Toggle sidebar

Roster Building Thread - Part VIII (2023-24 season)

  • 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.
Jim Ramsay said:
Has Othmann really shown a lot so far down in Hartford? Its hard to see the Rangers putting him at one of the top RW spots unless he really starts piling up some points in Hartford
Click to expand...

I think it’s more about reps against pro players in the AHL than it is for production for Othmann. He has an NHL ready game from what I saw in the preseason and he won’t be asked to do much. January-February realistically.

It would be a mistake by Drury to not see what he has in Othmann pre-deadline. He’ll be 21 in early January. He’s not Kakko & Laf coming in at 18
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jim Ramsay
IDvsEGO said:
Nylander has never been the guy. He’s never even been the 2nd guy.
Like we spent money on Panarin, but he was the guy in cbj.
I also don’t want another 10 million guy until Panarin comes off the books, and I’m hoping we use that money to lock Laf up at this rate.
Click to expand...
this
but lock up KAM
that is > priority
 
IDvsEGO said:
Nylander has never been the guy. He’s never even been the 2nd guy.
Like we spent money on Panarin, but he was the guy in cbj.
I also don’t want another 10 million guy until Panarin comes off the books, and I’m hoping we use that money to lock Laf up at this rate.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't mind him but he's having a career contract year.... that's always scary.

He's been dynamic in the Playoffs. I would take the Nylander of the past few years for 8-9M. 11.5+ is just too much risk.
 
duhmetreE said:
I wouldn't mind him but he's having a career contract year.... that's always scary.

He's been dynamic in the Playoffs. I would take the Nylander of the past few years for 8-9M. 11.5+ is just too much risk.
Click to expand...
Eh, I don't think it's just a career contract year. He's put up 80+ points the last two seasons and a 40 goal season last year.
 
bhamill said:
The “scoring through the roof” narrative is way overstated. Lehtinen had his last 50 pt season when average scoring per team was 2.92 gpg. Know what it is NOW? 2.97 gpg. And a good whack of scoring uptick is due to higher PP scoring percentage. In the early 2000s pp % was in the 15 to 18% range, last 5 years it’s been around 20% Or higher. This last year it was 21.31% this year 20.57% so far. So if you aren’t a PP fixture it’s not a huge deal.
Click to expand...
That's all valid, but Kakko has 2 points this year.
 
  • Like
Reactions: EdJovanovski
bhamill said:
The “scoring through the roof” narrative is way overstated. Lehtinen had his last 50 pt season when average scoring per team was 2.92 gpg. Know what it is NOW? 2.97 gpg. And a good whack of scoring uptick is due to higher PP scoring percentage. In the early 2000s pp % was in the 15 to 18% range, last 5 years it’s been around 20% Or higher. This last year it was 21.31% this year 20.57% so far. So if you aren’t a PP fixture it’s not a huge deal.
Click to expand...
This is a reasonable take if your numbers are incorrect.

It's at 3.19 now. During Lehtinen's prime, it was around 2.63, 2.64.

Is it overstated? I could see that, depending on the argument, but it's way up.
 
Machinehead said:
This is a reasonable take if your numbers are incorrect.

It's at 3.19 now. During Lehtinen's prime, it was around 2.63, 2.64.

Is it overstated? I could see that, depending on the argument, but it's way up.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure my numbers are incorrect. This says average GA per team per game, which is of course the same as average GF per team per game…
Got this from Hockey reference. Where are your numbers from?
EDIT: whoops. I see goals and GAA are different. I imagine the difference between the two is EN goals, so I actually think GAA is the better number If you are talking about comparisons between the offensive capabilities of players.

IMG_1866.png


Boris Zubov said:
Yet here we are again waiting for him to show up. It's becoming part of the calendar.
Click to expand...
That doesn’t change the point. Just like saying we are waiting on Zib doesn’t mean he isn’t capable of better than ppg…
 
Last edited:
bhamill said:
I’m not sure my numbers are incorrect. This says average GA per team per game, which is of course the same as average GF per team per game…
Got this from Hockey reference. Where are your numbers from?

View attachment 770966


That doesn’t change the point. Just like saying we are waiting on Zib doesn’t mean he isn’t capable of better than ppg…
Click to expand...
GAA is a goaltending stat. Not every goal has a goalie in net.

The "G" column tells you exactly how many goals are being scored.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bhamill
Machinehead said:
GAA is a goaltending stat. Not every goal has a goalie in net.

The "G" column tells you exactly how many goals are being scored.
Click to expand...
I was editing my post as you were posting I guess:
”EDIT: whoops. I see goals and GAA are different. I imagine the difference between the two is EN goals, so I actually think GAA is the better number If you are talking about comparisons between the offensive capabilities of players.”
 
  • Like
Reactions: kovazub94
bhamill said:
I was editing my post as you were posting I guess:
”EDIT: whoops. I see goals and GAA are different. I imagine the difference between the two is EN goals, so I actually think GAA is the better number If you are talking about comparisons between the offensive capabilities of players.”
Click to expand...
That's valid, but when it comes to point production, EN goals are somewhat relevant.

Also, it's a goaltending stat, so there's lots of oddities that is not accounting for.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bhamill
Machinehead said:
That's valid, but when it comes to point production, EN goals are somewhat relevant.

Also, it's a goaltending stat, so there's lots of oddities that is not accounting for.
Click to expand...
Fair enough. There are a lot of variables, such as PP goals being up a good bit more than 5v5 goals, etc. Even without that distinction it’s not like Lehtinen would be a top scorer now. If you want to take his 50 point seasons and add 20% straight up that’s 60 points. Kakko scoring 40 as a 21-22 year old isn’t exactly out of his league. Not that that was YOUR point. I just think generally “the scoring is through the roof” narrative is a bit exaggerated around here sometimes.
 
bhamill said:
Fair enough. There are a lot of variables, such as PP goals being up a good bit more than 5v5 goals, etc. Even without that distinction it’s not like Lehtinen would be a top scorer now. If you want to take his 50 point seasons and add 20% straight up that’s 60 points. Kakko scoring 40 as a 21-22 year old isn’t exactly out of his league. Not that that was YOUR point. I just think generally “the scoring is through the roof” narrative is a bit exaggerated around here sometimes.
Click to expand...
When Kakko scores 60, I'll stop ragging on him. Deal?
 
  • Like
Reactions: bhamill
IDvsEGO said:
I’m sorry what?
Of our top 9 forwards (when healthy) 2 of them are over 31.
1 defenseman is over 31.
We have youth all over our roster, we have vets who aren’t going anywhere but are also still closer to prime than too old.

We have 2 A prospects, we have multiple B prospects.
So long as we manage the nhl cap and raises appropriately we’re in a great spot with our prospects. The only position we’re really weak farm wise is center, but if Chytil gets healthy, we don’t need one for years.
Click to expand...
Totally agree, but about C: Fil has looked good on the wing for short stints, but it's never gotten a longer look because of our lack of C depth. Having four C's in your top 9 is a smart plan. And that's including a healthy Chytil.

That's what I've wanted from Wheeler so far. 3RW that can shift over to C in case of injury. That's what Drury wanted out of Goodrow. Wheeler hasn't quite passed the eye test as far as skating, so I'll trust Lavs that Bones is a better option temporarily. Like someone else said, it's even more telling that Goodie wasn't tapped to fill in.

I'd consider trading our 1st for a fairly young C instead of drafting an 18 yo one. There would be Wheeler's spot open next year, and then we wouldn't be effed if we lost a C for 5 or 10 games.

An A prospect at C would really round out our whole "system." If we can't draft one, then trade for a younger NHL C so that we're not relying on BMB to "make it." So, if Chytil really struggles with health, then we need TWO C, not just one more.

egelband said:
From what I’ve read, it’s a case of lots of shots and chances but puck not going in for him. Hoping he can start getting some puck luck soon.
Click to expand...
Great, he'll fit right in! LOL
 
Kendo said:
Totally agree, but about C: Fil has looked good on the wing for short stints, but it's never gotten a longer look because of our lack of C depth. Having four C's in your top 9 is a smart plan. And that's including a healthy Chytil.

That's what I've wanted from Wheeler so far. 3RW that can shift over to C in case of injury. That's what Drury wanted out of Goodrow. Wheeler hasn't quite passed the eye test as far as skating, so I'll trust Lavs that Bones is a better option temporarily. Like someone else said, it's even more telling that Goodie wasn't tapped to fill in.

I'd consider trading our 1st for a fairly young C instead of drafting an 18 yo one. There would be Wheeler's spot open next year, and then we wouldn't be effed if we lost a C for 5 or 10 games.

An A prospect at C would really round out our whole "system." If we can't draft one, then trade for a younger NHL C so that we're not relying on BMB to "make it." So, if Chytil really struggles with health, then we need TWO C, not just one more.


Great, he'll fit right in! LOL
Click to expand...
Our first isn’t worth a young center that’s an A prospect.
I was hoping we’d move up and try and grab moore, but I’m happy where we ended up.
 
IDvsEGO said:
Our first isn’t worth a young center that’s an A prospect.
Click to expand...
That's what I'm saying. If we can't draft an A prospect with that pick, then we "might as well" get a younger, yet still NHL caliber C instead of "needing" that A prospect. Our first is the basis of a deal for, let's say, "another Chytil." Copp but a year younger than when we got him with a second year on his contract or something. That's what our 1st is on the table for. Maaaybe a Pinto.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom