all near a PPG eventually. Actually, that line would be something to watch. Laf wouldn't have to worry about slowing the game down because Stamkos would force him to. And I think you would need a defensive pair like Hedman and Chara to stand up to them. All though Stamkos probably is slightly overpaid all things considered.

All of the above. Point and Kucherov are better forwards in every aspect of being a forward.

I'm not a big goalie guy but Vasilevskiy is definitely a better player.

Tampa is good in large part because of Point, not the other way around. He's better than Stamkos ever was.

I'll give credit to Stamkos for adapting, sure, but part of that is not being a center anymore. Hasn't played center in years because he can't, so he wouldn't be on a line with Laf and Kakko. Point doesn't have weaknesses to adapt to.

Stamkos is just a guy with a great shot who finishes on a great team without actually driving play. He's what people think Point is. He's replacement-level in two zones.

 

[chosen]

All of the above. Point and Kucherov are better forwards in every aspect of being a forward.

I'm not a big goalie guy but Vasilevskiy is definitely a better player.

Tampa is good in large part because of Point, not the other way around. He's better than Stamkos ever was.

I'll give credit to Stamkos for adapting, sure, but part of that is not being a center anymore. Hasn't played center in years because he can't, so he wouldn't be on a line with Laf and Kakko. Point doesn't have weaknesses to adapt to.

Stamkos is just a guy with a great shot who finishes on a great team without actually driving play. He's what people think Point is. He's replacement-level in two zones.

Point is one of the best playoff players I've ever seen.

 

[NickyFotiu]

Yea and if Rangers did find the magic bean leading to Matthews, they handcuff him to the radiator in his blankcheckmansion every night so he could never get away.

You're saying @5 as in Sabres eat half his contract and cap hit? And we give up KK, Krav, Jones and a 1st? Honestly, Eichel at 5 is a lot more tempting than at 11 or whatever he's at. But I still couldn't give up Kakko and Kravtsov. Would have to be one or the other at most and then I am still not sure. Jones and a 1st..... Well I wouldn't want to I guess. Don't mind the 1st, but not keen on losing Jones either. I guess for @5 for the remainder of his contract, would be willing to do something like Kravtsov, Jones or Robertson and a 1st. But really I think it only works because of the reduced price. If I'm paying 11 or whatever the full number is, I don't think I could see it. As good as Kakko is too, I would have a hard time deciding between Kakko and Kravtsov. I still think Kravtsov could end up being the better offensive player. Don't think he will be the defensive player Kakko has turned into, but that's ok if he's putting up high end offense.

Yes Brooks spoke of a deal where Buffalo retains 5 mill a year on the JE contract.
I know everyone loves youth and draft picks but we have to be realistic. KK, Krav, and Jones could turn out well but there is just as big a chance that all 3 do not produce as much as JE (if healthy). That is taking up 3 spots in the lineup. Compare KK's first 2 seasons with JE's first 2 seasons. We just moved Buch because we are stacked at wing and could not afford his new salary. We can not keep all the young guys forever. They will either produce and need new contracts or flame out. We only have so many top 6 wing positions. We need a legit all star at center if we want to win a cup. To me the question is about health because if healthy JE locked up at 5 mill would be a steal! Regarding Jones I like him but how many Dman positions will we have? We already have Fox-Trouba-Lindgren-Miller in the top 4 with Lundqvist and others on the way. To me this is mostly if the Rangers believe JE will be healthy. Would I try to make it a 3 for 1 trade instead of 4-1? Yes. Reminds me of the Barry Beck deal. Many people did not like how much we gave up but usually in trades the team that gets the best player not the package wins the trade.

 

[NickyFotiu]

Lol, I would still take Stamkos on this team. Not sure for what in a trade. But if he were say a FA, I wouldn't mind at all.

Still skeptical of EIchel. For numerous reasons. Not just his injury. He has a long way to go to proving his anywhere near Stamkos as an nhl player. Talent aside. There's a difference. Stamkos gets injured a fair amount too so he doesn't have that edge. I just question Eichel's other attributes, like leadership, will to win, drive and the like.

I always wanted Stamkos. You should go watch some JE high lights. His wrist/snap is pretty darn good at picking corners. Also makes some very effortless dekes for goals. I'm not 100% sold on JE. Neither is anyone else. If JE did not have some questions nobody would have a chance to get him now. It is a high risk high reward gamble.

 

[NYSPORTS]

Point is one of the best playoff players I've ever seen.

his past two playoff stats are pretty crazy

46 games and 52 points

 

[brakeyawself]

Yes Brooks spoke of a deal where Buffalo retains 5 mill a year on the JE contract.
I know everyone loves youth and draft picks but we have to be realistic. KK, Krav, and Jones could turn out well but there is just as big a chance that all 3 do not produce as much as JE (if healthy). That is taking up 3 spots in the lineup. Compare KK's first 2 seasons with JE's first 2 seasons. We just moved Buch because we are stacked at wing and could not afford his new salary. We can not keep all the young guys forever. They will either produce and need new contracts or flame out. We only have so many top 6 wing positions. We need a legit all star at center if we want to win a cup. To me the question is about health because if healthy JE locked up at 5 mill would be a steal! Regarding Jones I like him but how many Dman positions will we have? We already have Fox-Trouba-Lindgren-Miller in the top 4 with Lundqvist and others on the way. To me this is mostly if the Rangers believe JE will be healthy. Would I try to make it a 3 for 1 trade instead of 4-1? Yes. Reminds me of the Barry Beck deal. Many people did not like how much we gave up but usually in trades the team that gets the best player not the package wins the trade.

You’re not necessarily wrong.

However, i don’t think comparing KK first two seasons with JEs first two is fair. They are completely different players and some take longer to mature.

AND I Dont think Miller is as locked in as many think. HE could be moved in right deal.

 

[rodney dangerfield]

honestly, zibanejad might be better than eichel anyway. and to those who say jacks injury history is a negative in terms of trade value, zibanejad has been injured alot too

 

[NickyFotiu]

You’re not necessarily wrong.

However, i don’t think comparing KK first two seasons with JEs first two is fair. They are completely different players and some take longer to mature.

AND I Dont think Miller is as locked in as many think. HE could be moved in right deal.

That is fair but you have to give something to get something. My concern is health. Is JE going to be healthy. If healthy I'm willing to move KK.

 

[brakeyawself]

That is fair but you have to give something to get something. My concern is health. Is JE going to be healthy. If healthy I'm willing to move KK.

So it would reason that since there is no way to concretely determine that we shouldn’t include kK. I wouldn’t move him either way I think.

 

[bernmeister]

Yes Brooks spoke of a deal where Buffalo retains 5 mill a year on the JE contract.
I know everyone loves youth and draft picks but we have to be realistic. KK, Krav, and Jones could turn out well but there is just as big a chance that all 3 do not produce as much as JE (if healthy). That is taking up 3 spots in the lineup. Compare KK's first 2 seasons with JE's first 2 seasons. We just moved Buch because we are stacked at wing and could not afford his new salary. We can not keep all the young guys forever. They will either produce and need new contracts or flame out. We only have so many top 6 wing positions. We need a legit all star at center if we want to win a cup. To me the question is about health because if healthy JE locked up at 5 mill would be a steal! Regarding Jones I like him but how many Dman positions will we have? We already have Fox-Trouba-Lindgren-Miller in the top 4 with Lundqvist and others on the way. To me this is mostly if the Rangers believe JE will be healthy. Would I try to make it a 3 for 1 trade instead of 4-1? Yes. Reminds me of the Barry Beck deal. Many people did not like how much we gave up but usually in trades the team that gets the best player not the package wins the trade.

reminds you of Beck
imo it is closer to when we dealt Norstrom [sp] to LA for Robatille

NY needs to learn from these mistakes and not be all super win now instant gratification

 

[NickyFotiu]

So it would reason that since there is no way to concretely determine that we shouldn’t include kK. I wouldn’t move him either way I think.

I would leave that for the teams doctors to decide or make the deal where we got reimbursed a number of 1st round picks if JE does not reach a certain number of games.

 

[NickyFotiu]

reminds you of Beck
imo it is closer to when we dealt Norstrom [sp] to LA for Robatille

NY needs to learn from these mistakes and not be all super win now instant gratification

1. JE is 24 Luke was 29 when he came to the Rangers.

2. Your comparison is not even valid. You keep saying we traded Norstrom for Luke. That is not true. We traded Norstrom in a package deal for a 35 year old Jari Kurri package. Totally an apples and oranges situation.

3. Improving your team does not have to be a win now mentality but when are we allowed to try to win? In 3 years? In 6 years?

 

[bernmeister]

1. JE is 24 Luke was 29 when he came to the Rangers.

2. Your comparison is not even valid. You keep saying we traded Norstrom for Luke. That is not true. We traded Norstrom in a package deal for a 35 year old Jari Kurri package. Totally an apples and oranges situation.

3. Improving your team does not have to be a win now mentality but when are we allowed to try to win? In 3 years? In 6 years?

thank you and I will fact check 1 + 2 when I get time.

short ans to 3:
it's not about having permission to go for it
it is
about being intelligent and making a team that has enough up and down depth that you can make a run for not just one cup for perhaps as many as 4 in a 7 yr period not being an unreasonable target.
Recent examples are the black hawks, bruins and most recently lightening

the truth needs to be realized and we are not a house of cards, but our depth is not limitless and the nonosecond we cannibalize our futures for risky win now, we eff ourselves badly and we are no longer a team w/a 7 yr window

And pls, just let Eich go
I would not give up KK/others to get him at 5 and there is no guarantee he will either be productive enough at a high enough level after surgery, or if that is even the case, will that neck hold up another 5-6 yrs

would rather have Kak + Krav on elcs barely 20 than Eich, esp mystery eich, at 24
there is no way to

 

[NickyFotiu]

thank you and I will fact check 1 + 2 when I get time.

short ans to 3:
it's not about having permission to go for it
it is
about being intelligent and making a team that has enough up and down depth that you can make a run for not just one cup for perhaps as many as 4 in a 7 yr period not being an unreasonable target.
Recent examples are the black hawks, bruins and most recently lightening

the truth needs to be realized and we are not a house of cards, but our depth is not limitless and the nonosecond we cannibalize our futures for risky win now, we eff ourselves badly and we are no longer a team w/a 7 yr window

And pls, just let Eich go
I would not give up KK/others to get him at 5 and there is no guarantee he will either be productive enough at a high enough level after surgery, or if that is even the case, will that neck hold up another 5-6 yrs

would rather have Kak + Krav on elcs barely 20 than Eich, esp mystery eich, at 24
there is no way to

We can not plan for 4 cups in 7 years. That would be great. That would be awesome but there is no plan that gets you 4 cups in 7 years. If there was a plan everyone would be doing it. Tampa won 2 cups not 4 in 7. The Bruins won in 2011. The Blackhawks won 3 cups in 8 years. That was as close to 4 in 7 years as you got. I'm not worried about winning 3 cups in 7 years. Get us 1 cup before planing 2 and 3

 

[NYR]

I've watched every Lightning playoff game the last two years.

Stamkos is a distant 5th best player on his own team.

5th best on Tampa.
Best on this team..

 

[GoAwayPanarin]

I've watched every Lightning playoff game the last two years.

Stamkos is a distant 5th best player on his own team.

6th if you count the goalie.

 

[Clown Fiesta]

5th best on Tampa.
Best on this team..

Not even. Panarin, Zib, Fox. He’d be 4th.

 

[Machinehead]

5th best on Tampa.
Best on this team..

No, he would be like, right around 5th.

Tampa's very, very good but it's also true that Stamkos just isn't that good.

He's a replacement-level player 5v5.

His only above average quality is shooting on the powerplay. He's Zibanejad without the 2-goals-per-game streaks.

Panarin, Zibanejad, Fox, and Shestyorkin are better players.

 

[brakeyawself]

All of the above. Point and Kucherov are better forwards in every aspect of being a forward.

I'm not a big goalie guy but Vasilevskiy is definitely a better player.

Tampa is good in large part because of Point, not the other way around. He's better than Stamkos ever was.

I'll give credit to Stamkos for adapting, sure, but part of that is not being a center anymore. Hasn't played center in years because he can't, so he wouldn't be on a line with Laf and Kakko. Point doesn't have weaknesses to adapt to.

Stamkos is just a guy with a great shot who finishes on a great team without actually driving play. He's what people think Point is. He's replacement-level in two zones.

Poiint is great. I really don't think we can say "he's a better player than Stamkos ever was" though. As much as I like Point. Stamkos in his early years was a ridiculous talent, size and skill. I still am not sure Point could carry a team so far if he didn't have these other players around him though. Or more so, be the player that he is without the surrounding talent. Just comparable to guys like McDavid, Ovechkin, Kucherov, Matthews MacKinnon or Crosby I guess. Where as in Stamkos early years, I think he really was among the elite talents in the league. Top 5-10. And I wouldn't put Point in that range now all things considered.

But that's fair on Stamkos.

And yea, I guess Vas fits in there.

 

[brakeyawself]

No, he would be like, right around 5th.

Tampa's very, very good but it's also true that Stamkos just isn't that good.

He's a replacement-level player 5v5.

His only above average quality is shooting on the powerplay. He's Zibanejad without the 2-goals-per-game streaks.

Panarin, Zibanejad, Fox, and Shestyorkin are better players.

Replacement level 5x5? Not when healthy. He's still top 6 when healthy. And obviously on the PP.

Hrm. Panarin yes. Fox based on age and what he did last year, ok. Shesterkin hasn't proven any of it yet. Zibanejad is a good player. Comparable to Stamkos now? I would say they are in a similar range. But comparing Zibanijad in his peak years to Stamkos in his peak years, Stamkos wins hands down in my book. But as of right now..... He would still be one of our best forwards when healthy. He's a PPG guy even with all this physical liability.

And if Point had to deal with a similar physical decline, aging the way Stamkos has, there is no way he would still be putting up PPG numbers like Stamkos does.

And say what you will about Stamkos, but he's still a PPG player even with the physical decline. Which is just a testament to his talent. I don't think most guys, losing the physical abilities to such a degree, would continue to be PPG players at this point. Stamkos never really fell off in this regard. Even the seasons he's been injured, hes been around (+/- a few) PPG. He was one of the elite talents of his generation. Seriously, how many guys could decline physically to such a degree and not really lose much in offensive production?

Maybe I wouldn't pick him at center over Ziban. But if I just had to choose between them, position aside, it would be a really really tough choice. And I still think Stamkos is offensively better than Ziban in regard to goals/point capability. Keeping him on the ice is clearly the biggest issue. But when he's out there, he's still a top 6 player.