Thomas is also 21 and has plenty of time to develop. The Rangers will need to find at least one good, young C with top 6 potential to fill the void in the system behind Strome, Chytil and Zib
Speculation: Roster Building Thread IV (2021 Offseason) - Bob Dylan turns 80 & "The times they are a changing!"
- Thread starter BBKers
- Start date
-
Xenforo Cloud will be upgrading us to version 2.3.5 on March 3rd at 12 AM GMT. This version has increased stability and fixes several bugs. We expect downtime for the duration of the update. The admin team will continue to work on existing issues, templates and upgrade all necessary available addons to minimize impact of this new version. Click Here for Updates
- Status
Thomas is also 21 and has plenty of time to develop. The Rangers will need to find at least one good, young C with top 6 potential to fill the void in the system behind Strome, Chytil and Zib
Raspewtin
Stay at home defenseman hater
- May 30, 2013
- 44,301
- 21,909
hits aren't the only way to play physical or with effort.
- Sep 17, 2007
- 24,928
- 22,850
My concern with Thomas is where do we play him? We don't need him on the wing, there's no scenario where he is the 1C any time soon, and we aren't going to trade for him to play him at 4C, so that leaves 2C or 3C. Strome could be traded, but are we going to go with Chytil and Thomas at those spots? What if neither takes a significant step forward next year and really grabs the 2C spot? That seems like a pretty big risk for a team with playoff aspirations.
I don't think we're in a position to take on another developmental top 9 center. If we end up trading Chytil, then it would make more sense, but I'm not really interested in swapping Chytil for Thomas. To me that is a lateral move, and I'd rather keep the guy I know than roll the dice on the one I don't, who is coming off a poor season. For the sake of argument, I'll compare Thomas last year to Chytil this year.
[TABLE="class: brtb_item_table"][TBODY][TR][TD]Player[/TD][TD]GP[/TD][TD]EVG[/TD][TD]EVP[/TD][TD]EVP/G[/TD][TD]EVTOI[/TD][TD]PPP[/TD][TD]PPTOI[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD]Thomas[/TD][TD]66[/TD][TD]9[/TD][TD]35[/TD][TD].530[/TD][TD]13:07[/TD][TD]7[/TD][TD]1:26[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD]Chytil[/TD][TD]42[/TD][TD]8[/TD][TD]22[/TD][TD].524[/TD][TD]12:34[/TD][TD]0[/TD][TD]0:38[/TD][/TR][/TBODY][/TABLE]
Their points at even strength are very comparable, as is their EVTOI. Chytil has been the better goal scorer, and got almost no time on the PP.
I don't see Thomas being a target for the Rangers. I think we'll be looking at players who are already established top 6 centers.
Yeah let's build a team around McDavid, Panarin, Trouba and Kreider. Why make the same mistake EDM has done?
Mac n Gs
Drury plz
- Jan 17, 2014
- 22,835
- 13,558
A lot would depend on what they do with Buch and/or Kravtsov, but I think the best bet is to start him at 2RW and shift him to C in the future. He’s already mainly a RW for STL, and I think he’d be a great fit opposite someone like Panarin - with both of them on the ice, other teams would barely stop them from getting through the neutral zone
I like Thomas quite a bit. Great motor, wheels, and can make plays at speed. Excellent vision. That being said it feels like having Thomas and Chytil in the mix is probably the opposite direction of where the team would be going right now. I could see Thomas being a target if the Rangers had to move Chytil in an Eichel trade or something but having those two lined up behind Zib seems like a pretty big gamble instead of a stabilizing maneuver.
Raspewtin
Stay at home defenseman hater
- May 30, 2013
- 44,301
- 21,909
when you say opposite direction, do you mean in the sense of they're both 21 year olds? or in that they play similar styles? because I'm not sure I agree with the latter.
Off Sides
Registered User
- Sep 8, 2008
- 9,755
- 5,585
Cap structure wise Thomas and Chytil, neither have arbitration rights, so they'd likely both be cheap bridges. And I am not a big Strome fan, so I'd gladly take the gamble either or both could replace him.
Like what are they going to do with Strome anyway? extend him?
My concern would be the return in that trade, I don't think it will be any cheaper than what most of us would want if the Rangers were to trade Chytil.
Like what are they going to do with Strome anyway? extend him?
My concern would be the return in that trade, I don't think it will be any cheaper than what most of us would want if the Rangers were to trade Chytil.
MetalJaws
Registered User
- Mar 12, 2014
- 891
- 671
Out - Strome, Buch, Georgiev, Nils, 2022 1st, Robertson, Smith, Hajek, Blackwell, Rooney. Howden to Seattle please FOR THE LOVE OF GOD!
In - 1/2C , 3rd pair D-men with size , 4th line grit, backup goalie
Laf - Zib - Kakko
Panarin - TRADE - Kravtsov
Kreider - Chytil - Gauthier
Pdg - TRADE - TRADE
Miller - Trouba
Lindgren - Fox
TRADE/FA - TRADE/FA
Jones
Shesty
TRADE/FA
In - 1/2C , 3rd pair D-men with size , 4th line grit, backup goalie
Laf - Zib - Kakko
Panarin - TRADE - Kravtsov
Kreider - Chytil - Gauthier
Pdg - TRADE - TRADE
Miller - Trouba
Lindgren - Fox
TRADE/FA - TRADE/FA
Jones
Shesty
TRADE/FA
Edge
Kris King's Ghost
I'm not opposed to Thomas, I just don't know what the solution is. I feel like adding another young RW is musical chairs.
On the one hand we're talking about adding experience to the lineup and trying to have the right mix, on the other hand if we move Buch, but then potentially add Thomas, we have four RWs all under the age of 22, all offensively-inclined, all trying to figure it out, and a finite amount of ice time and opportunities for them to do it.
In my mind, more of a middle six, veteran, reached his cruising altitude type feels like a better companion piece on a right wing that includes Kakko and Kravtsov, and potentially Gauthier.
If we shift over to the middle, I tend to feel like we can have two of Zibanejad, Chytil or Strome, but we probably want to swap one out for a veteran center who understands their role (which isn't solely based on offensive production) and provides stability more than inherent upside.
In that sense, Thomas feels like a "could" move rather than a "should" move.
It's probably not the most popular answer, but we're quite possibly looking at scenarios where Strome/Buch do not bring back offensive equivalent returns, nor do they bring back top young players.
We could very likely be looking at scenarios where they bring back a player who settles in as a third line RW, maybe a steady, but not fantasy two-way center who flips with Chytil from time to time, possibly a fourth line player and a B prospect.
On the one hand we're talking about adding experience to the lineup and trying to have the right mix, on the other hand if we move Buch, but then potentially add Thomas, we have four RWs all under the age of 22, all offensively-inclined, all trying to figure it out, and a finite amount of ice time and opportunities for them to do it.
In my mind, more of a middle six, veteran, reached his cruising altitude type feels like a better companion piece on a right wing that includes Kakko and Kravtsov, and potentially Gauthier.
If we shift over to the middle, I tend to feel like we can have two of Zibanejad, Chytil or Strome, but we probably want to swap one out for a veteran center who understands their role (which isn't solely based on offensive production) and provides stability more than inherent upside.
In that sense, Thomas feels like a "could" move rather than a "should" move.
It's probably not the most popular answer, but we're quite possibly looking at scenarios where Strome/Buch do not bring back offensive equivalent returns, nor do they bring back top young players.
We could very likely be looking at scenarios where they bring back a player who settles in as a third line RW, maybe a steady, but not fantasy two-way center who flips with Chytil from time to time, possibly a fourth line player and a B prospect.
I remember a comment from Scotty Bowman that stuck with me around the 05' lock-out. They were discussing how to create more offense, and Bowman said that "goals comes from havoc", and that if you want to create more goals create more havoc. He also suggested banning line changes in your defensive zone or something like that.
No doubt, a large percent of all goals in hockey comes from a shot being taken which does not end up in the net, but somehow the puck ends up on a blade of an attacker and is put in the net.
But here I think there is quite many misconceptions. I really think the game would be understood better if two of them are cleared away.
The first is that passing prevents shots. If anything is the opposite, a team that cut down on 50% of its passes would be able to put very very few pucks on the net. The most important thing is to take shots -- when you are in a position to do something with a rebound/bounce or whatever. There are very few goals scored in this league on clear shots that is not preceded by a E-W pass or a rebound/bounce. However, you can of course make too many passes, you must take shots. But the key is to take shots when you can get to the rebound.
The second misconception is that it is a matter of making a decision to shoot the puck in many situations. Taking a shot in hockey is not like throwing a punch or shooting a basketball. It takes a little longer. And you have no time whatsoever when you get a scoring chance in hockey. You must basically put yourself in position to fire a puck before you get it to be able to get of a shot fast. This is definitely a skill and not a perfect excuse for giving up a shot. Why does this matter? Especially in NY kids are so often critisized for "not deciding to shoot the puck". But its not about that, its about reading the play well enough so that you prepare to be able to fire the puck instantly once you get it. This is a lot harder to do. And it will happen to everyone, especially when there is a bounce etc. This really bugs me about Michelleti for example. So many times its super obvious that a kid has a puck landing on his stick while being unprepared to take a shot, and you don't have 2 seconds to turn your body and get of a shot. But he will go on and on about how it was a bad deicions and how the kids must get a more shoot first mentality etc.
Kodiak
Registered User
The statement in bold, while being a perfectly reasonable statement, is why I still hate the front office moves. A rebuilding team can put young players in increasingly significant spots in the lineup. But for a playoff team, that may be too risky. Then it becomes a bit of a vicious circle where players can't move up because they are unproven and are unproven because they aren't given an opportunity to move up.
When I look at Chytil's even strength production this year, I don't know what else he could have done to show he is ready for a bigger role.
I'm sure this is closer to how the Rangers view things, and that's why Thomas wouldn't be realistic. That said, I never really speculate on what the Rangers will do because I'm not the Rangers, I propose what I think they should do. Part of my interest in Thomas stems from my disinterest in keeping either one of Zibanejad and Strome: Zibanejad, I think, is an albatross deal waiting to happen due to his declining play driving, his powerplay prowess, and his injury history; Strome, I just don't think brings what we need at Center. TBH, I see both of those players as more natural RWers than Centers, and more so than Thomas who has played a lot of wing due to STL's depth at the position, but whose skillset is much more of a fit for the modern game than those two we have.
So, I get why Thomas is not likely or why he's not on the Rangers radar. Still, I think he should be, especially if he's actually being shopped.
It depends on what the Rangers decide to do with Zib and Strome. I'd only be interested in Thomas if I was certain his future is as a C. Strome and Chytil are too similar in that they are mostly O zone players and not very impactful outside their specialty. Thomas seems like a more well rounded player who can also help with the transition game. If the Rangers do not sign Zib, then two way C become even more important to look at.
Established top 6 C are very expensive to get if one happens to be available. Signing an aging UFA C to a big long term contract only for them to turn into a lemon would all but sink the prospects of competing for the cup.
Off Sides
Registered User
- Sep 8, 2008
- 9,755
- 5,585
I am not an expert on the Blues, yet reading through some of their forum, they seem to put Thomas at center (usually third line behind ROR and Schenn) in their theoretical next season rosters/lines. And it also seems most want to keep him even with his disappointing season this past year. Looking at line combo sites, seems like he centered Hoffman for the majority of his minutes last regular season. (they lost a lot of center games to injury, so difficult to make much of an inference from that though)
I mean that they're both young, unfinished products. Very different players in terms of style, but to that point neither option gives the Rangers a stable, two-way center. Which is kind of what I think they'd like to add to the middle six.
So I could see a situation where the Rangers move Buch, replace him with Thomas, and then do sort of a rotating trial run of Chytil getting time in the top six while Stome and Thomas swap between the 3C and RW. That being said, that's a lot of shuffling, which I don't really love, and more importantly it doesn't do anything to diversify the top-9. If anything you've lost a bit of bite because you dealt Buch. You still don't have a center who is truly reliable in his own end. You're still pushing at least one of Kakko, Kravtsov, Chytil, or Thomas to the 3rd line in most instances. So to me it just feels like a lateral step at best, even if Thomas does have a ton of potential.
All that before you even consider Gauthier, who I still think has potential to be a valuable piece.
Thomas as the guy to back up an Eichel or Hertl if the Rangers moved on from Zib and dealt Chytil? Could absolutely see that. Chytil and Thomas battling for the two middle six spots? Seems like a long shot.
Thomas is very much a Center. There were only a handful of games this year where he played at RW, maybe due to his thumb and shoulder injuries.
I think his style of play is also much better suited at Center than Chytil’s. He’s a better passer and playmaker, has much better vision, and is really good at protecting the puck.
I don’t see Strome as a long term option. In my world he’s replaced by someone like Danault. Thomas slides in at 3C with Kreider and Chytil on his wing.
Thomas does a brilliant job of drawing players to him. I think he’ll have a field day setting up a streaking Kreider or Chytil who both like to drive to the net.
I think Thomas does diversify the lineup much more than he's being given credit for. His skillset is something we almost completely lack at the center ice position. He's small, quick, agile, and a puck hound on the forecheck. He helps the team traverse the ice and make more plays on the cycle than anyone we currently have. If we need to add more traditional grit, that's not that hard to do on the wings or on defense. As far as having a center whose reliable in his own end, I think Thomas, coming from Berube's Blues, is being underrated here. Moreover, if Zibanejad isn't that (I don't think he is), then I'm even further against signing him to the number he'll command. If for one season, you have a surplus of centers, but two of them are pending pending UFAs about to command huge money for empty calorie scoring, in my mind it's better to preempt the issue, have two young centers ready to fill in the top six and worry about signing a veteran shut down type in the same offseason that you walk away from 93 and 16--or even the deadline for that matter.
Just for fun: Here's some visuals of where Thomas lines up as far as 21 and under NHL regulars over the last four seasons (these are 5v5 minutes with a min 1000 played to account for that 'full time' NHLer portion)
Edge
Kris King's Ghost
I dunno, in three years with the Blues he's never finished higher than fifth in the number of faceoffs taken and never won more than 44 percent of them.
He's spent quite bit on the right wing over the last three years.
Which kind of brings us back to the original question --- is that really what we're looking to spend on right now? Or maybe more appropriately, is it what we should be looking to spend on right now?
Where Thomas is redudant:
-pass first
-bad at faceoffs
-doesn't hit
-young
Where Thomas adds:
-transition dynamo
-forechecking and cycling prowess
-stability and cost control at center ice
-stanley cup ring
-pass first
-bad at faceoffs
-doesn't hit
-young
Where Thomas adds:
-transition dynamo
-forechecking and cycling prowess
-stability and cost control at center ice
-stanley cup ring
Right but when you take it a step back Thomas is very, very much a high-skill player. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that and every team needs skill guys but the Rangers have those kind of players in the fold already. So should they use their trade capital to move for more of the same or should they try to diversify their roster?
Again, I really like Thomas as a player. I see the talent and the potential but I don't see him as a need. Also, like I said, if the Rangers don't opt to extend Zib and instead go for an Eichel, Hertl, or similar, and it requires Chytil to go in the deal, then I can see a spot for Thomas in the lineup. But again, that is a lot of moving parts.
I don't even really have an issue of two young centers in the middle six. It's just that I'd want them to fill different roles. Chytil and Lundell? I can buy into that. Chytil and Thomas not so much.
Off Sides
Registered User
- Sep 8, 2008
- 9,755
- 5,585
Cap wise, looking a year beyond this summer, I'd sure rather have some cheap bridge deals to centers than seeing like 6M tied up in Strome.
Zbad I think is kept and extended, I do not love it, yet that clause is not very forgiving.
Fox too?
That could be anywhere from 15 to 18M in cap space between just the two of them. If so that is something like 50% of the cap space used on 5 players in Zbad, Fox, Trouba, Panarin, Kreider. Add Shesty at like 5M?
I just can't envision adding ~6M cap hits in Strome to that. Nor Buch. Nor any 6M cap hits where that total is something like 60% of the cap ceiling used on 7 players.
Well I can envision it, but it's not pretty when they are scrambling to lose cap hits because Laff needs a bigger deal.
Zbad I think is kept and extended, I do not love it, yet that clause is not very forgiving.
Fox too?
That could be anywhere from 15 to 18M in cap space between just the two of them. If so that is something like 50% of the cap space used on 5 players in Zbad, Fox, Trouba, Panarin, Kreider. Add Shesty at like 5M?
I just can't envision adding ~6M cap hits in Strome to that. Nor Buch. Nor any 6M cap hits where that total is something like 60% of the cap ceiling used on 7 players.
Well I can envision it, but it's not pretty when they are scrambling to lose cap hits because Laff needs a bigger deal.
- Status
