Speculation: Roster Building Thread: Part XL

[egelband]

Strome paced for 43 points over 82 games the year before he got stapled to Panarin. That jumped to a 69 point pace. That’s like a 58% increase.

My problem with Strome isn’t that I don’t think he can have continued success with Panarin. It’s that long term I don’t think he’s a strong enough all around player to be a top six center on a contending team. If he can be a complimentary RW who has chemistry with Panarin while a stronger C takes over the middle, that’s fine with me, but I’m not comfortable giving Strome anything more than a stop gap contract. I don’t think Strome is a top six center on a contending team, at least not ideally. And I don’t see him as an ideal third line C either, because playing with the bottom half of the roster, he’s likely much more like a 40 point guy (but not well rounded enough to justify paying him to just be a 40 point guy). So I’d be happiest giving Strome good money but just on a two year deal or seeing how he works on the wing opposite Panarin. I don’t wanna give him a 4-5 year deal and end up paying him to be our third line C because I don’t think he’ll produce in that role.

I feel like I’m looking in a mirror
Totally agree.

 

[Shesterkybomb]

Was he, though?

If you're just using points as an evaluation of how good a player in the NHL is, then your evaluation of talent is bad.

His body of work outside of his points totals are trash, this year without Panarin and last year.

When I submit my player evaluations for my home province I use these categories to evaluate centermen : skating, passing, puck handling, checking, thinking skills, shooting, 1 vs 1 offense, 1 vs 1 defense, faceoffs, and determination. A lot of statistical input goes into those categories but as a rough evaluation of him from watching him but not actively scouting him he would be average to above average in all of those categories. Perfect players don't exist they all have some hole in their game, the elite ones get paid top dollars and they are hard to get, guys like Strome have a lot of value, they just aren't perfect nor should they be expected to be given their role or cap hit. Take him off this team this year and my feeling is we aren't close to playoffs, take him off next year and we take a big step back unless he is replaced with someone who can produce like he has, something that isn't a given. He's versataile, fits the age group, can play center or wing, pp and pk. So no, I'm not point hunting with him, he is better than people give him credit for, everyone dumps on him and it creates a narrative that I don't have time for.

 

[Shesterkybomb]

Strome paced for 43 points over 82 games the year before he got stapled to Panarin. That jumped to a 69 point pace. That’s like a 58% increase.

My problem with Strome isn’t that I don’t think he can have continued success with Panarin. It’s that long term I don’t think he’s a strong enough all around player to be a top six center on a contending team. If he can be a complimentary RW who has chemistry with Panarin while a stronger C takes over the middle, that’s fine with me, but I’m not comfortable giving Strome anything more than a stop gap contract. I don’t think Strome is a top six center on a contending team, at least not ideally. And I don’t see him as an ideal third line C either, because playing with the bottom half of the roster, he’s likely much more like a 40 point guy (but not well rounded enough to justify paying him to just be a 40 point guy). So I’d be happiest giving Strome good money but just on a two year deal or seeing how he works on the wing opposite Panarin. I don’t wanna give him a 4-5 year deal and end up paying him to be our third line C because I don’t think he’ll produce in that role.

Didn't Panarin's point total climb like 25 percent this year too? What makes anyone think he can get more than 87 points without Strome? I mean we are still 12 games away from the end and he has already beat his previous high by 8 points. Even when he was playing with Kane and a loaded up PP in Chicago he only got into the 80s. I'm not saying Strome is Gretzky, I'm not even saying he is Brassard but I'd have to know for sure what the consequences are of losing him. Like I've said before, maybe it simply comes down to the idea that maybe Panarin likes playing with Strome. These are things nobody here knows.

 

[Thirty One]

There has to be some compliance buyouts issued.

Lower level teams won't have the money to spend on free agency due to the pandemic. Upper level teams need more cap flexibility to make up for a lack of lower level spending.

The obvious solution is to not spend in free agency then.

Can’t see the owners, with their revenues slashed, looking for ways to spend more on salaries.

 

[LokiDog]

Didn't Panarin's point total climb like 25 percent this year too? What makes anyone think he can get more than 87 points without Strome? I mean we are still 12 games away from the end and he has already beat his previous high by 8 points. Even when he was playing with Kane and a loaded up PP in Chicago he only got into the 80s. I'm not saying Strome is Gretzky, I'm not even saying he is Brassard but I'd have to know for sure what the consequences are of losing him. Like I've said before, maybe it simply comes down to the idea that maybe Panarin likes playing with Strome. These are things nobody here knows.

There’s very clearly players who drive a line, or stir the drink, and players who are ice cubes in the drink. Maybe Strome and Panarin have chemistry such that they both had career years, but the difference is that if Panarin totally reverts back to “just” a 90 point player next year, he’s still a major asset. If Strome reverts to a 43 point player... I hope he won’t be on a 5M contract.

Panarin played with Kane his first few years ever in the NHL. Additionally, it’s not actually all about individual stat lines. Panarin and Kane both putting up 80 points on a team that had numerous other threats was invaluable. They’d gladly each sacrifice personal points for a balanced team attack that won cups.

I’m not saying another center will be better than Strome with Panarin. I don’t care if we replace Strome with a 75 point center. What I want is to have Strome’s 55-65 points with better defensive play, less boneheaded play, less untimely penalties, and just overall more like the type of center who plays second fiddle on a winning team. I’m not looking for someone to come in and do “better” than Strome, in terms of putting up better personal numbers or helping Panarin put up better numbers. I’d rather see Panarin drop 10 points and play with a better rounded, more reliable pivot.

 

[Irishguy42]

When I submit my player evaluations for my home province I use these categories to evaluate centermen : skating, passing, puck handling, checking, thinking skills, shooting, 1 vs 1 offense, 1 vs 1 defense, faceoffs, and determination. A lot of statistical input goes into those categories but as a rough evaluation of him from watching him but not actively scouting him he would be average to above average in all of those categories. Perfect players don't exist they all have some hole in their game, the elite ones get paid top dollars and they are hard to get, guys like Strome have a lot of value, they just aren't perfect nor should they be expected to be given their role or cap hit. Take him off this team this year and my feeling is we aren't close to playoffs, take him off next year and we take a big step back unless he is replaced with someone who can produce like he has, something that isn't a given. He's versataile, fits the age group, can play center or wing, pp and pk. So no, I'm not point hunting with him, he is better than people give him credit for, everyone dumps on him and it creates a narrative that I don't have time for.

I mean, your evaluation is flawed here. if you think he's above average at any of those categories you listed. We watch the same games, but I guess you think that you being a coach means your opinion is worth miles more than mine. He's really not good at anything and not worth a lot of value.

I think you might be a bad analyst here, IMO.

We're done.

 

[SA16]

Strome is objectively bad at faceoffs so if you are rating him "average to above average" there as mentioned your rating is wrong. 45.9% in his career and a career high of 47.6.

 

[egelband]

I think the consensus is we like Strome but are divided on going long term or short term. Anyhow, I’ll stop beating this dead horse now

 

[Shesterkybomb]

There’s very clearly players who drive a line, or stir the drink, and players who are ice cubes in the drink. Maybe Strome and Panarin have chemistry such that they both had career years, but the difference is that if Panarin totally reverts back to “just” a 90 point player next year, he’s still a major asset. If Strome reverts to a 43 point player... I hope he won’t be on a 5M contract.

Panarin played with Kane his first few years ever in the NHL. Additionally, it’s not actually all about individual stat lines. Panarin and Kane both putting up 80 points on a team that had numerous other threats was invaluable. They’d gladly each sacrifice personal points for a balanced team attack that won cups.

I’m not saying another center will be better than Strome with Panarin. I don’t care if we replace Strome with a 75 point center. What I want is to have Strome’s 55-65 points with better defensive play, less boneheaded play, less untimely penalties, and just overall more like the type of center who plays second fiddle on a winning team. I’m not looking for someone to come in and do “better” than Strome, in terms of putting up better personal numbers or helping Panarin put up better numbers. I’d rather see Panarin drop 10 points and play with a better rounded, more reliable pivot.

He isn't nearly as bad as everyone makes him out to be, and while he is 26 I think that he has a little room to grow as a player because the two franchises he just came from were total messes with regards to player development. I think this environment is better, the leaders on this team, ie Zib, Kreider, Fast and formerly Hayes and Zuc all seem to push each other to be better through workouts in the offseason and at practice, and I feel the coach will hold his feet to the fire if he needs to. Without giving up major future assets I dont see how we can be a better team next year without him. I'm not into a 5 or 6 year deal but a 3 or 4 year deal makes sense for now and fits the time frame where we will need that cap space in 3 or 4 years to sign younger players. I'm more concerned about taking a step back and having a hard time catching back up, ie say Strome and Fast leave and then we need two players to play with Panarin and then we are backfilling the third line to replace Kakko and Chytil with players like Nieves and Lettteri. Our forward prospect pool isn't strong enough right now and getting caught in a cycle like that would keep us in the good but not good enough category during Zibs,Kreider's, Trouba's and Panarin's prime. But that's just my theory on this rebuild.

 

[Shesterkybomb]

I mean, your evaluation is flawed here. if you think he's above average at any of those categories you listed. We watch the same games, but I guess you think that you being a coach means your opinion is worth miles more than mine. He's really not good at anything and not worth a lot of value.

I think you might be a bad analyst here, IMO.

We're done.

I'm comfortable with my resume, I don't think I'd have gotten hired to scout for our Canada Games team if I was as bad as you think. You must not have been home when they called you.

 

[Doctyl]

When I submit my player evaluations for my home province I use these categories to evaluate centermen : skating, passing, puck handling, checking, thinking skills, shooting, 1 vs 1 offense, 1 vs 1 defense, faceoffs, and determination. A lot of statistical input goes into those categories but as a rough evaluation of him from watching him but not actively scouting him he would be average to above average in all of those categories.

Wait what? The only thing he’s even remotely good at is passing the puck to Panarin and receiving passes from Panarin. If you want to call that passing and thinking, sure I’ll give him that. He’s an atrocity at everything else you listed and take some of the worst penalties without drawing anything, so I’d knock him down points on that “thinking” there.

 

[Shesterkybomb]

Strome is objectively bad at faceoffs so if you are rating him "average to above average" there as mentioned your rating is wrong. 45.9% in his career and a career high of 47.6.

Ryan Strome was 47.5 this year ahead of Scheiffle, MacKinnon, Aho, Cirelli, Eichel, Pierre Luc Dubois and Kuznetzov. His faceoff category would have been in the average category.

 

[Irishguy42]

Among players who took minimum 350 faceoffs this year (to weed out the random players who come in to take faceoffs), Ryan Strome was ranked 101/137.

Definitely below average/towards the bottom of the league.

This isn't subjective. It's an objective fact that he was bottom of the league.

 

[SA16]

Ryan Strome was 47.5 this year ahead of Scheiffle, MacKinnon, Aho, Cirelli, Eichel, Pierre Luc Dubois and Kuznetzov. His faceoff category would have been in the average category.

Well yes Scheifele, MacKinnon, Eichel, Dubois, and Kuznesov are among the worst in the league. If your comparison is that he is better than those guys that is not exactly saying much.

I would not say Jesper Fast is an average goal scorer because he scored more goals than Kerfoot, Zajac, Nieto, Lucic, and Thornton.

 

[Shesterkybomb]

Among players who took minimum 350 faceoffs this year (to weed out the random players who come in to take faceoffs), Ryan Strome was ranked 101/137.

Definitely below average/towards the bottom of the league.

This isn't subjective. It's an objective fact that he was bottom of the league.

You didnt ignore the ties did you, because I think you did.

 

[SA16]

You didnt ignore the ties did you, because I think you did.

He’s not tied with anyone.
Stepan 47.54
Strome 47.51
Turris 47.49

 

[Boris Zubov]

This was fantastic. Thanks for posting.

 

[Alluckks]

The obvious solution is to not spend in free agency then.

Can’t see the owners, with their revenues slashed, looking for ways to spend more on salaries.

Owners that are flush with funds still would, like our organization is. And bought out players means more players on the market with cheaper deals available for bargain bin shoppers. It might widen some disparity between rich teams and poor teams but let's not pretend these aren't abnormal circumstances.

 

[Doctyl]

He isn't nearly as bad as everyone makes him out to be, and while he is 26 I think that he has a little room to grow as a player because the two franchises he just came from were total messes with regards to player development. I think this environment is better, the leaders on this team, ie Zib, Kreider, Fast and formerly Hayes and Zuc all seem to push each other to be better through workouts in the offseason and at practice, and I feel the coach will hold his feet to the fire if he needs to. Without giving up major future assets I dont see how we can be a better team next year without him. I'm not into a 5 or 6 year deal but a 3 or 4 year deal makes sense for now and fits the time frame where we will need that cap space in 3 or 4 years to sign younger players. I'm more concerned about taking a step back and having a hard time catching back up, ie say Strome and Fast leave and then we need two players to play with Panarin and then we are backfilling the third line to replace Kakko and Chytil with players like Nieves and Lettteri. Our forward prospect pool isn't strong enough right now and getting caught in a cycle like that would keep us in the good but not good enough category during Zibs,Kreider's, Trouba's and Panarin's prime. But that's just my theory on this rebuild.

So he’s 26 and you expect him to still grow? This is peak Strome.

When chemistry with an MVP candidate and other guys on the team can motivate him are the biggest reasons to extend a player, he probably should be dumped.

The team still playing Marc Staal isn’t going to hold anyone’s foot to the fire unless it’s a 20 year old kid

 

[Vitto79]

What’s w all the Strome talk ? As long as he’s not signed more than 3 years he seems to have chemistry w Panarin and can be a stop gap for Chytil to improve

Just do not protect him in expansion . I expect 3x5 mil

 

[Oscar Lindberg]

I believe Strome will be kept, even though I don't agree with it. The reason being that the front office has put a window on this team. They pretty much need to win in the next 2/3 seasons.

Panarin is playing his best hockey right now. Zibanejad has become a legit 1C, and he's only on a good deal for another 2 seasons. Kakko, Fox, and Shestyorkin will be key contributors and make big bucks coming off their ELC, so they need to try to win before these guys get paid. Kreider's play will decline as the years go on.

Even though I think Chytil can take Strome's spot on the 2nd line, I'd be disingenuous for me to say removing Strome completely wouldn't have a negative effect.

There are options to shore up the depth so it's not an issue but the path of least resistance for the front office is probably just to keep Strome and roll the dice that he doesn't suck during whatever contract they give him.

 

[GAGLine]

I think the consensus is we like Strome but are divided on going long term or short term. Anyhow, I’ll stop beating this dead horse now

There's no reason or need to sign him to a long term deal. There are many factors working against him this summer, that a long term deal just isn't a likely scenario.

1) He had a career year, but it's only one year. He doesn't have enough of a track record to demand a longer term deal.
2) He played most of the time with Panarin. Teams will question, and rightfully so, whether or not he can do it again away from Panarin.
3) The salary cap is likely to stay the same, if not drop, due to Covid19. The league is potentially losing over a billion dollars. Teams aren't going to have a lot of money to spend.
4) We have a potential replacement in Chytil. If Strome wants too much, we'll trade him and go with the cheaper option.

It isn't a good time for Strome to look for a long term deal, and his agent will know that. He might decide he wants a 1 year deal instead, and Gorton may be willing to accommodate him, but the smart move is to sign him to a 2 year deal. We don't need him for longer than that. It would cover his final RFA year and 1 UFA year. It gives Strome some stability, a bump in pay, and the chance to continue increasing his value for his next contract. For the Rangers, he provides insurance in case Chytil isn't ready to take over 2C, and provides us with a top 6 wing option if Chytil is ready. People seem to forget that we had Fast playing in the top 6 for a significant portion of the season. Even if Kravtsov makes the team, he probably won't be ready for the top 6. Maybe Kakko will be ready, but again, we don't know. If Strome becomes expendable, then we can trade him, after he has hopefully increased his value some more.

I think Gorton will deal with Strome the way he did with Spooner and Namestnikov. Both got 2 year deals while entering their last year of RFA. Strome will get a higher AAV, but I don't see him getting more term. If Strome is smart, he'll take the deal, continue to build his value, and try to get paid as a UFA after the league has hopefully recovered from Covid19.

 

[Oscar Lindberg]

Also another interesting wrinkle to the expected June draft situation, if the league is not allowing picks to be traded for players, I wonder how that changes the front office approach to things.

Because I was pretty much convinced they were going to move the Carolina pick for an NHL player in some sort of deal. But now it looks like they literally cannot do that.

 

[bigdog16]

Mikko Lehtonen just signed with Toronto

 

[GoAwayPanarin]

Mikko Lehtonen just signed with Toronto

They need D but he isn't the type of D they need.

LOL @ NJ.