Speculation: Roster Building Thread LXXI

[Fitzy]

What’s your plan to shed $4 million in cap space?

Mine involves Brendan Smith in a variety of final destination esque scenarios.

(Joking folks, I'm joking, merry Christmas Brendan )

 

[Avery16]

Absolutely nothing. Get your head out of the gutters. Strome has value.

LOL.

If we could’ve gotten a high 2nd for him at the draft, we probably would have taken it. Next season he’ll be older, more expensive and with less contract control. He’s not getting a 2nd unless we retain.

 

[Levitate]

My issue with Hajek is that he doesn’t really have a bailiwick. He’s not bad but he doesn’t stand out at all. He’s a bit vanilla, at least as far as I’ve seen.

I like Hajeks tools a lot. Big, moves real well, skates well, can move the puck well. Seems like he had the pieces to be a good second pair two way defenseman. Don’t put up a ton of points but can move the puck
But it hasn’t really come together for him. The parts are there but not the end result

 

[RGY]

I don’t think Strome’s value will significantly change if he has another good offensive year playing with Panarin. Teams are already concerned that his production is a function of Panarin. Why would their opinions change if the exact same thing happens again?

Because if he does it again, another team who is contending and wants to add a piece could look at Strome and see him as a player capable of playing with top players while not dragging the line down. Yeah it may not result in a 1st round pick, but (2) 2nds? A 2nd and a 3rd? The return would still get you back that 2nd you had to add to Staal plus another pick. That was the whole point of the rebuttal. That it was still worth dealing Staal, attaching a 2nd round pick to him.

 

[GoAwayPanarin]

My issue with Hajek is that he doesn’t really have a bailiwick. He’s not bad but he doesn’t stand out at all. He’s a bit vanilla, at least as far as I’ve seen.

You don't need a defense filled with 6 clones of Adam Fox (even if that would be the dream.) If you aren't noticeable and keep play moving in the right direction, thats a GOOD thing. I would sign up for that from Hajek or any of the young D right now.

Hajek's issue is outside of his short stint in 2018-19, he hasn't been good. he hasn't been Vanilla, he's been straight up licorice.

 

[kovazub94]

I don’t think Strome’s value will significantly change if he has another good offensive year playing with Panarin. Teams are already concerned that his production is a function of Panarin. Why would their opinions change if the exact same thing happens again?

Your post implies that just about anyone if put in Panarin’s shotgun position is able to produce 60-70 points.

Also why is so hard to imagine that Strome finally got into his own as a player? There are plenty of similar examples including current and former Rangers. If he continues to produce even if at a somewhat slower pace - it still will be 2+ seasons of play at that level.

You’re not only one but when it comes to Strome it looks like there’s nothing that would make you(s) turn into believers.

 

[kovazub94]

I like Hajeks tools a lot. Big, moves real well, skates well, can move the puck well. Seems like he had the pieces to be a good second pair two way defenseman. Don’t put up a ton of points but can move the puck
But it hasn’t really come together for him. The parts are there but not the end result

Game speed at the NHL level seems too fast for him. It’s all about slow processing and decision making with Hajek.

 

[kovazub94]

Last season Hajek competition (to take a roster spot from) used to be Lindgren, Staal and Smith. This season it’s JJ, and incoming Miller and Reunanen and spares. He got to be able to grab it this year or else...

 

[SA16]

Your post implies that just about anyone if put in Panarin’s shotgun position is able to produce 60-70 points.

Also why is so hard to imagine that Strome finally got into his own as a player? There are plenty of similar examples including current and former Rangers. If he continues to produce even if at a somewhat slower pace - it still will be 2+ seasons of play at that level.

You’re not only one but when it comes to Strome it looks like there’s nothing that would make you(s) turn into believers.

If teams did not want to trade anything of value for Strome this year (we heard plenty of rumors he was on the block and the team was hesitant about qualifying him) then why would anything change next year? If their concerns were that he isn't good enough to elevate lesser linemates and that he requires playing with a top player to perform then how will anything change? If he scores 35-40 points this year playing with Panarin you don't really get any new information...he just did what you thought he would do when playing with someone of that level. I think he would have higher trade value if he gets displaced as the 2C by Chytil and scores 25-30 points playing with whoever is on the third line (Lafreniere/Gauthier maybe?) than he would have if he scores 40 points playing with Panarin.

 

[bobbop]

Honest question for the general user. I've noticed on this site in particular that many of you "seem" to know about other players. My question is, where do you find the time to watch other teams players in addition to our own? That's like watching all 162 Yankee games. How do you find the time?

I can't be bothered to watch other players other than our own, save for guys like McDavid or Mackinnon, etc.

Or do you not actually watch them and just skip to looking at their analytics?

Living in the west makes it a lot easier

 

[Barnaby]

I don’t think Strome’s value will significantly change if he has another good offensive year playing with Panarin. Teams are already concerned that his production is a function of Panarin. Why would their opinions change if the exact same thing happens again?

You could still say his numbers are inflated by Panarin - which they are - but wouldn't the longer track record prove that he's more valuable/consistent? That he can perform consistently in a top 6 with better players? The concern among many is that Strome can't repeat his performance even with Panarin. Your line of thinking makes zero sense. If Buch put up 40 goals with Zibanejad last season, then how would a 2nd year putting up 40 not see him INCREASING his value. Even if you attribute a lot of that success to his center that still proves it wasn't just a one-off and that he's capable of scoring consistently.

This is Strome derangement syndrome.

 

[Barnaby]

If teams did not want to trade anything of value for Strome this year (we heard plenty of rumors he was on the block and the team was hesitant about qualifying him) then why would anything change next year? If their concerns were that he isn't good enough to elevate lesser linemates and that he requires playing with a top player to perform then how will anything change? If he scores 35-40 points this year playing with Panarin you don't really get any new information...he just did what you thought he would do when playing with someone of that level. I think he would have higher trade value if he gets displaced as the 2C by Chytil and scores 25-30 points playing with whoever is on the third line (Lafreniere/Gauthier maybe?) than he would have if he scores 40 points playing with Panarin.

How in the world do you know this? No one knows what offers were or weren't on the table. If they got bowled over with an offer, then I'm sure they would've made the deal. However, they could've had decent offers, but didn't have a path for a better replacement. Ideally, I think the plan was to acquire a better 2C then move Strome either in that deal or another one, but if there was no path to a better option and no one gave the Rangers a crazy offer (which I highly doubt they would) then it's very possible/logical that they just decided to stand pat.

I'm not a big Strome fan, but some of you guys take it too far in the opposite direction.

 

[Barnaby]

First Strome's success was an unsustainable shooting percentage, then it was a small sample size, then it was riding Panarin's coattails which supposedly anyone can do. Chemistry or talent be damned. I'd love to find a better option at 2C, but Strome is not garbage. At some point, the overall production stands for itself.

Maybe the guy reverts to a 35 point player this year. However, if he puts up 60-70 points for the next two years, some will still be saying, "Yea, but... "

 

[Amazing Kreiderman]

First Strome's success was an unsustainable shooting percentage, then it was a small sample size, then it was riding Panarin's coattails which supposedly anyone can do. Chemistry or talent be damned. I'd love to find a better option at 2C, but Strome is not garbage. At some point, the overall production stands for itself.

Let's not forget that Panarin hit career highs in goals and assists in just 69 games while playing with Strome.

 

[Barnaby]

Let's not forget that Panarin hit career highs in goals and assists in just 69 games while playing with Strome.

Great point. No one would insinuate that Strome carried Panarin, but there is def something to be said for chemistry.

Look at the Czech line from years past - Hlavac-Nedved-Dvorak. Chemistry made them better than the sum of their parts.

Straka-Nylander-Jagr - obviously Jagr was the superstar, but he made the other players better and in turn he had some phenomenal season's here which they def contributed to. As great as Jagr was, he wasn't having the same season's with Scott Gomez. Sure, Gomez was a good player, but the chemistry wasn't there. There's def something to be said for that.

 

[kovazub94]

You could still say his numbers are inflated by Panarin - which they are - but wouldn't the longer track record prove that he's more valuable/consistent? That he can perform consistently in a top 6 with better players? The concern among many is that Strome can't repeat his performance even with Panarin. Your line of thinking makes zero sense. If Buch put up 40 goals with Zibanejad last season, then how would a 2nd year putting up 40 not see him INCREASING his value. Even if you attribute a lot of that success to his center that still proves it wasn't just a one-off and that he's capable of scoring consistently.

This is Strome derangement syndrome.

Every word!
Don’t know what it is about Strome that made him so unlikable. I bet if he was a bit prettier like Brassard...

 

[Avery16]

If teams did not want to trade anything of value for Strome this year (we heard plenty of rumors he was on the block and the team was hesitant about qualifying him) then why would anything change next year? If their concerns were that he isn't good enough to elevate lesser linemates and that he requires playing with a top player to perform then how will anything change? If he scores 35-40 points this year playing with Panarin you don't really get any new information...he just did what you thought he would do when playing with someone of that level. I think he would have higher trade value if he gets displaced as the 2C by Chytil and scores 25-30 points playing with whoever is on the third line (Lafreniere/Gauthier maybe?) than he would have if he scores 40 points playing with Panarin.

If Chytil gets a shot with Panarin (and everything reported suggests so) then Strome is going to find himself in a pickle trying to perform anything near that level on the third line. What little value he holds will dissipate.

 

[kovazub94]

First Strome's success was an unsustainable shooting percentage, then it was a small sample size, then it was riding Panarin's coattails which supposedly anyone can do. Chemistry or talent be damned. I'd love to find a better option at 2C, but Strome is not garbage. At some point, the overall production stands for itself.

Maybe the guy reverts to a 35 point player this year. However, if he puts up 60-70 points for the next two years, some will still be saying, "Yea, but... "

Ask yourself if you were to put some money on it would you go with Strome performing at 50 or over or under 40 PPG/82 pace? My money would be on over though I’d be a lot more comfortable if there would be no “special” circumstances.

 

[Avery16]

Because if he does it again, another team who is contending and wants to add a piece could look at Strome and see him as a player capable of playing with top players while not dragging the line down. Yeah it may not result in a 1st round pick, but (2) 2nds? A 2nd and a 3rd? The return would still get you back that 2nd you had to add to Staal plus another pick. That was the whole point of the rebuttal. That it was still worth dealing Staal, attaching a 2nd round pick to him.

How many of these teams have a Panarin for him to leech off?

 

[SA16]

You could still say his numbers are inflated by Panarin - which they are - but wouldn't the longer track record prove that he's more valuable/consistent? That he can perform consistently in a top 6 with better players? The concern among many is that Strome can't repeat his performance even with Panarin. Your line of thinking makes zero sense. If Buch put up 40 goals with Zibanejad last season, then how would a 2nd year putting up 40 not see him INCREASING his value. Even if you attribute a lot of that success to his center that still proves it wasn't just a one-off and that he's capable of scoring consistently.

This is Strome derangement syndrome.

Ok, what makes zero sense? Strome produced with Panarin last year. I believe Strome will produce with Panarin again this year though not quite to the same levels. I do not believe that Strome would produce if played on a different line. Therefore if I were in management for a different organization why would I give up more for him after this year than after last year? I gain zero information seeing him produce with Panarin. That is what I’m expecting to happen in the first place. I’d be more apt to trade more for him if I see him produce with lesser linemates, improve his defensive play, or play more disciplined and take less penalties than I would if he scores at a 50/82 rate with Panarin again.

And the reason we know teams didn’t want to trade anything of value for Strome is because he was not traded. If a good offer was presented he would be gone. We’ve heard many times here, from Brooks, edge, etc. that he was available and the rangers are conflicted about committing to him.

 

[Amazing Kreiderman]

Ok, what makes zero sense? Strome produced with Panarin last year. I believe Strome will produce with Panarin again this year though not quite to the same levels. I do not believe that Strome would produce if played on a different line. Therefore if I were in management for a different organization why would I give up more for him after this year than after last year? I gain zero information seeing him produce with Panarin. That is what I’m expecting to happen in the first place. I’d be more apt to trade more for him if I see him produce with lesser linemates, improve his defensive play, or play more disciplined and take less penalties than I would if he scores at a 50/82 rate with Panarin again.

If Strome puts up 50 a season playing with Panarin, who is under contract for another 6 years, I see no reason to part ways with Strome.

Unless we hang on to the wishful thinking that "anyone can put up 50 playing with Panarin", which I don't really believe

 

[SA16]

If Strome puts up 50 a season playing with Panarin, who is under contract for another 6 years, I see no reason to part ways with Strome.

Unless we hang on to the wishful thinking that "anyone can put up 50 playing with Panarin", which I don't really believe

There’s more than just offense. The rest of his game is atrocious. Why do I want an offense only player who isn’t super cheap and needs a superstar to boost his production to an adequate level? Minimal sample but Chytil performed better with Panarin last year anyway. Not enough to take anything from of course but I know for certain if Chyil had 0 points in 100 minutes with Panarin it would be used to the contrary.

And it’s already happened. Anisimov scored 45 in 64 games with Panarin in 16–17. By far the best year of his career offensively. I've already illustrated this numerous times in the past with Crosby as an example. Every wing to ever play a decent amount of time with him has scored at a first line level rate and we're talking about guys ranging from like Phil Kessel to Dominik Simon.


------------------


Same for the whole Nylander/Jagr/Gomez thing. It's not true. Gomez had a great year with Jagr. Jagr's decline wasn't a function of playing with Gomez. His second year with Nylander, compared to his first year with Nylander, was just as much of a falloff as his first year with Gomez, compared to his second year with Nylander. Gomez and Jagr has a 62.5 CF%, 61.8 GF%, 60.7 xGF% in 514 minutes in 07-08. It was one of the best lines in the league. I don't understand how this narrative always gets perpetuated.

 

[RangersFan1994]

Hajek is too injury prone for my liking. everytime he looks good he ends up getting hurt

 

[Irishguy42]

If you're signing someone just because he can put up points alongside one of the best players in the NHL (and has also proven he can't do well w/o said elite player), then you're probably making a mistake in signing that player.

 

[Avery16]

If Strome puts up 50 a season playing with Panarin, who is under contract for another 6 years, I see no reason to part ways with Strome.

Unless we hang on to the wishful thinking that "anyone can put up 50 playing with Panarin", which I don't really believe

Clearly, since you’re in the fringe that thinks a player like Panarin somehow needs a player like Strome to unlock a previously-unknown higher gear