[Poll] Zibanejad @10M or Eichel?

[jBuds]

The close poll is fascinating. But makes sense

eichel healthy is the better player, but is the difference between the two worth what it would cost to acquire him in a trade?

I think so, personally, but understand why half of you don’t.

 

[NYRFANMANI]

I put it this way.

Zibs worst case scenario, he ain't worth the contract, which we will overpay by 1-2m/y.

Eichel's worst case scenario, is career ending and we traded big time assets to get him.

Just let Buffalo implode on its own.

 

[Machinehead]

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.

You're seriously overestimating how effective Stamkos still is.

I watched 40+ Lightning playoff games and heard his name called about twice. He's one of the most invisible top six players in the league. (Granted, he was hurt a lot of the first run and they f***ing won the Cup without him!)

He's continued to produce despite declining because he's on a dynasty. He's exactly what you think Point is.

 

[bernmeister]

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

No I disagree and this is where the hard choices have to be made BEFOREHAND, ahead of the curve, NOT responding to events after the fact.

We won the Cup in '94.
One time. And while we were very good and deserved it, we were also lucky, that series w/VAN was very close.

Did we need each and every single move that was made to that roster?
Yeah, we needed to sacrifice to get in Larmer.
But did we have to trade Gartner and Amonte?

The point is with one or two slightly different tweaks we could have been approx as strong for that year, and had more scoring firepower for the next coupla seasons.

The parallel here is to realize that now we are in a hard cap league, we can't just throw dollars to get who we want.

This is basic math. It is irrefutable core logic that cannot be overturned: with little exception a roster spot is held by either a more expensive player [typically a vet whose longer service has earned a larger paycheck w/commensurate cap hit] OR it is held by a cheaper player [typically younger, ideally elc].

While you don't turn away a more expensive vet IF that vet is more productive --- which is not an assumption that can be made b'c usually but not always talent [and maturity understanding how to wield it] --- supersedes experience. Maturity [or lack thereof] is found at all age levels.

But the key here in the hard cap era is to admit you have to squeeze every drop of production from a roster with finite cap space. Youth with elcs and to a lesser extent rfas are precious assets in that equation.

We do NOT have surplus bluest blue chip elcs, possibly Jones notwithstanding. Speak that truth and yield to that reality.

We need all our youth to have a super deep lineup team that is not only cap compliant, but will have a bit of room for one splurge once we can repurpose Trouba with Schneider.

Cannibalizing youth is not smart and esp for Eichel, who is a risk and has other costs. no.

We should be looking at extending, then retaining on Zib, and send him + Strome + Jones + Reunanen + Geo to Leafs for Matthews. That works b'c we are dealing existing vet $ for existing vet $. We get talent upgrade, Leafs redesign to not be top heavy, a failed model, with some other strategic considerations [D gets younger, add a quality G].

We then enjoy 2 yrs of AM, and right before his NMC kicks in, we deal him to AZ who will still give us a nice chunk of change to get him 1 yr early.

THAT is the smart play here.

 

[brakeyawself]

You're seriously overestimating how effective Stamkos still is.

I watched 40+ Lightning playoff games and heard his name called about twice. He's one of the most invisible top six players in the league. (Granted, he was hurt a lot of the first run and they f***ing won the Cup without him!)

He's continued to produce despite declining because he's on a dynasty. He's exactly what you think Point is.

Who did he play on a line with most last season? Wasn't he kind of all over the place in the playoffs? Centering like Killorn and Colton one day and the next playing LW next to Cirelli and and whomever? And I could swear he started some games at center at least, not sure if he remained there all game. And I don't think he had much different during the season where he scored 34 in 38, which is just a few short of his usual. Meanwhile Cirelli had like 22 in 50 games, so it's not like everyone benefits in their scoring just because they're on the team. Point had 48 in 56. Which is about the same rate as Stamkos I think. Well, slightly less actually per game. I'm not sure how much they played together in the regular season. But that's about where Point is without Kucherov in general. Not the 90 point guy he can be with Kucherov. Which he's only done once, the same year Kucherov happen to set a new personal best in scoring at 128. Rest of the time Point's been hovering around a PPG or lower.

I'm really not saying Point isn't a terrific player and more important to that team perhaps than Stamkos. But I think you're not giving credit for how truly talented and good he is when healthy. It's probably terribly annoying to actually have to deal with missing him for large periods of time if you're a fan. And maybe his production does happen under the cover of night where no one notices. But he's still doing it even if quietly. And he's still net positive offensively and defensively. I know this isn't the best metric for overall ability, but he hasn't had a negative +/- since 2012/13. And before that, his only two other negative +/- seasons were his initial 2. So 3 negative seasons in his whole career. And he;'s substantially improved his faceoff's since earlier in his career. For about the last 5 years now.

 

[bernmeister]

I put it this way.

Zibs worst case scenario, he ain't worth the contract, which we will overpay by 1-2m/y.

Eichel's worst case scenario, is career ending and we traded big time assets to get him.

Just let Buffalo implode on its own.

Agree w/all of this, and just add that there is a smart way to go w/zib, which he may or may not be open to....

have an honest heart to heart and say look, while it is not impossible to beat the odds, any non G skater is not worth paying into their mid 30s. Once you approach that, gotta go year by year, take it or leave it.

We are willing to overpay you at 10.5 per season but it has to capitulate to what is deal breakers for NYR:
1. no NMC, for anyone, ever, no exceptions.
2. In lieu of NMC, sufficient at min nTc. In your case we can do like 28 teams are ntc; howev, we have to have a handful we can deal you to if nec. Having 4 options [team choice] in your case we don't consider unreasonable.
3. You have our word on a handshake deal that we will take your preferences into account if we can.
4. Also, we don't want to trade you, consider that a rule of thumb; but we do want the freedom to move anybody for an upgrade, and that would include you in the rare case we swing a deal for a guy like Matthews.
5. Accordingly, our offer is to lose your existing deal's last year and rather than append, immediate replace w/a new deal of 10.5m per
6. However, that deal is 4 years only, up to 33 yrs old.

You then try to pitch to Leafs that Matthews is on the books for 3 more seasons, the last of which he has nmc. If there is +++ attached, Zib recovering most of what is lost in AM, esp Zib retained from 10.5 down to 8 per, for 4 years, is worth considering compared to the risk of losing Matthews after 2/+. Waiting to deal Matthews for another 2 seasons, for any club other than AZ, is greatly reduced return compared to this.

You're seriously overestimating how effective Stamkos still is.

I watched 40+ Lightning playoff games and heard his name called about twice. He's one of the most invisible top six players in the league. (Granted, he was hurt a lot of the first run and they f***ing won the Cup without him!)

He's continued to produce despite declining because he's on a dynasty. He's exactly what you think Point is.

Agree and have no interest in Stamkos except moving Trouba is problematic and while we would have to get his wife a gig down there, since they are already residents of no tax state FL, a deal around Stamkos + for Trouba would be close to cap neutral and make Lightning's D younger while for NY would create a slot for Schneider and provide depth at pivot, though as you correctly point out, he's not what he was.

 

[NYRKing]

All depends on the dollars. I hope we can keep Zibby around 8M…and then get Eichel at 8M as well

 

[Crease]

Whether the Rangers pay Zibanejad or Eichel $10 million, the Rangers are going to need cheap secondary scoring. That will be easier to accomplish in the scenario that doesn't involve them trading half their prospects away.

 

[Pidto Files]

 

[NickyFotiu]

No I disagree and this is where the hard choices have to be made BEFOREHAND, ahead of the curve, NOT responding to events after the fact.

We won the Cup in '94.
One time. And while we were very good and deserved it, we were also lucky, that series w/VAN was very close.

Did we need each and every single move that was made to that roster?
Yeah, we needed to sacrifice to get in Larmer.
But did we have to trade Gartner and Amonte?

The point is with one or two slightly different tweaks we could have been approx as strong for that year, and had more scoring firepower for the next coupla seasons.

The parallel here is to realize that now we are in a hard cap league, we can't just throw dollars to get who we want.

This is basic math. It is irrefutable core logic that cannot be overturned: with little exception a roster spot is held by either a more expensive player [typically a vet whose longer service has earned a larger paycheck w/commensurate cap hit] OR it is held by a cheaper player [typically younger, ideally elc].

While you don't turn away a more expensive vet IF that vet is more productive --- which is not an assumption that can be made b'c usually but not always talent [and maturity understanding how to wield it] --- supersedes experience. Maturity [or lack thereof] is found at all age levels.

But the key here in the hard cap era is to admit you have to squeeze every drop of production from a roster with finite cap space. Youth with elcs and to a lesser extent rfas are precious assets in that equation.

We do NOT have surplus bluest blue chip elcs, possibly Jones notwithstanding. Speak that truth and yield to that reality.

We need all our youth to have a super deep lineup team that is not only cap compliant, but will have a bit of room for one splurge once we can repurpose Trouba with Schneider.

Cannibalizing youth is not smart and esp for Eichel, who is a risk and has other costs. no.

We should be looking at extending, then retaining on Zib, and send him + Strome + Jones + Reunanen + Geo to Leafs for Matthews. That works b'c we are dealing existing vet $ for existing vet $. We get talent upgrade, Leafs redesign to not be top heavy, a failed model, with some other strategic considerations [D gets younger, add a quality G].

We then enjoy 2 yrs of AM, and right before his NMC kicks in, we deal him to AZ who will still give us a nice chunk of change to get him 1 yr early.

THAT is the smart play here.

You are posting a bunch of assumptions almost like they are facts. The biggest being the Toronto is going to send us Mathews. If you can get Mathews then do it but I do not see any place that is even close to reality. Might as well say McDavid.

 

[bernmeister]

You are posting a bunch of assumptions almost like they are facts. The biggest being the Toronto is going to send us Mathews. If you can get Mathews then do it but I do not see any place that is even close to reality. Might as well say McDavid.

That's a fair point but to remain fair I believe I took pains to address that.

here is what I said in post 181:

"1. no NMC, for anyone, ever, no exceptions.
2. In lieu of NMC, sufficient at min nTc. In your case we can do like 28 teams are ntc; howev, we have to have a handful we can deal you to if nec. Having 4 options [team choice] in your case we don't consider unreasonable.
3. You have our word on a handshake deal that we will take your preferences into account if we can.
4. Also, we don't want to trade you, consider that a rule of thumb; but we do want the freedom to move anybody for an upgrade, and that would include you in the rare case we swing a deal for a guy like Matthews.
5. Accordingly, our offer is to lose your existing deal's last year and rather than append, immediate replace w/a new deal of 10.5m per
6. However, that deal is 4 years only, up to 33 yrs old."

This explains it is plausible to get Zib at 10.5 for 4 seasons.

I then said:
"You then try to pitch to Leafs that Matthews is on the books for 3 more seasons, the last of which he has nmc. If there is +++ attached, Zib recovering most of what is lost in AM, esp Zib retained from 10.5 down to 8 per, for 4 years, is worth considering compared to the risk of losing Matthews after 2/+. Waiting to deal Matthews for another 2 seasons, for any club other than AZ, is greatly reduced return compared to this."

now be honest.
everybody wants their cake and eat it too
everyone wants dessert, no one wants veggies

so yeah, IF IF IF they can extend Matthews, they will, no ?.

Howev, it is a real ? they can do that.
His deal is 3 mo seasons. After the next 2 HE dictates via NMC if he goes anywhere.
You gotta think big, if it applies.
If Matthews plays his cards right, he could do a Lemieux and be player coach before going full majority owner. He has that much pull in AZ.
He'll honor that 3rd year, but then he goes buh bye and you have squat.

So the smart move is to max certainty of reward and diminish risk of pain by loss. Hence thought he is moved after only 2 years which = max trade swag returned.

4 years of Zib at 8 [b'c we retained 2.5 per] + those assets I indicated IS better than only 2 or 3 years of Matthews at 11.6+ per.

I mean sure, there are always people doing irrational stuff like avoiding a proven vaccine during a pandemic, and I'm sure there are some who insist on just wishing like yotes franchise relocated or off the face of the earth removing any incentive for him to go there.

But reality is, percentage play is, they have to let him go.
If they don't it will be another Tavares.

 

[Machinehead]

Who did he play on a line with most last season? Wasn't he kind of all over the place in the playoffs? Centering like Killorn and Colton one day and the next playing LW next to Cirelli and and whomever? And I could swear he started some games at center at least, not sure if he remained there all game. And I don't think he had much different during the season where he scored 34 in 38, which is just a few short of his usual. Meanwhile Cirelli had like 22 in 50 games, so it's not like everyone benefits in their scoring just because they're on the team. Point had 48 in 56. Which is about the same rate as Stamkos I think. Well, slightly less actually per game. I'm not sure how much they played together in the regular season. But that's about where Point is without Kucherov in general. Not the 90 point guy he can be with Kucherov. Which he's only done once, the same year Kucherov happen to set a new personal best in scoring at 128. Rest of the time Point's been hovering around a PPG or lower.

I'm really not saying Point isn't a terrific player and more important to that team perhaps than Stamkos. But I think you're not giving credit for how truly talented and good he is when healthy. It's probably terribly annoying to actually have to deal with missing him for large periods of time if you're a fan. And maybe his production does happen under the cover of night where no one notices. But he's still doing it even if quietly. And he's still net positive offensively and defensively. I know this isn't the best metric for overall ability, but he hasn't had a negative +/- since 2012/13. And before that, his only two other negative +/- seasons were his initial 2. So 3 negative seasons in his whole career. And he;'s substantially improved his faceoff's since earlier in his career. For about the last 5 years now.

Stamkos plays around Tampa's "second" and "third" lines because that's what he is except, no, he doesn't play center. He was Cirelli's wing the entire year. They get second line minutes if Killorn is healthy but it's their third best line, or was.

I cannot stress enough that Tampa won the Cup without him.

 

[NickyFotiu]

That's a fair point but to remain fair I believe I took pains to address that.

here is what I said in post 181:

"1. no NMC, for anyone, ever, no exceptions.
2. In lieu of NMC, sufficient at min nTc. In your case we can do like 28 teams are ntc; howev, we have to have a handful we can deal you to if nec. Having 4 options [team choice] in your case we don't consider unreasonable.
3. You have our word on a handshake deal that we will take your preferences into account if we can.
4. Also, we don't want to trade you, consider that a rule of thumb; but we do want the freedom to move anybody for an upgrade, and that would include you in the rare case we swing a deal for a guy like Matthews.
5. Accordingly, our offer is to lose your existing deal's last year and rather than append, immediate replace w/a new deal of 10.5m per
6. However, that deal is 4 years only, up to 33 yrs old."

This explains it is plausible to get Zib at 10.5 for 4 seasons.

I then said:
"You then try to pitch to Leafs that Matthews is on the books for 3 more seasons, the last of which he has nmc. If there is +++ attached, Zib recovering most of what is lost in AM, esp Zib retained from 10.5 down to 8 per, for 4 years, is worth considering compared to the risk of losing Matthews after 2/+. Waiting to deal Matthews for another 2 seasons, for any club other than AZ, is greatly reduced return compared to this."

now be honest.
everybody wants their cake and eat it too
everyone wants dessert, no one wants veggies

so yeah, IF IF IF they can extend Matthews, they will, no ?.

Howev, it is a real ? they can do that.
His deal is 3 mo seasons. After the next 2 HE dictates via NMC if he goes anywhere.
You gotta think big, if it applies.
If Matthews plays his cards right, he could do a Lemieux and be player coach before going full majority owner. He has that much pull in AZ.
He'll honor that 3rd year, but then he goes buh bye and you have squat.

So the smart move is to max certainty of reward and diminish risk of pain by loss. Hence thought he is moved after only 2 years which = max trade swag returned.

4 years of Zib at 8 [b'c we retained 2.5 per] + those assets I indicated IS better than only 2 or 3 years of Matthews at 11.6+ per.

I mean sure, there are always people doing irrational stuff like avoiding a proven vaccine during a pandemic, and I'm sure there are some who insist on just wishing like yotes franchise relocated or off the face of the earth removing any incentive for him to go there.

But reality is, percentage play is, they have to let him go.
If they don't it will be another Tavares.

Toronto is so unlikely to trade Mathews in his prime. That is why when a guy like JE becomes available you have to do your due diligence and take a look. These types of centers at age 24 do not become available often.

 

[EdJovanovski]

That's a fair point but to remain fair I believe I took pains to address that.

here is what I said in post 181:

"1. no NMC, for anyone, ever, no exceptions.
2. In lieu of NMC, sufficient at min nTc. In your case we can do like 28 teams are ntc; howev, we have to have a handful we can deal you to if nec. Having 4 options [team choice] in your case we don't consider unreasonable.
3. You have our word on a handshake deal that we will take your preferences into account if we can.
4. Also, we don't want to trade you, consider that a rule of thumb; but we do want the freedom to move anybody for an upgrade, and that would include you in the rare case we swing a deal for a guy like Matthews.
5. Accordingly, our offer is to lose your existing deal's last year and rather than append, immediate replace w/a new deal of 10.5m per
6. However, that deal is 4 years only, up to 33 yrs old."

This explains it is plausible to get Zib at 10.5 for 4 seasons.

I then said:
"You then try to pitch to Leafs that Matthews is on the books for 3 more seasons, the last of which he has nmc. If there is +++ attached, Zib recovering most of what is lost in AM, esp Zib retained from 10.5 down to 8 per, for 4 years, is worth considering compared to the risk of losing Matthews after 2/+. Waiting to deal Matthews for another 2 seasons, for any club other than AZ, is greatly reduced return compared to this."

now be honest.
everybody wants their cake and eat it too
everyone wants dessert, no one wants veggies

so yeah, IF IF IF they can extend Matthews, they will, no ?.

Howev, it is a real ? they can do that.
His deal is 3 mo seasons. After the next 2 HE dictates via NMC if he goes anywhere.
You gotta think big, if it applies.
If Matthews plays his cards right, he could do a Lemieux and be player coach before going full majority owner. He has that much pull in AZ.
He'll honor that 3rd year, but then he goes buh bye and you have squat.

So the smart move is to max certainty of reward and diminish risk of pain by loss. Hence thought he is moved after only 2 years which = max trade swag returned.

4 years of Zib at 8 [b'c we retained 2.5 per] + those assets I indicated IS better than only 2 or 3 years of Matthews at 11.6+ per.

I mean sure, there are always people doing irrational stuff like avoiding a proven vaccine during a pandemic, and I'm sure there are some who insist on just wishing like yotes franchise relocated or off the face of the earth removing any incentive for him to go there.

But reality is, percentage play is, they have to let him go.
If they don't it will be another Tavares.

I love how when I’m scrolling up on threads I can tell your posts right away LOL you are the goat poster

 

[NYR]

I can't get myself to vote simply because I don't think either one of them as #1C can bring this team to a cup win..

 

[Machinehead]

I can't get myself to vote simply because I don't think either one of them as #1C can bring this team to a cup win..

If Eichel isn't a #1 center then there's like four #1 centers.

You could say the same for Zibanejad tbh. The number of demonstrably better centers isn't that big. McDavid, Point, MacKinnon, Crosby. I think Zibanejad is on the low end of the next tier but he's in the next tier.

Only half the guys in that first tier have a Cup.

 

[NYR]

If Eichel isn't a #1 center then there's like four #1 centers.

Scoring a 100 pts during the regular season means shit if you can't bring the same level of play into the playoffs.
Zbad would be a perfect example only on a lesser scale.
Real players bring it in the playoffs when things matter, the rest are not even worth the conversation..

 

[Machinehead]

Granted, would I rather have a Hall of Famer like MacKinnon or low-key best player in the league Brayden Point? Sure, but I would also rather be John Cena.

I wouldn't classify Eichel or Zibanejad as guys you can't win with and they're definitely first line centers.

 

[Machinehead]

Scoring a 100 pts during the regular season means shit if you can't bring the same level of play into the playoffs.
Zbad would be a perfect example only on a lesser scale.
Real players bring it in the playoffs when things matter, the rest are not even worth the conversation..

Zibanejad had one playoff run with the Rangers before he broke out and he was our best player.

Eichel never played there.

You can't draw on a non-existent sample. We didn't know Point was Gretzky on meth in the playoffs until he got there.

 

[jay from jersey]

If Eichel isn't a #1 center then there's like four #1 centers.

You could say the same for Zibanejad tbh. The number of demonstrably better centers isn't that big. McDavid, Point, MacKinnon, Crosby. I think Zibanejad is on the low end of the next tier but he's in the next tier.

Only half the guys in that first tier have a Cup.

Zibby has played well for us no question. I just think the 5 year gap between him and Eichel is too tempting to drury. They both have their injury histories. But at the same money given the choice, I’d go with Eichel depending on cost to acquire.
If Zibby was the same age, or even a year or 2 older, I would say Zibby all day. But 5 years is pushing it. Zibby basically exploded for us when he was 25/26 years old. Eichel hasn’t even reached that age and is still an accomplished stud.

 

[NYR]

Granted, would I rather have a Hall of Famer like MacKinnon or low-key best player in the league Brayden Point? Sure, but I would also rather be John Cena.

I wouldn't classify Eichel or Zibanejad as guys you can't win with and they're definitely first line centers.

You've watched Zib first hand in the bubble.
What did he do exactly other than completely fall on his face?
You want to say DQ and the system had something to do with it than fine but he was a ghost

 

[Machinehead]

Zibby has played well for us no question. I just think the 5 year gap between him and Eichel is too tempting to drury. They both have their injury histories. But at the same money given the choice, I’d go with Eichel depending on cost to acquire.

My big thing is, I wanna know what his status is now. I think we have a chance to compete. I'm not trading a haul to find out Eichel debuts in February.

 

[Machinehead]

You've watched Zib first hand in the bubble.
What did he do exactly other than completely fall on his face?
You want to say DQ and the system had something to do with it than fine but he was a ghost

The bubble is meaningless.

It was an 11 seed that got into the "playoffs" because of unprecedented circumstances up against a top team in the conference.

Anybody who expected anything but exactly what happened was lying to themselves.

 

[jay from jersey]

My big thing is, I wanna know what his status is now. I think we have a chance to compete. I'm not trading a haul to find out Eichel debuts in February.

Yea, I get that. Maybe drury feels like he has Zibby as a buffer until then. Who knows. I mean if they are mustering up enough to trade for him, that means that they are satisfied that he makes a full recovery and comes back to normal. Otherwise, there’s no point in making the trade. It’s definitely a gamble for sure. But it could pay off big if everything works out, or it could suck. Too close to call.
I’m guessing Adams likely came down to Drurys price rather then drury caving. They were probably worried that if drury gave Zibby a 5 year extension, the trade talks would have died instantly. Plus training camp is around the corner too.

 

[NYR]

The bubble is meaningless.

It was an 11 seed that got into the "playoffs" because of unprecedented circumstances up against a top team in the conference.

Anybody who expected anything but exactly what happened was lying to themselves.

Sorry but I'm not going to dismiss performance no matter the circumstances.
Where was playoff warrior Zib?

Listen, you have to be able to identify the players that will bring you over the top.
Example, Goodrow.
He does the necessary things that make the difference.
Zib/ JE have yet to prove that they're capable.
Insert a MacKinnon and you have a completely different team..