Speculation: Roster Building Thread: Part LXVII

[Raspewtin]

I also didn’t put into context how ELCs, seemingly super inexpensive, but having a multitude of them with performance bonuses can be financially crippling. Pardon my ignorance, but this is something the Rangers will most likely deal with for the next 3 years, if all else remains?

I'm not a contract expert but the "problem" is that we have three players with almost $3 mill in potential bonuses and half our roster is ELCs so we actually have the issue of the bonus cushion not being able to hold off all of our potential bonuses. @Thirty One did a thread on it.

 

[apoptygma]

I also didn’t put into context how ELCs, seemingly super inexpensive, but having a multitude of them with performance bonuses can be financially crippling. Pardon my ignorance, but this is something the Rangers will most likely deal with for the next 3 years, if all else remains?

Shesterkin, Lindgren, Chytil, Howden, Hajek & Gauthier is done after the upcomming season. Kakko, Fox, Kravtsov and some more minor prospects are done the season after that. That leaves Lafreniere, Miller and eventually Schneider and Lundkvist as bonus-heavy ELC that might push the bonuses beyond the cushion. The bonuses will most likly only be a problem the upcoming season and the one after that.

 

[Trxjw]

Crazy idea that I know will never happen, but why not play around with the “formation”? This is something that is very commonplace in soccer. Managers change the positions their players play and their planned locations on the field to achieve certain tactics based on the strengths/weaknesses of both their personnel and their opponents.

Half baked idea here for sure. Hockey, at least traditionally, is hugely dependent on solid positioning. I haven’t analyzed why, but I assume it is due to the rink size and speed of the game. But hell, it could also be a coaching revolution that the good old boys are way too scared to try out.

Is anyone aware of any “formation” experiments elsewhere in world hockey?

They do that all the time. PP structures vary between teams. PK structures vary as well -- though there's only so much variation you can do with 3 or 4 guys. Forechecking structures vary. Neutral zone structures vary (who doesn't love the trap?) and so on and so forth.

There's only so much you can do with 5 guys and a goalie on the ice in a small space and extreme pace. Soccer affords far more adjustments because the game much slower and therefore can be more methodical. In hockey guys are faster, bigger, cover more space because of their sticks, and can close gaps much easier because of a confined space.

That all being said, the game has changed considerably in the last 20 years. We've gone from clutch-and-grab hockey to a much more fluid and fast-paced game. There will always be people claiming that the thought process is antiquated because their new theories aren't being adopted but that's really not the case.

 

[NYSPORTS]

Shesterkin, Lindgren, Chytil, Howden, Hajek & Gauthier is done after the upcomming season. Kakko, Fox, Kravtsov and some more minor prospects are done the season after that. That leaves Lafreniere, Miller and eventually Schneider and Lundkvist as bonus-heavy ELC that might push the bonuses beyond the cushion. The bonuses will most likly only be a problem the upcoming season and the one after that.

Laf’s play might crush the Rangers cap by helping everybody max out their bonus’.

 

[nyrgator]

I enjoy reading these boards. They are interesting banter, if nothing else. I do find that a lot of people (not all) are missing the big picture and not giving management credit for focusing on the big picture. By the way, this isn't limited to here. This includes twitter and your most popular NYR bloggers and commentators. There's a business side that many ignore or don't understand.

This offseason is bizarre due to covid and the upcoming expansion draft. I think JG and JD are playing everything very well. There are essentially two issues that management and players must consider this offseason: the cap and expansion.

Cap: The rangers have very little room to work with. It is still NY and we are used to NY being enough to sway players when all other factors are equal, or even less than equal. Players pick NYC. The Rangers have no real money to offer. I, like everyone, hates the Jack Johnson signing. I would've preferred a Lucas Wallmark over JJ. But if I'm Lucas Wallmark, I ask myself am I playing over Zib, Chityl, Howden, Strome, Barron or any of the wingers? I'm not guaranteed, and so, where do I fit? The only players who would likely pick this scenario are players with limited options (like the ones the NYR have signed to date). If you're the Rangers, you also want to see what you have in your current young players, because of the next issue.

Expansion: I think this is even the more complex issue than the cap. I'd like to trade for Vince Dunn. If they do, which three defenders are they protecting out of Trouba, Lindgren, Deangelo and Dunn? They have to protect Trouba, and so one of the other three must be exposed. Do you want to give up something valuable now to only lose Dunn or Lindgren next year? In a normal year, Dunn deal is a no-brainer. Perhaps they include Deangelo in a trade but there aren't many teams out there without a similar expansion protection issue who also have the cap space. The rangers have more then 8 people they must protect and so they have to go 7-3-1 in the protection slots. Zib, Panerin, Chytil, Kreider, Buch, Strome, Lemieux, Gauthier, Howden, Hypothetical New Player - which 7 are you protecting? You have to protect Zib, Panerin, Kreider, Chytil and Buch, right? Perhaps Strome is a UFA after signing a one year deal and you don't worry about him. You still can only protect two of Lemieux, Gauthier, Howden, New Player. At least two of them can be lost for nothing. So, why would a Fast commit to this? He was exposed the first time around. There's a strong likelihood that he'd be exposed and taken this time too. Why would he sign here right now? No expansion, perhaps he signs here.

Perhaps we trade for a player instead of signing one. Hypothetically, lets trade Buch and his protection slot now goes to the newly acquired player. You now have to find a team with the cap space and interest in Buch. I'm sure there's interest in Buch, but the other team isn't giving up something valuable unless they can assure themselves they don't lose Buch in the expansion draft. The Rangers want a 2c or a 1st pair LD. Those aren't cheap. JG said teams aren't doing hockey trades right now, and so any trade will have to be complex. If you get bored and look at other teams' rosters, there aren't many options out there. Lets say the NYR talk to Toronto about Nylander. Perhaps he'd be great. So, the NYR offer strome and Deangelo though we don't even know their AAV yet this year. That makes the current timing difficult. Let's say combined they are 9.5 million AAV. Toronto doesn't have that type of cap space either. Take Strome out. Based on Toronto's signings to date, it doesn't look like they are looking for a Deangelo anymore - they signed Brodie. There's no obvious way to swing this deal, or any deal for that matter this off-season.

I am convinced that the Rangers found themselves in the rebuild position because Glen Sather went "all-in" to try to win a cup before he retired. He focused on the short-term. The only way to be successful with that strategy was to win the cup. They didn't. In the end, as fans and in the long-term, we suffered. We are watching other GMs make the same mistake. We all like shiny new toys - one of Jeff Gorton's bigger financial mistakes was signing Shattenkirk. We are paying for it now. I am glad the Rangers' management is playing it smart (in my opinion). We are finally building for the long-term.

Please keep speculating. It's a fun read. Don't get your hopes up though because you're likely to be let down in the short-run. In the long run, the Rangers are making smart choices, and building something special (I hope).

 

[RangersFan1994]

can a deal be centered around Ryan Strome and Shayne Gostisbehere for some LD depth

Gostisbehere would be cheaper than resigning Strome

or Buchnevich to Flyers for Shayne Gostisbehere

 

[NYSPORTS]

That all being said, the game has changed considerably in the last 20 years. We've gone from clutch-and-grab hockey to a much more fluid and fast-paced game. There will always be people claiming that the thought process is antiquated because their new theories aren't being adopted but that's really not the case.

not sure of your age. I’m a big X’s and O’s fball fan and very detail oriented in baseball and a form of martial arts yet trying to grasp what is different in hockey.

Not 20 years ago like your post but the 80’s wide open style vs today. It’s wide open today yet those leading in points is fewer than your typical 80’s year. Goalie pads changed but what else? Ty

 

[RGY]

can a deal be centered around Ryan Strome and Shayne Gostisbehere for some LD depth

Gostisbehere would be cheaper than resigning Strome

or Buchnevich to Flyers for Shayne Gostisbehere

Ghost cant play defense for shit. That is unfortunately not the type of guy we are looking for, and in fact it would be an awful trade for us. Ryan Strome holds much more value than him at this point. Ghost was a healthy scratch. He is barely worth a 4th round pick right now in a reclamation project situation.

 

[JimmyG89]

I enjoy reading these boards. They are interesting banter, if nothing else. I do find that a lot of people (not all) are missing the big picture and not giving management credit for focusing on the big picture. By the way, this isn't limited to here. This includes twitter and your most popular NYR bloggers and commentators. There's a business side that many ignore or don't understand.

This offseason is bizarre due to covid and the upcoming expansion draft. I think JG and JD are playing everything very well. There are essentially two issues that management and players must consider this offseason: the cap and expansion.

Cap: The rangers have very little room to work with. It is still NY and we are used to NY being enough to sway players when all other factors are equal, or even less than equal. Players pick NYC. The Rangers have no real money to offer. I, like everyone, hates the Jack Johnson signing. I would've preferred a Lucas Wallmark over JJ. But if I'm Lucas Wallmark, I ask myself am I playing over Zib, Chityl, Howden, Strome, Barron or any of the wingers? I'm not guaranteed, and so, where do I fit? The only players who would likely pick this scenario are players with limited options (like the ones the NYR have signed to date). If you're the Rangers, you also want to see what you have in your current young players, because of the next issue.

Expansion: I think this is even the more complex issue than the cap. I'd like to trade for Vince Dunn. If they do, which three defenders are they protecting out of Trouba, Lindgren, Deangelo and Dunn? They have to protect Trouba, and so one of the other three must be exposed. Do you want to give up something valuable now to only lose Dunn or Lindgren next year? In a normal year, Dunn deal is a no-brainer. Perhaps they include Deangelo in a trade but there aren't many teams out there without a similar expansion protection issue who also have the cap space. The rangers have more then 8 people they must protect and so they have to go 7-3-1 in the protection slots. Zib, Panerin, Chytil, Kreider, Buch, Strome, Lemieux, Gauthier, Howden, Hypothetical New Player - which 7 are you protecting? You have to protect Zib, Panerin, Kreider, Chytil and Buch, right? Perhaps Strome is a UFA after signing a one year deal and you don't worry about him. You still can only protect two of Lemieux, Gauthier, Howden, New Player. At least two of them can be lost for nothing. So, why would a Fast commit to this? He was exposed the first time around. There's a strong likelihood that he'd be exposed and taken this time too. Why would he sign here right now? No expansion, perhaps he signs here.

Perhaps we trade for a player instead of signing one. Hypothetically, lets trade Buch and his protection slot now goes to the newly acquired player. You now have to find a team with the cap space and interest in Buch. I'm sure there's interest in Buch, but the other team isn't giving up something valuable unless they can assure themselves they don't lose Buch in the expansion draft. The Rangers want a 2c or a 1st pair LD. Those aren't cheap. JG said teams aren't doing hockey trades right now, and so any trade will have to be complex. If you get bored and look at other teams' rosters, there aren't many options out there. Lets say the NYR talk to Toronto about Nylander. Perhaps he'd be great. So, the NYR offer strome and Deangelo though we don't even know their AAV yet this year. That makes the current timing difficult. Let's say combined they are 9.5 million AAV. Toronto doesn't have that type of cap space either. Take Strome out. Based on Toronto's signings to date, it doesn't look like they are looking for a Deangelo anymore - they signed Brodie. There's no obvious way to swing this deal, or any deal for that matter this off-season.

I am convinced that the Rangers found themselves in the rebuild position because Glen Sather went "all-in" to try to win a cup before he retired. He focused on the short-term. The only way to be successful with that strategy was to win the cup. They didn't. In the end, as fans and in the long-term, we suffered. We are watching other GMs make the same mistake. We all like shiny new toys - one of Jeff Gorton's bigger financial mistakes was signing Shattenkirk. We are paying for it now. I am glad the Rangers' management is playing it smart (in my opinion). We are finally building for the long-term.

Please keep speculating. It's a fun read. Don't get your hopes up though because you're likely to be let down in the short-run. In the long run, the Rangers are making smart choices, and building something special (I hope).

Welcome aboard and you nailed a lot of points in this post.

We're one year from expansion and we could be coming out on the other end of it in a great position with our prospect group, which does not need protection, and cap space that other teams will covet. We're lined up to make a bigger move next offseason after expansion or possibly before to get a piece that someone cannot protect, but we can.

We'll learn a lot about the young guys getting in game. The defense will be a little more settled. Get to see what a pro season Miller will have. Same goes with more of the fringe of the lineup (Howden, Lemiuex). Find out if Lindgren has grown into a consistent top 4 guy and what the other rookies have in them.

Gorton will take this slow and steady and I think as soon as expansion is done, the push to become one of the better teams in the east begins. Our timeline is just beginning and we're set to make moves once expansion ends more than just about any other team out there.

 

[NYSPORTS]

I enjoy reading these boards. They are interesting banter, if nothing else. I do find that a lot of people (not all) are missing the big picture and not giving management credit for focusing on the big picture. By the way, this isn't limited to here. This includes twitter and your most popular NYR bloggers and commentators. There's a business side that many ignore or don't understand.

This offseason is bizarre due to covid and the upcoming expansion draft. I think JG and JD are playing everything very well. There are essentially two issues that management and players must consider this offseason: the cap and expansion.

Cap: The rangers have very little room to work with. It is still NY and we are used to NY being enough to sway players when all other factors are equal, or even less than equal. Players pick NYC. The Rangers have no real money to offer. I, like everyone, hates the Jack Johnson signing. I would've preferred a Lucas Wallmark over JJ. But if I'm Lucas Wallmark, I ask myself am I playing over Zib, Chityl, Howden, Strome, Barron or any of the wingers? I'm not guaranteed, and so, where do I fit? The only players who would likely pick this scenario are players with limited options (like the ones the NYR have signed to date). If you're the Rangers, you also want to see what you have in your current young players, because of the next issue.

Expansion: I think this is even the more complex issue than the cap. I'd like to trade for Vince Dunn. If they do, which three defenders are they protecting out of Trouba, Lindgren, Deangelo and Dunn? They have to protect Trouba, and so one of the other three must be exposed. Do you want to give up something valuable now to only lose Dunn or Lindgren next year? In a normal year, Dunn deal is a no-brainer. Perhaps they include Deangelo in a trade but there aren't many teams out there without a similar expansion protection issue who also have the cap space. The rangers have more then 8 people they must protect and so they have to go 7-3-1 in the protection slots. Zib, Panerin, Chytil, Kreider, Buch, Strome, Lemieux, Gauthier, Howden, Hypothetical New Player - which 7 are you protecting? You have to protect Zib, Panerin, Kreider, Chytil and Buch, right? Perhaps Strome is a UFA after signing a one year deal and you don't worry about him. You still can only protect two of Lemieux, Gauthier, Howden, New Player. At least two of them can be lost for nothing. So, why would a Fast commit to this? He was exposed the first time around. There's a strong likelihood that he'd be exposed and taken this time too. Why would he sign here right now? No expansion, perhaps he signs here.

Perhaps we trade for a player instead of signing one. Hypothetically, lets trade Buch and his protection slot now goes to the newly acquired player. You now have to find a team with the cap space and interest in Buch. I'm sure there's interest in Buch, but the other team isn't giving up something valuable unless they can assure themselves they don't lose Buch in the expansion draft. The Rangers want a 2c or a 1st pair LD. Those aren't cheap. JG said teams aren't doing hockey trades right now, and so any trade will have to be complex. If you get bored and look at other teams' rosters, there aren't many options out there. Lets say the NYR talk to Toronto about Nylander. Perhaps he'd be great. So, the NYR offer strome and Deangelo though we don't even know their AAV yet this year. That makes the current timing difficult. Let's say combined they are 9.5 million AAV. Toronto doesn't have that type of cap space either. Take Strome out. Based on Toronto's signings to date, it doesn't look like they are looking for a Deangelo anymore - they signed Brodie. There's no obvious way to swing this deal, or any deal for that matter this off-season.

I am convinced that the Rangers found themselves in the rebuild position because Glen Sather went "all-in" to try to win a cup before he retired. He focused on the short-term. The only way to be successful with that strategy was to win the cup. They didn't. In the end, as fans and in the long-term, we suffered. We are watching other GMs make the same mistake. We all like shiny new toys - one of Jeff Gorton's bigger financial mistakes was signing Shattenkirk. We are paying for it now. I am glad the Rangers' management is playing it smart (in my opinion). We are finally building for the long-term.

Please keep speculating. It's a fun read. Don't get your hopes up though because you're likely to be let down in the short-run. In the long run, the Rangers are making smart choices, and building something special (I hope).

great first post and hits on points many have shared. Reality unfortunately triggers an inflammatory response from those needing that instant gratification of player movement and disregard for the cap as if it works itself out or doesn’t exist. What’s in your wallet?


Management has been fiscally responsible so far.

 

[apoptygma]

Laf’s play might crush the Rangers cap by helping everybody max out their bonus’.

That would be a great season to be a fan, but would complicate things even further for next year. At the moment we are working with normal cap + bonus cushion - dead cap from buyouts - potentionaly bonuses over the cushion.

If all bonuses was to be fulfilled all of the bonus cushion going over the normal cap would eating into NEXT SEASONS cap for the NYR. personaly hoping our ELC'ers have a bit more sober season.

 

[Lindberg Cheese]

not sure of your age. I’m a big X’s and O’s fball fan and very detail oriented in baseball and a form of martial arts yet trying to grasp what is different in hockey.

Not 20 years ago like your post but the 80’s wide open style vs today. It’s wide open today yet those leading in points is fewer than your typical 80’s year. Goalie pads changed but what else? Ty

Size and speed of the players for the most part, 80s games seemed a lot more open because guys had a lot more time But the clutching and grabbing still persisted. I think size and speed warranted the officiating approach to limit that stuff for the sake of an exciting and marketable game. The Flyers teams of the 70s prob planted that seed originally.

 

[EdJovanovski]

What about ADA for Brock Boeser?


Strome on a 1 year deal, possibly deadline dealt?
Howden+Hajek for Dunn or something like that (D market for sellers is down, Dunn is odd man out there both for expansion and with Krug filling his role but better now, Rangers have been connected via our insiders)

Kreider Zib Buch
Panarin Strome Boeser
Laf Chytil Kakko
Lemiuex Barron Gauthier
--> Laf, Kakko, and Barron exempt from expansion, let Strome walk or trade him, choose Lemmy and Gauthier for protection

Dunn Trouba
Lindgren Fox
Who knows
--> Fox exempt

DeAngelo got 1 less goal & 9 more assists than Boeser as a dman lol. And Boeser is WAY more one dimensional than DeAngelo

 

[apoptygma]

not sure of your age. I’m a big X’s and O’s fball fan and very detail oriented in baseball and a form of martial arts yet trying to grasp what is different in hockey.

Not 20 years ago like your post but the 80’s wide open style vs today. It’s wide open today yet those leading in points is fewer than your typical 80’s year. Goalie pads changed but what else? Ty

Think the difference between the best and the worst player in NHL is much slimmer now then in the 80's. Also think the average player is much better to defend the dangerous spaces on the ice. There is a lot of space on the ice now as well, but the quality of the space is worse. Goalies too are a piece of it, goalies have way higher save% now due to gear and butterfly.

 

[Shesterkybomb]

I like fast and i find it strange that given what he signed for that we didn't sign him but for me there's no reason to think we can't replace him in the top 6 or bottom 6 . I think the Rangers feel that Lafreniere, at some point lands in the top 6 and Kreider moves to the right side, leaving us with Kreider Kakko and Buch on the right side and room for one more rw. I really don’t think this is much of an issue. If what im saying is correct we will look like this

Lafreniere Zibanejad Kreider
Panarin Strome Kakko
Lemieux Chytil Buch
Barron/Howden/PDG/Gauthier
I don't see any need for Fast, i like him and id take him over those 4th line guys but i dont wanna pay him to be a 4th liner especially when Kravstsov lands and i do think he saw where this was trending and took the extra year.

 

[Trxjw]

not sure of your age. I’m a big X’s and O’s fball fan and very detail oriented in baseball and a form of martial arts yet trying to grasp what is different in hockey.

Not 20 years ago like your post but the 80’s wide open style vs today. It’s wide open today yet those leading in points is fewer than your typical 80’s year. Goalie pads changed but what else? Ty

It's less about X's and O's and more about other contributing factors. The biggest change came off the ice. Players started dedicating themselves more to the game and started getting bigger, stronger, and faster. Which was a major contributing factor as to why you started seeing scoring rates climbing in the 80's. After the lockout in 94 coaches came back with a new strategy to try and rein in those players. It involved players basically latching onto guys who got by them to obstruct them. Lots of hooking, holding, interference and most notably the neutral zone trap, or just "The Trap" as it became known. Basically clogging up the neutral zone with sticks and bodies so offenses couldn't attack with any flow or pace.

After the lockout in 04/05 the league decided to crack down on that kind of defense and started calling more penalties. This led to another huge uptick in scoring thanks to way more power-plays and team defenses not really being prepared to deal with the new era of hockey. It's also led to a steady change in the way talent is evaluated. There's far more emphasis on puck skills and skating as opposed to physicality and size. During this era there was also a major leap forward in goaltending called "butterfly" which is basically what every goalie in the league does today. That was one of the driving factors in the equipment change as that style is basically "be big and square" as opposed to reactionary.

They also made some major rule changes during that lockout. Removing the two line pass was a massive change for offensive hockey.

Today's hockey, at least stylistically, is much closer to the 80's than the 90's. The real difference is the quality of your average NHLer. There are way fewer players who are just there to throw fists and every 20 year old rookie has been on a regimented training program since they were 8 years old instead of treating hockey like something they did to occupy their time between keggers.

 

[Ruggs225]

I enjoy reading these boards. They are interesting banter, if nothing else. I do find that a lot of people (not all) are missing the big picture and not giving management credit for focusing on the big picture. By the way, this isn't limited to here. This includes twitter and your most popular NYR bloggers and commentators. There's a business side that many ignore or don't understand.

This offseason is bizarre due to covid and the upcoming expansion draft. I think JG and JD are playing everything very well. There are essentially two issues that management and players must consider this offseason: the cap and expansion.

Cap: The rangers have very little room to work with. It is still NY and we are used to NY being enough to sway players when all other factors are equal, or even less than equal. Players pick NYC. The Rangers have no real money to offer. I, like everyone, hates the Jack Johnson signing. I would've preferred a Lucas Wallmark over JJ. But if I'm Lucas Wallmark, I ask myself am I playing over Zib, Chityl, Howden, Strome, Barron or any of the wingers? I'm not guaranteed, and so, where do I fit? The only players who would likely pick this scenario are players with limited options (like the ones the NYR have signed to date). If you're the Rangers, you also want to see what you have in your current young players, because of the next issue.

Expansion: I think this is even the more complex issue than the cap. I'd like to trade for Vince Dunn. If they do, which three defenders are they protecting out of Trouba, Lindgren, Deangelo and Dunn? They have to protect Trouba, and so one of the other three must be exposed. Do you want to give up something valuable now to only lose Dunn or Lindgren next year? In a normal year, Dunn deal is a no-brainer. Perhaps they include Deangelo in a trade but there aren't many teams out there without a similar expansion protection issue who also have the cap space. The rangers have more then 8 people they must protect and so they have to go 7-3-1 in the protection slots. Zib, Panerin, Chytil, Kreider, Buch, Strome, Lemieux, Gauthier, Howden, Hypothetical New Player - which 7 are you protecting? You have to protect Zib, Panerin, Kreider, Chytil and Buch, right? Perhaps Strome is a UFA after signing a one year deal and you don't worry about him. You still can only protect two of Lemieux, Gauthier, Howden, New Player. At least two of them can be lost for nothing. So, why would a Fast commit to this? He was exposed the first time around. There's a strong likelihood that he'd be exposed and taken this time too. Why would he sign here right now? No expansion, perhaps he signs here.

Perhaps we trade for a player instead of signing one. Hypothetically, lets trade Buch and his protection slot now goes to the newly acquired player. You now have to find a team with the cap space and interest in Buch. I'm sure there's interest in Buch, but the other team isn't giving up something valuable unless they can assure themselves they don't lose Buch in the expansion draft. The Rangers want a 2c or a 1st pair LD. Those aren't cheap. JG said teams aren't doing hockey trades right now, and so any trade will have to be complex. If you get bored and look at other teams' rosters, there aren't many options out there. Lets say the NYR talk to Toronto about Nylander. Perhaps he'd be great. So, the NYR offer strome and Deangelo though we don't even know their AAV yet this year. That makes the current timing difficult. Let's say combined they are 9.5 million AAV. Toronto doesn't have that type of cap space either. Take Strome out. Based on Toronto's signings to date, it doesn't look like they are looking for a Deangelo anymore - they signed Brodie. There's no obvious way to swing this deal, or any deal for that matter this off-season.

I am convinced that the Rangers found themselves in the rebuild position because Glen Sather went "all-in" to try to win a cup before he retired. He focused on the short-term. The only way to be successful with that strategy was to win the cup. They didn't. In the end, as fans and in the long-term, we suffered. We are watching other GMs make the same mistake. We all like shiny new toys - one of Jeff Gorton's bigger financial mistakes was signing Shattenkirk. We are paying for it now. I am glad the Rangers' management is playing it smart (in my opinion). We are finally building for the long-term.

Please keep speculating. It's a fun read. Don't get your hopes up though because you're likely to be let down in the short-run. In the long run, the Rangers are making smart choices, and building something special (I hope).

this post should be pinned to the top of thread. anybody making proposals and signings should need to explain who they will expose in the expansion draft.

Great job!

 

[NYSPORTS]

It's less about X's and O's and more about other contributing factors. The biggest change came off the ice. Players started dedicating themselves more to the game and started getting bigger, stronger, and faster. Which was a major contributing factor as to why you started seeing scoring rates climbing in the 80's. After the lockout in 94 coaches came back with a new strategy to try and rein in those players. It involved players basically latching onto guys who got by them to obstruct them. Lots of hooking, holding, interference and most notably the neutral zone trap, or just "The Trap" as it became known. Basically clogging up the neutral zone with sticks and bodies so offenses couldn't attack with any flow or pace.

After the lockout in 04/05 the league decided to crack down on that kind of defense and started calling more penalties. This led to another huge uptick in scoring thanks to way more power-plays and team defenses not really being prepared to deal with the new era of hockey. It's also led to a steady change in the way talent is evaluated. There's far more emphasis on puck skills and skating as opposed to physicality and size. During this era there was also a major leap forward in goaltending called "butterfly" which is basically what every goalie in the league does today. That was one of the driving factors in the equipment change as that style is basically "be big and square" as opposed to reactionary.

They also made some major rule changes during that lockout. Removing the two line pass was a massive change for offensive hockey.

Today's hockey, at least stylistically, is much closer to the 80's than the 90's. The real difference is the quality of your average NHLer. There are way fewer players who are just there to throw fists and every 20 year old rookie has been on a regimented training program since they were 8 years old instead of treating hockey like something they did to occupy their time between keggers.

awesome response - ty

 

[MysticLeviathan]

It's less about X's and O's and more about other contributing factors. The biggest change came off the ice. Players started dedicating themselves more to the game and started getting bigger, stronger, and faster. Which was a major contributing factor as to why you started seeing scoring rates climbing in the 80's. After the lockout in 94 coaches came back with a new strategy to try and rein in those players. It involved players basically latching onto guys who got by them to obstruct them. Lots of hooking, holding, interference and most notably the neutral zone trap, or just "The Trap" as it became known. Basically clogging up the neutral zone with sticks and bodies so offenses couldn't attack with any flow or pace.

After the lockout in 04/05 the league decided to crack down on that kind of defense and started calling more penalties. This led to another huge uptick in scoring thanks to way more power-plays and team defenses not really being prepared to deal with the new era of hockey. It's also led to a steady change in the way talent is evaluated. There's far more emphasis on puck skills and skating as opposed to physicality and size. During this era there was also a major leap forward in goaltending called "butterfly" which is basically what every goalie in the league does today. That was one of the driving factors in the equipment change as that style is basically "be big and square" as opposed to reactionary.

They also made some major rule changes during that lockout. Removing the two line pass was a massive change for offensive hockey.

Today's hockey, at least stylistically, is much closer to the 80's than the 90's. The real difference is the quality of your average NHLer. There are way fewer players who are just there to throw fists and every 20 year old rookie has been on a regimented training program since they were 8 years old instead of treating hockey like something they did to occupy their time between keggers.

I think part of the reason you see so few effective players past the age of 35 is the emphasis on speed and fine skill now. Back in the day you could be an effective chonker without much speed. These days a player like that would be on the 4th line if that. Not to mention there were enforcers back then, players who provide zero offense and only care about hitting the opposition. Hockey went through its own Moneyball philosophy change. In baseball, it’s become less about straight average and more about OBP. In baseball you’d rather a player with only a .290 average but a .415 OBP than a player with a .315 average but a .360 OBP. In hockey the revolution has become about puck movement and puck possession, how many shots your team takes vs. shot supression. The game isn’t made for older players anymore. The entire game has changed.

 

[Edge]

It's less about X's and O's and more about other contributing factors. The biggest change came off the ice. Players started dedicating themselves more to the game and started getting bigger, stronger, and faster. Which was a major contributing factor as to why you started seeing scoring rates climbing in the 80's. After the lockout in 94 coaches came back with a new strategy to try and rein in those players. It involved players basically latching onto guys who got by them to obstruct them. Lots of hooking, holding, interference and most notably the neutral zone trap, or just "The Trap" as it became known. Basically clogging up the neutral zone with sticks and bodies so offenses couldn't attack with any flow or pace.

After the lockout in 04/05 the league decided to crack down on that kind of defense and started calling more penalties. This led to another huge uptick in scoring thanks to way more power-plays and team defenses not really being prepared to deal with the new era of hockey. It's also led to a steady change in the way talent is evaluated. There's far more emphasis on puck skills and skating as opposed to physicality and size. During this era there was also a major leap forward in goaltending called "butterfly" which is basically what every goalie in the league does today. That was one of the driving factors in the equipment change as that style is basically "be big and square" as opposed to reactionary.

They also made some major rule changes during that lockout. Removing the two line pass was a massive change for offensive hockey.

Today's hockey, at least stylistically, is much closer to the 80's than the 90's. The real difference is the quality of your average NHLer. There are way fewer players who are just there to throw fists and every 20 year old rookie has been on a regimented training program since they were 8 years old instead of treating hockey like something they did to occupy their time between keggers.

When you look at hockey from 25 or even 30 years ago, it's amazing to see how much the speed has changed. Not just the physical ability of players to skate faster, pivot faster, and edge-work, but the entire speed of the game --- passing, shooting, defending, etc. Time and space has been cut down considerably and that limits the amount of space most players have to work with.

Expansion and the salary cap also disperses talent out a lot more. Whereas in 1990 you might have someone playing on your third line who scores 30 goals and close to 60 points, that's really hard, if not impossible to find these days. Typically at some point you can't afford that kind of depth, assuming you could manage to accumlate it in the first place.

I've personally also felt that the nets should've been increased slightly as goalies and equipment got bigger. That's controversial opinion, but I do think that the operating space on the ice has been encroached upon by up to 10 percent over the years.

 

[MysticLeviathan]

 

[GoAwayPanarin]

yay?

 

[MysticLeviathan]

yay?

I don’t see the specific terms yet. Prob another 1 or 2 year deal.

 

[Profet]

I've personally also felt that the nets should've been increased slightly as goalies and equipment got bigger. That's controversial opinion, but I do think that the operating space on the ice has been encroached upon by up to 10 percent over the years.

If we're talking speed/size and how that should influence rule changes... I firmly believe that icing should only apply if all opposing (the team not icing the puck) players are on the the icing team's side of the red line.

Why? It negates the trap. Now speed can be used through the neutral zone if teams clog it up by stacking/overloading players at the blue line and in the neutral zone.

Other team trapping? Have your wingers get a head of steam and dump the puck in from your blue line and watch the defending team have to pivot and start flat footed.

 

[Leetch3]

I don’t see the specific terms yet. Prob another 1 or 2 year deal.

1 year $700k