Speculation: Roster Building Thread Part VIII: Dilly Dilly - Lets Tank!

[Tawnos]

So true. In his Edmonton career, he had the league's 12th best points per 60, 18th best p160, a +4.3 relCF%, +9.69 relGF%, and +5.77 relxGF%. Really hard to pinpoint this player as a probably elite player in the league [all 5v5]. These definitely aren't elite numbers. Well, I suppose it depends on how many people you consider can be 'elite' at the same time.

If you're not into rate metrics, which is totally fine, his 212 points during 5v5 play ranked 23rd among forwards. Only two players above him played less ice time, St. Louis, and Crosby.

I could see why Edmonton would be willing to sacrifice this for a guy who is OK.

And I guess I should go ahead and say that yes, the way I evaluate players is different from the way you might, and that is totally okay.

[data via corsica.hockey]

The problematic part to that approach is that the Hall trade was largely driven by his final 2 years in Edmonton, so his best seasons didn’t really factor in that much. I’m not somewhere that I can look up those comparative numbers, but all situations, Hall was a 60-65 point player at the end. Nothing about that changed when he first arrived in NJ.

That being said, Chiarelli really was stupid to deal him, especially in the context of everyone else... considering that even 60-point Hall fills the biggest need Edmonton has now.

 

[True Blue]

Literally proves that being top heavy is a viable option. How else are you being top heavy without elite hall of fame caliber players...it's like the very definition of being top heavy.

Without trying to get behind someone's thought process, I think that the idea is that you can be top heavy with very good first liners, not just Hall of Famers. Not every high priced bona fide first line player is going to the Hall of Fame. Load up on a few of those, are are you not top-heavy?

Pitt is quite an exception. They have two HOFers. Much like Detroit did with Yzerman and Federov. Not many teams come down the middle like that.

 

[Gardner McKay]

Except they have defensive depth problems too.

And at the time they traded Hall, I don't think anyone would have referred to him as an elite winger. 1st liner, yes. Elite, no.

I haven't had too much time to look into this but look at Chicago vs Pittsburgh. When Chicago won the cup in 2015, their defense outside of Keith and Seabrook was terrible.

They won because they had forward depth that was unmatched, Keith and Seabrook playing 30+ minutes a game, and a competent goaltender.

Edmonton has neither the forward depth of Chicago, the star power of Pittsburgh, or a defense nearly as good as either team. Cam Talbot doesn't need to be Corey Crawford or Matt Murray. He needs to be a combination of Roy/Brodeur/Hasek.

Lets just say for a second that McDavid and Drai = Crosby and Malkin (I take the latter two), Edmonton is still missing a Kessel. A Letang. They don't even have a Hornqvist or a Neal. Even if they kept Hall, that team still needs a few more pieces.

Not disagreeing with you or anything, just using your post as a spring board.

 

[TheBloodyNine]

Literally proves that being top heavy is a viable option. How else are you being top heavy without elite hall of fame caliber players...it's like the very definition of being top heavy.

Top heavy when you have two hall of famers who are being paid WAYYYYY below market value. Neither of those guys make 10 million, and both are better than anything we'd buy in free agency.

 

[RangerBlues]

I reject the notion that this team will be a dog-pile this season.

 

[Thirty One]

I reject the notion that this team will be a dog-pile this season.

Messier-like confidence.

 

[TheTakedown]

Almost like trading an elite winger for a 2nd pairing d-man isn't a good idea

Eberle for Strome was almost as bad. Guy put up 59 in 81 last year, did 63 in 81 in 2014-15... and they trade him for Ryan Strome who put up 34 in 82 last year...

Like, why? Why?

 

[silverfish]

Eberle for Strome was almost as bad. Guy put up 59 in 81 last year, did 63 in 81 in 2014-15... and they trade him for Ryan Strome who put up 34 in 82 last year...

Like, why? Why?

Had to find that Lucic money somewhere.

 

[TheTakedown]

Had to find that Lucic money somewhere.

And Kris f***ing Russel.....

 

[Mikos87]

The Oilers have the best player on the planet and they missed the playoffs last year.

The Stars have Seguin and Benn along with Klingberg and they missed the playoffs.

Depth. Those teams get outclassed the 40 minutes of the game that those guys are on the bench for.

 

[bobbop]

The hockey season has an uncanny way of dividing itself into four quarters.

About 20 games into the season (around Thanksgiving) is when things start to settle in the NHL. Teams who start fast are either exposed or confirmed for real. Off season injuries have cleared. 20 games is a legitimate point for evaluating where a team and key players are or aren't. A good place to look for hockey trades rather than trades for draft choices. Guys like Names, Spooner and Vesey could all be in play here. Also a good time to assess if any eligible Rangers are headed to the WJC.

At 40 games, I would expect that minor league callups are the big news. Half a season in the bushes is never a bad idea, even if the player experiences early success. It's the time of year guys like Girardi, Sauer and McDonagh and many others made their major league debuts. Trades are definitely possible here also.

60 games means the trade deadline. The Rangers will almost certainly be sellers this year, even if the team overachieves. The biggest issue I see is that there are an inordinate number of players seemingly headed to free agency this year and the Rangers may not have the very best assets on the market. That usually means sell early. It means that teams have a pretty good idea where their first round draft choices are going to be and they may be more willing to make a move than they would be earlier in the year.

And at 80 games, an unexpected playoff spot or lottery straight ahead. Rinse and repeat.​

 

[Inferno]

Top heavy when you have two hall of famers who are being paid WAYYYYY below market value. Neither of those guys make 10 million, and both are better than anything we'd buy in free agency.

Wayyy underpaid ...now....but what about when they signed it?

 

[TheBloodyNine]

Wayyy underpaid ...now....but what about when they signed it?

Still underpaid. And when they won they were still underpaid.

 

[Fvital92]

Wayyy underpaid ...now....but what about when they signed it?

That was when they were losing in the playoffs to us.

 

[Inferno]

Still underpaid. And when they won they were still underpaid.

What was their percentage of cap when they signed....what's 10m as a percentage of cap now?
Crosby 8.7 of 70.2... 12.39%
10 of 79.5..12.57%

Basically identical.

 

[Inferno]

That was when they were losing in the playoffs to us.

I see so elite players are only elite when they win? Crosvys not a hall of famer in years they lose?

The point is that top heavy teams CAN win. The contracts they got we're basically identical to the 10m number thrown out when you're talking about percentage of cap.

They got monster deals with mosnter term....at that time...it's a steal now..but weren't some ppl worried about Crosby's brain? Was that then? I can't remember.

 

[Inferno]

I think there are lots of ways yo win in the nhl...but there's a few Staples of almost every team.
You need either a metric ton of really good players..or you need a few generational type guys who can make everyone else appear way better than they are.
You need luck.
And you need to have as few bad contracts as possible.

To me that's it. I'm not sure speed alone wins. I'm not sure size alone wins. I'm not sure about having an elite goalie vs elite center vs vs vs... to me it's all about how many elite players do you have....and if you don't have many or even any..then how many really really good players do you have.

Then of course you need health, and luck.....and not have a jackass named a.v. coaching your team.

 

[Fvital92]

I see so elite players are only elite when they win? Crosvys not a hall of famer in years they lose?

The point is that top heavy teams CAN win. The contracts they got we're basically identical to the 10m number thrown out when you're talking about percentage of cap.

They got monster deals with mosnter term....at that time...it's a steal now..but weren't some ppl worried about Crosby's brain? Was that then? I can't remember.

Yeah, but they couldn't win at the time because Pittsburgh didn't have cap to assemble an all around decent team.

 

[eco's bones]

I think there are lots of ways yo win in the nhl...but there's a few Staples of almost every team.
You need either a metric ton of really good players..or you need a few generational type guys who can make everyone else appear way better than they are.
You need luck.
And you need to have as few bad contracts as possible.

To me that's it. I'm not sure speed alone wins. I'm not sure size alone wins. I'm not sure about having an elite goalie vs elite center vs vs vs... to me it's all about how many elite players do you have....and if you don't have many or even any..then how many really really good players do you have.

Then of course you need health, and luck.....and not have a jackass named a.v. coaching your team.

I would add you need a mix of elements---you do need some guys who have enough speed to put other teams on their heels and you do need some guys with size who aren't afraid to use it. You need finishers and you need set up men. You need a guy who's really good on face-offs and situational specialists--particularly enough guys who are actually good at penalty killing. And then we'll go back to the power play D who can put up 50 point seasons.

The Rangers had a lot more of those elements back in 13-14 than they did to start 17-18. And AV's coaching got worse pretty much because of two reasons: 1) the personnel he had to work with weren't as good and 2) he was either too stubborn or not imaginative enough to adapt to the declining level of his troops.

But back to some of the points above--the Rangers almost always seem to have more set up men than finishers. They lean strongly towards finesse play and not so much towards physical play. They don't always have a good face-off guy or enough quality penalty killing forwards.

 

[Lindberg Cheese]

If Smith bounces back which I expect he will, look for Staal to be bought out after this season.

 

[Rongomania]

What has Quinn’s system been like? I know he’s more defensively driven/focused than Clownboy, but does he preach grinding, hard & physical play than the deflated straight finesse game we’ve been playing. I for one am excited about watching our guys under coach Q.

 

[nyr2k2]

If Smith bounces back which I expect he will, look for Staal to be bought out after this season.

I would say, only if they need the cap space. If they don't need the cap space, he can always be a 7D/healthy scratch. If you can afford to roster a player, that's always a better option that buying out a player.

 

[Webster]

I think we can expect some Zuccarello news soon. Stay tuned...

 

[Oscar Lindberg]

I think we can expect some Zuccarello news soon. Stay tuned...

You can't break your own personal news on this site of all sites

And don't hold out on us

 

[eco's bones]

I think we can expect some Zuccarello news soon. Stay tuned...

I don't expect the Rangers are going to be moving Zuccarello anytime real soon to be honest. There's not that many teams that haven't already done what they're going to do and are just waiting for training camp/season to start or have the cap space/prospect dynamic to make it worthwhile for the Rangers to trade for him now. Personally if I were moving him I'd try to have as many teams as possible involved. So unless you're talking about the Rangers extending Mats I'd be surprised.