Speculation: Roster Building Thread: Part LXIX

[KirkAlbuquerque]

Granlund is a waste of time, we may as well just keep Strome. I'm not sure why people are content with mediocrity, i guess we've gotten used to it the last bunch of years with our top scorers topping out at around 60 points a year. Either make a serious upgrade or continue growing from within, Granlund peaked 4 years ago, letting Strome go and getting Granlund and hoping he puts up numbers like Strome is an unnecessary gamble considering their cap hits aren't likely to be that far apart.

exactly. Granlund was hyped as a super skilled center but really only had success at wing and has been regressing offensively for years. Maybe Nashville was a bad fit for him but he's undersized, doesn't score much anymore and even if he is a defensive upgrade on Strome unless he's going to take a 1 year deal I just say ride Strome for another year and see what opens up.

 

[Avery16]

Granlund is a waste of time, we may as well just keep Strome. I'm not sure why people are content with mediocrity, i guess we've gotten used to it the last bunch of years with our top scorers topping out at around 60 points a year. Either make a serious upgrade or continue growing from within, Granlund peaked 4 years ago, letting Strome go and getting Granlund and hoping he puts up numbers like Strome is an unnecessary gamble considering their cap hits aren't likely to be that far apart.

Granlund is more consistent, more responsible, and will probably be cheaper.

His offensive output without Panarin is on average higher than Strome’s without Panarin. It stands to reason that he would also do very well on a line with Panarin.

But everyone’s been over this a million times.

 

[TheBloodyNine]

exactly. Granlund was hyped as a super skilled center but really only had success at wing and has been regressing offensively for years. Maybe Nashville was a bad fit for him but he's undersized, doesn't score much anymore and even if he is a defensive upgrade on Strome unless he's going to take a 1 year deal I just say ride Strome for another year and see what opens up.

Yeah the difference between Strome and Grandlund next year isn't going to be a championship. The difference would be negligable. I'm fairly certain the Rangers aren't looking towards the scrap heap at this point.

 

[Kovalev27]

The idea for signing Granlund isn’t to replace Strome. It would be Chytil replaces Strome and Granlund slides into the bottom 6 provides depth and some two way play. Of which Strome has never even bothered to attempt.

 

[Leetch3]

Yeah the difference between Strome and Grandlund next year isn't going to be a championship. The difference would be negligable. I'm fairly certain the Rangers aren't looking towards the scrap heap at this point.

its probably not a huge difference at 2C but other potential factors to consider

1) are you getting something in return for strome?
2) how much will granlund cost? it should be cheaper than strome...will it be enough of a difference to reduce concerns about performance bonuses so kids that deserve to make it can play?
3) what impact would granlund have on kakko?

 

[Kovalev27]

no gate revenue + no tv revenue is way worse than just no gate review though....especially if that means extending the nbc deal a year and delaying the new tv contract that everyone is hoping for.

Yah there’s no way they’re canceling it. That’s not happening not sure where anyone would have heard otherwise but that’s not even remotely on the table. It’s not just the National deals either there’s a ton of money in regional tv revenue they aren’t going to piss away

 

[TheBloodyNine]

its probably not a huge difference at 2C but other potential factors to consider

1) are you getting something in return for strome?
2) how much will granlund cost? it should be cheaper than strome...will it be enough of a difference to reduce concerns about performance bonuses so kids that deserve to make it can play?
3) what impact would granlund have on kakko?

I think the answer to 1 is if we could have gotten something for Strome we would have already. 2, while he might be cheaper, I would say that the devil you know is always better than the devil you don't. And 3, I think any impact he would have, just because they are both Finnish, would be negligible. I understand that having a countryman would be comforting for him but sooner or later he's gonna have to grow up and lean on the other players on the team.

At the end of the day, neither Strome or Grandlund are gonna be long term options for the this team so might has well stick with the one that you know meshes well with Panarin. And also, as @KirkAlbuquerque pointed out, he's not even really a center.

 

[Ola]

The biggest obstacle for Kravtsov is his cap hit.

Analyzing Edmonton’s unmitigated disaster — the closer you look at it the worse it gets, they didn’t only screw up 1st overalls, they had many other picks and like nobody made it — two things sticks out. 1. Don’t rush kids to the NHL. 2. There is a cap on how many kids you can develop at the same time.

We learned lesson 1. — to not rush kids to the NHL — the hard way.

Lesson 2? What does it even mean? It just comes down to the fact that you — must — pave the way for kids to a certain extent. You must play them with players that compliments them well. You must get offensive talents some PP time. You cannot cheat on these things for 1-3 years and expect things to be OK in the long run.

I definitely think we are stretching it if we try to develop Kakko, Laf AND Kravtsov at the same time on the same team. In that context Chytil, Howden, Lemieux and co can also be mentioned.

One example, I think that we largely have done a good job developing Buchnevich. We gave him time in the KHL. Two years. We had no kids when he came in, and could always support him really well when he got to play. And so forth, everyone know the details.

But what if Buchnevich was a rookie today? He wouldn’t get that PP time. More focus on playing a checking type of game on a depth line. More up and down to the AHL. He would play with much worse linemates 5 on 5.

Buch is a very valuable piece, we forget that, but he is a de facto OK top 6 winger for sure. I would say that there is an at least 75% risk that he don’t become that if he was a rookie today.

Ultimately, I think you must sit down with each kid and look if you can give that kid a perfect environment to develop in. If that spot is taken by some other kid — you cannot accept ‘the second best’ role. So what do you do then? Develop that kid outside the NHL. I don’t think the AHL is a viable option more than for a briefer time. The KHL is. Or you must trade the kid. Gambling on these things can look attractive, but it won’t work.

 

[Barnaby]

Granlund is more consistent, more responsible, and will probably be cheaper.

His offensive output without Panarin is on average higher than Strome’s without Panarin. It stands to reason that he would also do very well on a line with Panarin.

But everyone’s been over this a million times.

Stands to reason? Chemistry isn't guaranteed, and Granlund has played less center than Strome. Look, I'd love to get an upgrade on Strome, but there's nothing to tell me Granlund is it.

All things being equal, I'm sticking with the combination that works until I'm getting a clear upgrade.

 

[Amazing Kreiderman]

Stands to reason? Chemistry isn't guaranteed, and Granlund has played less center than Strome. Look, I'd love to get an upgrade on Strome, but there's nothing to tell me Granlund is it.

All things being equal, I'm sticking with the combination that works until I'm getting a clear upgrade.

With the hate Ryan Strome gets, you'd think they are talking about Tanner Glass getting paid 4m

 

[Avery16]

With the hate Ryan Strome gets, you'd think they are talking about Tanner Glass getting paid 4m

Shh... the adults are talking about something called ‘the cap’. It forces teams to make decisions between players based not on like or dislike, but on value and cost, including opportunity cost.

 

[Avery16]

Stands to reason? Chemistry isn't guaranteed, and Granlund has played less center than Strome. Look, I'd love to get an upgrade on Strome, but there's nothing to tell me Granlund is it.

All things being equal, I'm sticking with the combination that works until I'm getting a clear upgrade.

Ah yes. The magical chemistry that only Strome possesses when placed on a line with a Hart nominee and someone else who does all your dirty work.

 

[NYR Viper]

Ah yes. The magical chemistry that only Strome possesses when placed on a line with a Hart nominee and someone else who does all your dirty work.

This post could LITERALLY have been used for Nylander with Jagr and Straka.

You throw around the word 'chemistry' like it's a bad word

 

[Avery16]

This post could LITERALLY have been used for Nylander with Jagr and Straka.

You throw around the word 'chemistry' like it's a bad word

Please, please do not equate Ryan Strome with Michael Nylander. It’s too early for that bullshit.

 

[SA16]

This post could LITERALLY have been used for Nylander with Jagr and Straka.

You throw around the word 'chemistry' like it's a bad word

Nylander had good chemistry with Straka and Jagr.

Nylander also scored 37 points in 40 games the next year with Washington. He was just a good player.

 

[kovazub94]

The idea for signing Granlund isn’t to replace Strome. It would be Chytil replaces Strome and Granlund slides into the bottom 6 provides depth and some two way play. Of which Strome has never even bothered to attempt.

Chytil will get another chance to take over 2C but what if he’s still not ready and needs one more year at 3C? Strome having chemistry with Panarin is a fact. Granlund? Could be Jagr and Gomez oil and water situation all over again.

The only reason I see the Rangers walking away from Strome and replacing him with the likes of Granlund or Haula is cap management.

 

[SA16]

Chytil will get another chance to take over 2C but what if he’s still not ready and needs one more year at 3C? Strome having chemistry with Panarin is a fact. Granlund? Could be Jagr and Gomez oil and water situation all over again.

The only reason I see the Rangers walking away from Strome and replacing him with the likes of Granlund or Haula is cap management.

Scott Gomez, in 07-08, scored 2.10 points/60 with Jagr in 514 minutes. The highest of his career from that point on was 1.98 (earlier years not tracked). Gomez not performing as a Ranger or with Jagr is a myth that is not grounded in fact. They also absolutely dominated as a line together with a ***62.50*** CF% and a 61.8 GF%.

 

[Rongomania]

Scott Gomez, in 07-08, scored 2.10 points/60 with Jagr in 514 minutes. The highest of his career from that point on was 1.98 (earlier years not tracked). Gomez not performing as a Ranger or with Jagr is a myth that is not grounded in fact. They also absolutely dominated as a line together with a ***62.50*** CF% and a 61.8 GF%.

They looked good together. Was Avery the other wing, where they had to be broken up because Avery could not stop going offside every two shifts?

 

[kovazub94]

Scott Gomez, in 07-08, scored 2.10 points/60 with Jagr in 514 minutes. The highest of his career from that point on was 1.98 (earlier years not tracked). Gomez not performing as a Ranger or with Jagr is a myth that is not grounded in fact. They also absolutely dominated as a line together with a ***62.50*** CF% and a 61.8 GF%.

And how did Jagr performed relative to his performance when Nylander was his center?

 

[Kovalev27]

And how did Jagr performed relative to his performance when Nylander was his center?

except that Nylander was actually a real nhl center that knew he had to defend and not take penalties all night long. Strome isn’t. Points aren’t everything if you can’t play the game

it’s why rightfully so the Rangers want nothing to do with a 27 year old right shot center that was on a 70 pt pace last season.

 

[SA16]

And how did Jagr performed relative to his performance when Nylander was his center?

He performed like a declining 35 year old as you would expect.

05-06 Jagr at ES strength - 71 points
06-07 Jagr at ES strength - 55 points
07-08 Jagr at ES strength - 42 points

His point drop off was near identical going from Nylander->Nylander as it was going from Nylander->Gomez.

 

[kovazub94]

except that Nylander was actually a real nhl center that knew he had to defend and not take penalties all night long. Strome isn’t. Points aren’t everything if you can’t play the game

it’s why rightfully so the Rangers want nothing to do with a 27 year old right shot center that was on a 70 pt pace last season.

Having "nothing to do" is a hyperbole you're known for. The Rangers explored available options and decided to qualify Strome because it was the best option. The next decision point (if it comes to it) will be when arbitration decision is made.

 

[kovazub94]

He performed like a declining 35 year old as you would expect.

05-06 Jagr at ES strength - 71 points
06-07 Jagr at ES strength - 55 points
07-08 Jagr at ES strength - 42 points

His point drop off was near identical going from Nylander->Nylander as it was going from Nylander->Gomez.

You maybe right except IMO it would be silly to expect Jagr to do another historical level performance as what he did in 05-06 and then blame it on aging. If in the upcoming season Panarin is not going to be on his Hart / league MVP pace - are you also going to blame it on aging?

 

[Edge]

Nylander had good chemistry with Straka and Jagr.

Nylander also scored 37 points in 40 games the next year with Washington. He was just a good player.

In fairness, the Washington team he went to also had Ovechkin scoring 65 goals and 112 points, along with Green, Backstrom, Semin and even guys like Laich and Kozlov posting some solid offensive totals.

Nylander on his own, was seen as a good but not not great offensive center. His career to that point was often see as a bit of a disappointment that did not quite equal the sum of the parts of his talent.

Low and behold, he comes to the Rangers and posts at a rate somewhere between 20-30 percent higher than that of his career highs to that point. And, offensive uptick in the NHL notwithstanding, he does so at the age of 33 and 34 respectively.

Nylander was a better player than Strome, just as Jagr was a better player than Panarin. But both players benefitted greatly from their chemistry with a superior player --- by the tune of probably 20-30 percent.

Could those star players have chemistry elsewhere? Sure, but I think history warns us that is never a given and I think we have to consider the reality that Chytil isn't there yet, while having Zibanejad center Panarin concentrates a lot of our current offensive firepower in one place.

 

[SA16]

You maybe right except IMO it would be silly to expect Jagr to do another historical level performance as what he did in 05-06 and then blame it on aging. If in the upcoming season Panarin is not going to be on his Hart / league MVP pace - are you also going to blame it on aging?

I wouldn't expect anyone to repeat 05-06 considering it was the highest scoring season since 1996 and had the most powerplays per game of any season in league history. I do not expect Panarin to be on the same pace next year, as he was this year, regardless of whether he is centered by Strome, Zibanejad, Chytil, Granlund or anyone else as it is not reasonable to expect him to have one of the highest on ice sh% again (As I've said before higher than almost all ovechkin,crosby,malkin seasons). I expect Panarin to score less points and if he plays with Strome for it to be blamed on Strome not being good enough to stick with for two years in a row or if he doesn't play with Strome for it to be blamed on them breaking up chemistry.