Toggle sidebar

Speculation: Roster Building Thread: Part LXXIV

  • 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
Not open for further replies.
RGY said:
Facts are lazy. I know, you don’t like the ones that don’t fit your narrative. Strome is a bad hockey player, but don’t let those pesky facts get in the way.
Click to expand...

What you showed was that Strome's numbers with Panarin are actually good. And Panarin hit career highs playing with Strome.

This would only be an issue if we didn't have Panarin on the team anymore, but we do. For 6 more years. So let's just ride it out for 2 years, with them together on the same line. They work together well.
 
RGY said:
Where were they spending the $4.6? Granlund? I would have been for that. Were the Rangers for Granlund though?

If the Rangers liked him so much why did they put him on the trade block? Why did they wait until the 11th hour to sign him?

View attachment 385230

Sometimes its ok to be flexible to change YOUR mind. I have a strong opinion? Sure, but I think there is merit to it. Oh and the above just highlights the offensive / possession drop off away from Panarin. It doesn’t take a deep dive into his putrid play defensively and handling of the puck.
Click to expand...

The fact is that the Rangers had Strome on $3.1m contract for 1.5 seasons and could’ve walked away but decided to give him two more years at $4.6m. That’s the fact. Your little table maybe would have been relevant if the Rangers didn’t have Panarin for the length of Strome’s contract but they do... In an EXTREMELY extended analogy it would be you arguing that a team (e.g. Rangers or it could be any) is bad and to support your position you’d pull stats when this team was playing with an empty net goalie pulled. But this is not how the game is actually played...
 
pld459666 said:
The market for Lindros was MUCH wider than it is for PLD

And in the end, Foppa ended up being the better player
Click to expand...
Nope...he just ended up being on a better club that had a goalie that won in the playoffs . Forsberg was never as good as Lindros when both healthy and on the ice. Lindros was a special kind of great .....and I hated him....but he was just the complete hockey package for the ages . Mind you...Forsberg was not that shabby and probably quite a bit underrated as well .
 
  • Like
Reactions: ArPanet and McSauer
With the trade talk dialogue going on...what is the scouting report of Gabriel Carlsson a left D with Columbus ? He virtually has no offensive upside & about the same size as Miller and 24 [Edit...bit older than original# of 21 ] . He might be a piece worth investigating . It sure would be nice to see a great stretch from Chytil and Kakko in the next few weeks to make us want to put Dubois in the rear view .
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Rongomania and RangersFan1994
Amazing Kreiderman said:
What you showed was that Strome's numbers with Panarin are actually good. And Panarin hit career highs playing with Strome.

This would only be an issue if we didn't have Panarin on the team anymore, but we do. For 6 more years. So let's just ride it out for 2 years, with them together on the same line. They work together well.
Click to expand...
And could there not be an argument that Panarin’s line and the overall team would be better with an upgrade to Strome? Isn’t that the other side of the argument? Or is this just a one dimensional approach we take when looking at players on the team we support? (Not directed at you AK) Yes, Strome has not dragged Panarin down, great. But it was only 1 year, and could it be said that Panarin who has a Hart Trophy caliber year masked Strome’s deficiencies as a hockey player?

Yes we will ride it out for the next 1-2 years. I dont think he stays the full 2 years. I do believe the Rangers extended him because when looking at the landscape of the NHL, taking into account free agency and the salary cap plus their own roster, it was better to hold onto him and hope they can flip him for something else later on. They had the guy on the trade market and didnt sign him until hours before his arbitration hearing. This is not someone the team is in love with but held onto him by circumstance. Edit: Thank you @Oscar Lindberg
 
kovazub94 said:
The fact is that the Rangers had Strome on $3.1m contract for 1.5 seasons and could’ve walked away but decided to give him two more years at $4.6m. That’s the fact. Your little table maybe would have been relevant if the Rangers didn’t have Panarin for the length of Strome’s contract but they do... In an EXTREMELY extended analogy it would be you arguing that a team (e.g. Rangers or it could be any) is bad and to support your position you’d pull stats when this team was playing with an empty net goalie pulled. But this is not how the game is actually played...
Click to expand...
No that is looking at everything in a vacuum. My “little table” shows the player Strome is when he doesn’t hitch his ride to a Hart Trophy candidate.

How about we pull up Chytil’s metrics last year. His corsi was 50+. And I know someone has it, but Chytil’s numbers were just as stable in his limited time with Panarin. I certainly think the Rangers would survive if they moved on from Ryan Strome and replaced him with Chytil, let alone another center they could acquire. The whole argument that the Rangers extended Strome as if that supports anything was merely the Rangers buying more time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheBloodyNine
Amazing Kreiderman said:
What you showed was that Strome's numbers with Panarin are actually good. And Panarin hit career highs playing with Strome.

This would only be an issue if we didn't have Panarin on the team anymore, but we do. For 6 more years. So let's just ride it out for 2 years, with them together on the same line. They work together well.
Click to expand...
There is a difference between causation and correlation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UnSandvich, Leetch3 and GoAwayPanarin
leetch99 said:
With the trade talk dialogue going on...what is the scouting report of Gabriel Carlsson a left D with Columbus ? He virtually has no offensive upside & about the same size as Miller and 24 [Edit...bit older than original# of 21 ] . He might be a piece worth investigating . It sure would be nice to see a great stretch from Chytil and Kakko in the next few weeks to make us want to put Dubois in the rear view .
Click to expand...

To me, the more I think about it, is my favorite scenario. Chytil making a pld move redundant would be glorious.

Kak and Chytil really looked great and that was against a true playoff team.
 
  • Like
Reactions: McSauer, B17 Apricots and SnowblindNYR
Food for thought:

When asked in an interview the other night, what are your initial thoughts on x player? Directed to Lafreniere.

Reporter: Strome?
Lafreniere: Smart. (Without hesitation)

That is not a characteristic I see many armchair GMs here post because, how could you know that without being around him like his teammates and coaches are?

Im not a Strome guy at all, but that comment resinated a bit and I understood his place on the team right then and the coralation of his production vs skill and how it works with a guy like Panarin who you just let do his thing and try to be the best support you can. Which, in a way, is probably why defensively reliable Fast worked as the 3rd man on that line and young Kakko hasn't.
 
  • Like
Reactions: egelband, kovazub94, Rongomania and 1 other person
The Rangers could conceivably keep Buch if his next contract was somewhat reasonable. Part of the way it would work is keeping it shorter term, say 3-4 years, and bridging someone like Kaako. ADA and Strome would need to be traded but I think we all assume that will happen anyways.

You're probably looking at the 2024 off-season where guys like Kreider and Trouba may be moved just due to arithmetic.

If Gorton goes the path of futures with Strome and ADA in lieu of an established player there is cap space available.
 
  • Like
Reactions: wafflepadsave, kovazub94 and B17 Apricots
NYR Viper said:
The Rangers could conceivably keep Buch if his next contract was somewhat reasonable. Part of the way it would work is keeping it shorter term, say 3-4 years, and bridging someone like Kaako. ADA and Strome would need to be traded but I think we all assume that will happen anyways.

You're probably looking at the 2024 off-season where guys like Kreider and Trouba may be moved just due to arithmetic.

If Gorton goes the path of futures with Strome and ADA in lieu of an established player there is cap space available.
Click to expand...

I know this will draw resistance, but if Kakko develops this season as we hope, shows that he's gonna turn into a very good player, I don't want to bridge him. Even if it means we have to walk away from someone like Buch (or trade, really).

Extend him long term so that down the line that contract extension is a steal. That is what teams like the Avs and Bruins have done, they get the guys they know are turning the corner signed, and then those deals become extremely beneficial down the line when they are bargains.
 
  • Like
Reactions: B17 Apricots
mas0764 said:
I know this will draw resistance, but if Kakko develops this season as we hope, shows that he's gonna turn into a very good player, I don't want to bridge him. Even if it means we have to walk away from someone like Buch (or trade, really).

Extend him long term so that down the line that contract extension is a steal. That is what teams like the Avs and Bruins have done, they get the guys they know are turning the corner signed, and then those deals become extremely beneficial down the line when they are bargains.
Click to expand...

I go back and forth on this. I can understand wanting to sign certain guys long term right away but some guys develop more slowly. If Kaako develops this year and fulfills what most people would envision as a good season for him (pro-rated, say he scores 45-50 points which is about 31-33 points in the shortened season) and next year he scores 60 over 82 games. If the Rangers bridge him for 2 years and THEN sign him to an 8 year deal they will have control over him for a grand total of 15 years starting at age 18. That takes him to 33.

On the flip side, if they sign him immediately to an 8 year deal, they are guaranteed to have control over him for 11 years, or until he turns 29.

I understand the possible benefit of signing certain guys long term right away, but if they envision some of these kids as long-term pieces, it may be nice for them to have control of them through their prime guaranteed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: B17 Apricots
RGY said:
And could there not be an argument that Panarin’s line and the overall team would be better with an upgrade to Strome? Isn’t that the other side of the argument? Or is this just a one dimensional approach we take when looking at players on the team we support? (Not directed at you AK) Yes, Strome has not dragged Panarin down, great. But it was only 1 year, and could it be said that Panarin who has a Hart Trophy caliber year masked Strome’s deficiencies as a hockey player?

Yes we will ride it out for the next 1-2 years. I dont think he stays the full 2 years. I do believe the Rangers extended him because when looking at the landscape of the NHL, taking into account free agency and the salary cap plus their own roster, it was better to hold onto him and hope they can flip him for something else later on. They had the guy on the trade market and didnt sign him until hours before his arbitration hearing. This is not someone the team is in love with but held onto him by circumstance. Edit: Thank you @Oscar Lindberg
Click to expand...
I’m thinking that Seattle pays us a pick to leave him exposed.
 
NYR Viper said:
I go back and forth on this. I can understand wanting to sign certain guys long term right away but some guys develop more slowly. If Kaako develops this year and fulfills what most people would envision as a good season for him (pro-rated, say he scores 45-50 points which is about 31-33 points in the shortened season) and next year he scores 60 over 82 games. If the Rangers bridge him for 2 years and THEN sign him to an 8 year deal they will have control over him for a grand total of 15 years starting at age 18. That takes him to 33.

On the flip side, if they sign him immediately to an 8 year deal, they are guaranteed to have control over him for 11 years, or until he turns 29.

I understand the possible benefit of signing certain guys long term right away, but if they envision some of these kids as long-term pieces, it may be nice for them to have control of them through their prime guaranteed.
Click to expand...

I think your math is a little funky. 3yr ELC + 2yr bridge + 8yr extension= 13 years. Not 15. We keep him until 31.
 
Said it before but this happened before, you take yourself out of the lineup and now you gotta wait until we lose to get back in. Not that it was Tony's fault we lost because we were all bad but you can't mess with a lineup that had a 9 goal swing against the same team because if you put him back in and they are a mess again you have a hard decision to make of whether you take him out again. Unfortunately for him he's gonna sit until the team looks bad.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bleedblue94
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom