Speculation: Roster Building Thread: Part XLII

[Tawnos]

Every year we see "elites". Not sure that you can combat the likelihood of a decline as players age. The seeming assertion is that these are elite level players and as such they will continue to be elite for a very long time. The reality is that performance tends to take a hit as players get older. That is a fact.

The year we signed Shattenkirk, he was the best UFA on the market. Nobody considered him elite.

 

[Edge]

I think we should print fake dollar bills with Panarin's face on it, with the phrase "Polliceor hoc dissimile erit" on the back.

 

[True Blue]

The year we signed Shattenkirk, he was the best UFA on the market. Nobody considered him elite.

Sure, but the two things are mutually exclusive. Yes, there can be elite UFAs and regular UFAs. The point is that these elite players are around much more often that people are claiming.

 

[Leetch3]

I think we should print fake dollar bills with Panarin's face on it, with the phrase "Polliceor hoc dissimile erit" on the back.

had to google translate what that meant...did not disappoint LOL

 

[SA16]

That is a counterpoint was the reason not to sign a Panarin or Karlsson, despite how good they are as players.

When people say things like this, the implication is that these players are so good you need to g out and sign them:

Historically
Give me 2 free agents (under 30) better than Erik Karlsson
Name me 3 free agents “ “ better than John tavares
And finally
Name me 5 free agents “ “ better than Artemi Panarin.

Good luck with it


That is an argument. Which is why the counter argument is to look at the future as to their level of performance.​

Everyone knows they will likely be worse at age 32 than age 27. The argument is that most elite 27 year olds are still very good at age 32 they don't become junk.

 

[Tawnos]

Sure, but the two things are mutually exclusive. Yes, there can be elite UFAs and regular UFAs. The point is that these elite players are around much more often that people are claiming.

People are claiming they're around exactly as often as they are.

The dispute isn't really over how often, but whether it qualifies as a rare occurrence or a common one. To me, it's a rare occurrence, particularly when you compare how many get to UFA compared to how many do not. Even if it were every year, a single player like that each off-season isn't a common occurrence.

 

[SA16]

People are claiming they're around exactly as often as they are.

The claim is that there have been 3 thus far under the current CBA (Since 2011-12).

Tavares
Panarin
Karlsson

If Hall reaches FA next year that would be 4 however personally I am not as interested in him. Too much of an injury history for me I would far prefer to just go after Panarin now who we know has interest and hasn't had that many issues. Plus who knows if he even makes it without re-signing in NJ or getting traded/signing there first. Not that I wouldn't consider it as a backup if it gets there but there's a lot more risk.

There is nobody the year after next (the best FA that year is Landeskog who does not have a history of elite production).

So that is 3-4 in a span of 10 years. One of which said he would not sign with the Rangers. So that means 2-3 possibilities for the Rangers.

There is no point looking at previous CBAs since rules were different and no point looking at 3 years from now because it's way too hard to project if any of those guys will even reach FA.

 

[Tawnos]

The claim is that there have been 3 thus far under the current CBA (Since 2011-12).

Tavares
Panarin
Karlsson

If Hall reaches FA next year that would be 4 however personally I am not very interested in him.

There is nobody the year after next (the best FA that year is Landeskog who does not have a history of elite production). Too much of an injury history for me I would far prefer to just go after Panarin now who we know has interest and hasn't had that many issues. Plus who knows if he even makes it without re-signing in NJ or getting traded/signing there first.

So that is 3-4 in a span of 10 years. One of which said he would not sign with the Rangers. So that means 2-3 possibilities for the Rangers.

I actually consider Stamkos to be another, since he did reach a point where teams could negotiate with him and make offers. That he signed before July 1 doesn't change that he was able to explore free agency. Still, 4 in 10 years isn't a lot, even if they came in 3 straight off-seasons. And in my edit, I mentioned that even if it were 1 every year, that's not a lot compared to the number of players who never get there.

 

[NernieBichols]

It is not a loaded question. You seem to imply that these players are so good that they need to be signed. That is how I took what you wrote. My rebuttal is to state that I could care less how many better free agents are around or have been around, or how good their performance is. What counts is how they will be performing when this team is ready to compete. Nothing loaded about that.

One look at the playoffs this year says. You want your team getting in and trying to win a round and see where they can take you that year or how it will help your growing team going forward. I’m sick of the panarin and don’t go to the playoffs talk. Sorry. It’s not the name of the game.
Guy helps us next year and next year matters and he helps out for the next 3/4 years and if the rangers aren’t real contenders, they can trade him with 2-3 years left on his deal to a contender and benefit that way.
Im done with the circle jerk

 

[SA16]

I actually consider Stamkos to be another, since he did reach a point where teams could negotiate with him and make offers. That he signed before July 1 doesn't change that he was able to explore free agency. Still, 4 in 10 years isn't a lot, even if they came in 3 straight off-seasons. And in my edit, I mentioned that even if it were 1 every year, that's not a lot compared to the number of players who never get there.

Meh. I guess you can consider Stamkos if you want. Personally I don't count him since he did not actually reach July 1 and a large reason guys don't under this CBA is re-signing with the existing team provides the 8 year option which he would lose on 7/1.

Essentially we are saying 1 every 2.5 years of which how many of these actually want to sign here? It's very rare.

 

[NernieBichols]

Please even that range is loaded. Bc how many elite free agents were there from 2011-2016. Zero

Stamkos was the 1st to push it. Tavares and karlsson follow it, panarin says me too.

They may be a rare flash in the pan, where from now on teams either know they can and do sign the guy long term or he’s traded earlier than ever before in the history of the NHL for teams to maximum the return and not get burnt from losing a guy of that caliber for nothing or waiting too long and watching the value depreciate

 

[True Blue]

One look at the playoffs this year says. You want your team getting in and trying to win a round and see where they can take you that year or how it will help your growing team going forward.

The goals is not simply sneaking into the playoffs next year. It is to build a team for sustained championships runs and multiple playoffs.

I’m sick of the panarin and don’t go to the playoffs talk. Sorry. It’s not the name of the game.

What does this even mean?

Guy helps us next year and next year matters and he helps out for the next 3/4 years and if the rangers aren’t real contenders, they can trade him with 2-3 years left on his deal to a contender and benefit that way.

Of course he helps. You can say that about any good player. No one denies that. But when undertaking a rebuild, you rebuild for long term, not instant gratification. And for all of the talk of just simply trading him is not realistic. You are talking about a contract more than likely at $11m per and with NTC/NMC. That is not that easy to move. Especially if the player in question has his best days behind him.

Im done with the circle jerk

Congrats. Looks like the same debate and the same regurgitation.

 

[Hi ImHFNYR]

Shattenkirk is not much of a leader.

Staal is not much of a leader even though he was here forever, time to cut the cord. I don't want him to teach young players that you can just be mediocre and not perform great and still get big contracts in NHL. We can take the cap hit of his buyout. I mean in theory we can use him as a 8th dman, but I think the coach would end up playing him most of the season.

if he was he would have gotten the "C" last season. He clearly isn't.

Everyone here can see how stupid this is. Why can't you?

I get arguing from the stance of how Staal's play has declined. But this? How is it that you so often are the one posting things like this? How do you struggle this hard with simple concepts pertaining to nearly every aspect of the sport? Yet you come here, keep posting these ideas even though everyone hates them. What do you get out of this? It can't possibly feel good coming here, posting these inane ideas and watching them get laughed at.

 

[Tawnos]

Meh. I guess you can consider Stamkos if you want. Personally I don't count him since he did not actually reach July 1 and a large reason guys don't under this CBA is re-signing with the existing team provides the 8 year option which he would lose on 7/1.

Essentially we are saying 1 every 2.5 years of which how many of these actually want to sign here? It's very rare.

Yeah, the second component of whether or not we get them is overlooked a lot. Sure, we've been pretty successful in landing our free agent targets in the past, but that won't necessarily always hold true.

 

[alkurtz]

Do you know how lucky we are to have Staal?

When, in all the time he has been here has his effort been questioned? Never. When have we ever had to worry about about whether we are getting all he has to give? Never.

Yes, he is not what he once was and should not be getting more than third pair minutes. But the example he sets for younger players is of immeasurable value, especially with a team comprised of so many such players.

He is not teaching anyone to be mediocre. He is teaching, by example, effort, professionalism, and how to continue on even in the light of severe injury.

I would bet that there are few players on the team held on higher esteem by younger players. He may not be a rah rah leader, but leadership comes in many forms. His contribution to this teams player development ethic is of immeasurable value.

If you can’t see that or understand that, than you really have little concept of how teams, people, or life works.

 

[LORDE]

One look at the playoffs this year says. You want your team getting in and trying to win a round and see where they can take you that year or how it will help your growing team going forward. I’m sick of the panarin and don’t go to the playoffs talk. Sorry. It’s not the name of the game.
Guy helps us next year and next year matters and he helps out for the next 3/4 years and if the rangers aren’t real contenders, they can trade him with 2-3 years left on his deal to a contender and benefit that way.
Im done with the circle jerk

Well but at this point does CAR look like anything except sweep fodder?

STL was blown out in game 1... tonight will tell a tale.

Of course you wanna get in and anything can happen, Tampa, TOR, CGY all out... but a team like CAR where they weren't expected to do much sweep the Isles and then outclassed by BOS is also telling.

It's hard to win the Stanley Cup. Really f***ING Hard

 

[SA16]

Do you know how lucky we are to have Staal?

When, in all the time he has been here has his effort been questioned? Never. When have we ever had to worry about about whether we are getting all he has to give? Never.

Yes, he is not what he once was and should not be getting more than third pair minutes. But the example he sets for younger players is of immeasurable value, especially with a team comprised of so many such players.

He is not teaching anyone to be mediocre. He is teaching, by example, effort, professionalism, and how to continue on even in the light of severe injury.

I would bet that there are few players on the team held on higher esteem by younger players. He may not be a rah rah leader, but leadership comes in many forms. His contribution to this teams player development ethic is of immeasurable value.

If you can’t see that or understand that, than you really have little concept of how teams, people, or life works.

We would have been luckier if our 3 lottery balls landed us Sidney Crosby.

 

[BobMarleyNYR]

Do you know how lucky we are to have Staal?

When, in all the time he has been here has his effort been questioned? Never. When have we ever had to worry about about whether we are getting all he has to give? Never.

Yes, he is not what he once was and should not be getting more than third pair minutes. But the example he sets for younger players is of immeasurable value, especially with a team comprised of so many such players.

He is not teaching anyone to be mediocre. He is teaching, by example, effort, professionalism, and how to continue on even in the light of severe injury.

I would bet that there are few players on the team held on higher esteem by younger players. He may not be a rah rah leader, but leadership comes in many forms. His contribution to this teams player development ethic is of immeasurable value.

If you can’t see that or understand that, than you really have little concept of how teams, people, or life works.

He's no dummy either--what he can't teach by example, he can outline well from what it seem. I think he'd make a good coach in a few years.

 

[DutchShamrock]

We would have been luckier if our 3 lottery balls landed us Sidney Crosby.

4, and it was a farce of a system for that bad of a team to fall all the way to #16.

 

[effen]

Zack Smith is f***ing terrible please stop mentioning him anywhere close to this team.

 

[NYRKING30]

Zack Smith is ****ing terrible please stop mentioning him anywhere close to this team.

Nah bro it’s all about Curtis Lazar haha @Ola

 

[Cag29]

Do you know how lucky we are to have Staal?

When, in all the time he has been here has his effort been questioned? Never. When have we ever had to worry about about whether we are getting all he has to give? Never.

Yes, he is not what he once was and should not be getting more than third pair minutes. But the example he sets for younger players is of immeasurable value, especially with a team comprised of so many such players.

He is not teaching anyone to be mediocre. He is teaching, by example, effort, professionalism, and how to continue on even in the light of severe injury.

I would bet that there are few players on the team held on higher esteem by younger players. He may not be a rah rah leader, but leadership comes in many forms. His contribution to this teams player development ethic is of immeasurable value.

If you can’t see that or understand that, than you really have little concept of how teams, people, or life works.

Staal has been an excellent Ranger!

 

[RangerBlues]

I think we should print fake dollar bills with Panarin's face on it, with the phrase "Polliceor hoc dissimile erit" on the back.

I prefer "sine metu"

 

[EpicDing]

How would we feel on Jason Spezza on a 1 year 1-2 million deal? Insurance up the middle.

 

[Leetch3]

How would we feel on Jason Spezza on a 1 year 1-2 million deal? Insurance up the middle.

he doesn't seem to have much left in the tank but don't really care who we sign if its a 1 year deal only