Speculation: Roster Building thread - Part XVII - (TDL is March 7th)

[duhmetreE]

What would a McLeod + Byram package look like?

Schneider +

 

[Boris Zubov]

Lindgren/Vodka getting almost 20 mins should be a riot

LOL. We'll all need some shots if Lavi makes them his top pair.

 

[TheDirtyH]

But Boris agrees with me almost to the letter. It’s not only about what those charts say, it’s also the eye test, and my eye test has never told me that Fox was an exceptional defensive zone defender. Again, I didn’t say not good. I said not exceptional, in his own end only. So that’s me combining my eye test and the analytics. But, because I also believe everything you’re saying is valid and I’m sitting in a hospital room with the lady because she had to be admitted for dehydration and vomiting (she’s pregnant - turns out she has flu on top of the usual nausea, which I am now developing all the symptoms of) with nothing better to do, I’ll look up as many D as I can think of and where their partners rank and report back.

I'm sorry for the lady, hope you two are ok

You don't have to be so exhaustive. Much of this data isn't public, I don't think. but OTOH, I'd be curious to see it.

If you and Boris are saying the same thing, great. I guess I can get behind it. I think you can admit that most of the talk pointed in Fox's direction the last month or so has not been so reasonable a take.

And, just for example on that (the Fox "discourse"): if Fox is at once a good (not great) defender and a fabulously talented offensive player (top 6 in his 'worst season') should I really take seriously the idea that there's 6 defensemen who should be ahead of him on the USA depth chart? Whether or not there are, or will be, is irrelevant to me... You know where I land on that question, and frankly, as someone who's also not a 'chart-o-phile', I can't comprehend the glazing over the USA defense's performance at that tournament. They went 2-2 and lost in the only game that mattered. (obviously a different conversation, just digressing...)

 

[The Crypto Guy]

Country club memberships need to be revoked

Yea it's pretty obvious why. Wouldnt want to upset the country club boys.

 

[NickyFotiu]

shut Fox down for the season. Let him heal up, and then this summer get him on an intense workout program + skating with barb underhill. This guy needs to step up his training.

I kind of feel the same way but I do not know if they will make that decision this soon while in a playoff race. More likely will let him heal and see how things go while he is healing.

 

[HatTrick Swayze]

I partially used the player cards because they’re so often used in the opposite direction - I’m not a proponent of them, personally. I don’t necessarily have a problem with the model - and I don’t have a problem with Fox grading out as a better net positive than the other two (I can’t confirm or deny top 5 because I only ran 5 players). I’m fine with the notion that his offensive contributions are significant enough to have him top 5 in overall impact and I’m also positive that if I started running all the D men I can think of he won’t be top ~20-30 defensively. That means his offensive contribution is huge and enough to still make him a significant net positive, but also lends credibility to the conversation that he’s not as effective in the D zone as some seem to think. Does that mean you throw him away? No, as I said, some people advocate for a full rebuild, and there’s some merit to it, and in that scenario it makes sense to move him. That’s not the same thing as banishing him because he suddenly sucks. But it also doesn’t mean I can’t state that I don’t believe Fox is a particularly great (didnt say good) DEFENDER. He’s a great defenseman because of his overall impact, but it is my opinion that his physical limitations show themselves more significantly in the defensive zone where he is a good but not great player. World class offensively, good defensively. That shouldn’t offend people, but some - no names nor pointed fingers - take issue to any bad word said against him because he CHOSE us and of course, he’s the best player we’ve had since Leetch.

The issue is that people are coming out of the woodwork to harp on his shortcomings, and glossing over the point you yourself make "he’s a great defenseman because of his overall impact"

Isn't my team outchancing and outscoring the opposition, ultimately the end goal of what we are trying to do here? If they do that overwhelmingly when a given player is on the ice, across competition, yes even in the playoffs, shouldn't that ultimately be the largest part of player evaluation?

The culture of this sport is obsessed with physical characteristics, size and strength in the corners and netfront particularly, dating back to the 70s with the Summit Series and the Broadstreet Bullies. These characteristics have been the defining branding of 'Canadian hockey' in contrast to 'European hockey' for 50+ years. This distinction has been passed down from generation to generation through the hockey media, youth hockey coaches, and fan to fan. Given that being a former player raised in this culture is the surest way into NHL coaching, management, and media positions, this narrative continues to be dominant to this day, and seeps into all decision making.

And before you mistake me - I'm not saying it's a false bias, or grounded in untruths. The idea that size and strength presents and advantage in many areas of NHL hockey IS correct. However it is far too often used as a primary consideration when evaluating a player's effectiveness, usually via the eye test. "Fox looks slow" "Fox lost his man in front of the net again" "Wow Fox got pushed around the the corner" "The game is moving too fast for this guy" is all we seem to hear from certain posters. If his net results are still good, how much should we care? Are these perceived issues a predictor of future results, or a blow to our own ego i.e. how could he be that good, if I think he looks so slow and weak?

 

[SnowblindNYR]

The irony of K'Andre in a no-contact jersey....oh, the irony.

I feel like it's the opposite of irony. Irony is what you DON'T expect to happen.

 

[Boris Zubov]

But Boris agrees with me almost to the letter (based on our own conversations, my assumption reading his post about eye test plus stats is that when he said “defender” he meant player who is a defenseman, if I’m wrong I apologize). It’s not only about what those charts say, it’s also the eye test, and my eye test has never told me that Fox was an exceptional defensive zone defender. Again, I didn’t say not good. I said not exceptional, in his own end only. So that’s me combining my eye test and the analytics. But, because I also believe everything you’re saying is valid and I’m sitting in a hospital room with the lady because she had to be admitted for dehydration and vomiting (she’s pregnant - turns out she has flu on top of the usual nausea, which I am now developing all the symptoms of) with nothing better to do, I’ll look up as many D as I can think of and where their partners rank and report back.

Hope you guys feel better. Hang in there.

I would say this about Fox. I think his play trending down is alarming, but there's a couple of factors that cannot be discounted when evaluating him the past 2 years. One are the injuries, two is the absolute anchor for a partner he's been saddled with. I think the org would be best served to see where the team is in relation to the standings before rushing him back for a stretch run that may never materialize. If they're a long shot to make the playoffs I would hope they would just let him extend his offseason so he can heal up. They also need to correct their failure of the past few years to upgrade the 1LD spot.

I'm not an huge analytics believer for a few reasons, but the comment @GoAwayPanarin made earlier in this thread is probably the biggest reason why. When presented with a list of players, his response was this set of of stats wasn't as valuable as another services'. So who's right & which numbers hold more weight? It seems too arbitrary & there's way too much data to consider when considering individual players. I feel like they can be a good road map, but they're not the be all, end all that many would have us believe. There needs to be a middle ground between what the numbers say & what they eye test tells us. If not, there would be entire scouting departments out of a job.

 

[I Eat Crow]

yes lets pay a 30 year old defensive defenseman 7.5x7, that’ll fix everything

Where did I suggest that amount of years and dollar amount? If a team wants to YOLO it and give him that, good for him.

He's the exact type of defenseman this team needs. Top 4 LHD that's a minute eater that can take the tough defensive match ups. The cupboard is absolutely barren.

 

[LokiDog]

I'm sorry for the lady, hope you two are ok

You don't have to be so exhaustive. Much of this data isn't public, I don't think. but OTOH, I'd be curious to see it.

If you and Boris are saying the same thing, great. I guess I can get behind it. I think you can admit that most of the talk pointed in Fox's direction the last month or so has not been so reasonable a take.

And, just for example on that (the Fox "discourse"): if Fox is at once a good (not great) defender and a fabulously talented offensive player (top 6 in his 'worst season') should I really take seriously the idea that there's 6 defensemen who should be ahead of him on the USA depth chart? Whether or not there are, or will be, is irrelevant to me... You know where I land on that question, and frankly, as someone who's also not a 'chart-o-phile', I can't comprehend the glazing over the USA defense's performance at that tournament. They went 2-2 and lost in the only game that mattered. (obviously a different conversation, just digressing...)

There’s obviously frustration and piling on. I would say that this season he’s been worse than he’s capable of in the defensive zone as well, so what’s normally good is currently kinda meh, which could have informed his usage at 4N (which as you said, tiny and mostly irrelevant sample size). I think the thing that’s mostly at play there is some people catching a hint of a shifting perception around Fox league wide which may be that he’s a fabulous all around asset and huge net positive but not the top 5 OVERALL D that he may have once been viewed as. And that created panic and anger around “depreciating asset” “we always hold on to players too long” blah blah blah. Of course, the rampant assigning of NMCs doesn’t help because you simply can’t get out of those contracts if the player doesn’t want to waive down the road. But yes, there’s a piling on and an overreaction. At the same time, I do think that swinging for the 2 year retool is probably wishful thinking and we’re going to be in a full rebuild by 2027 no matter what, so this moment in time where NMCs haven’t kicked in and players are still under 30 is a unique time in their valuation and what happens to us if we do have to go scorched earth 2 years from now and he’s 29 with a full NMC. Basically the organization created the exact opposite of the perfect storm that creates a Cup or two; a perfect shit storm of players at diverging ages and windows, lots of NMCs, a bare prospect cupboard and a poor overall mix of skill sets to compliment each other.

 

[I Eat Crow]

View attachment 983799
Really, really excellent player.

An under the radar guy who will become a big name if he ends up on the right team, and then get overpaid on the following contract.

Would love to get him before that.

Is Buffalo really going to trade him after giving up a top 10 pick for him? I agree with the theory of it but I don't think this has any chance of happening.

 

[I Eat Crow]

What would a McLeod + Byram package look like?

Starts with Kreider and Perreault. Nothing I'm ok with giving up.

 

[HatTrick Swayze]

There’s obviously frustration and piling on. I would say that this season he’s been worse than he’s capable of in the defensive zone as well, so what’s normally good is currently kinda meh, which could have informed his usage at 4N (which as you said, tiny and mostly irrelevant sample size). I think the thing that’s mostly at play there is some people catching a hint of a shifting perception around Fox league wide which may be that he’s a fabulous all around asset and huge net positive but not the top 5 OVERALL D that he may have once been viewed as. And that created panic and anger around “depreciating asset” “we always hold on to players too long” blah blah blah. Of course, the rampant assigning of NMCs doesn’t help because you simply can’t get out of those contracts if the player doesn’t want to waive down the road. But yes, there’s a piling on and an overreaction. At the same time, I do think that swinging for the 2 year retool is probably wishful thinking and we’re going to be in a full rebuild by 2027 no matter what, so this moment in time where NMCs haven’t kicked in and players are still under 30 is a unique time in their valuation and what happens to us if we do have to go scorched earth 2 years from now and he’s 29 with a full NMC. Basically the organization created the exact opposite of the perfect storm that creates a Cup or two; a perfect shit storm of players at diverging ages and windows, lots of NMCs, a bare prospect cupboard and a poor overall mix of skill sets to compliment each other.

Sorry know I’m injecting myself into this convo but FWIW I completely agree with the bolded. It's why I was always against the "2 windows" idea, it has always made no sense from a timing and peaking standpoint. Typical NYR half measures and shortsightedness.

 

[Lindberg Cheese]

Can Panarin/Fortescue to VGK for Hertl/Hague be a viable option in the offseason?

 

[Boris Zubov]

Starts with Kreider and Perreault. Nothing I'm ok with giving up.

No it doesn't. McLeod isn't THAT valuable where Gabe would be a reasonable ask.

 

[will1066]

I have a feeling Lindgren and Vaakanainen will work. Both their names end with "en."

 

[UnSandvich]

To me, Fox defensively is a very weird sorta thing. He is very obviously not very good at the physical netfront boxout kind of plays that a “classic defenseman” is. I would also argue that this season his transition work hasn’t been as effective.

What he *is* surprisingly good at is coming away with the puck on the boards, and intercepting the puck as a result of reading the play. The old adage of “the puck finds him” is I think a very accurate descriptor of Fox in the D zone

 

[TheDirtyH]

Hope you guys feel better. Hang in there.

I would say this about Fox. I think his play trending down is alarming, but there's a couple of factors that cannot be discounted when evaluating him the past 2 years. One are the injuries, two is the absolute anchor for a partner he's been saddled with. I think the org would be best served to see where the team is in relation to the standings before rushing him back for a stretch run that may never materialize. If they're a long shot to make the playoffs I would hope they would just let him extend his offseason so he can heal up. They also need to correct their failure of the past few years to upgrade the 1LD spot.

I'm not an huge analytics believer for a few reasons, but the comment @GoAwayPanarin made earlier in this thread is probably the biggest reason why. When presented with a list of players, his response was this set of of stats wasn't as valuable as another services'. So who's right & which numbers hold more weight? It seems too arbitrary & there's way too much data to consider when considering individual players. I feel like they can be a good road map, but they're not the be all, end all that many would have us believe. There needs to be a middle ground between what the number say & what they eye test tells us. If not, there would be entire scouting departments out of a job.

To your and @HatTrick Swayze 's points here, I think the "eye test" is also something that has more value in conversation because what you see and how you evaluate a player is subject to what you look for. I think Fox is a fascinating, if imperfect, defender. I think that what makes him a very good defender are qualities that pair perfectly with K. Miller and Lindgren of past seasons. Because Fox isn't particularly strong as an attacking-defender from a standstill. He doesn't have the reach, speed, or strength to close on players that bigger, faster, stronger players can.

But Fox is a fairly unique and very 'new-age' player in that his strengths defensively are in his anticipation, decisiveness, and ability to problem-solve in real time faster than other players. He doesn't just lose puck races, he knows in advance whether or not he will, and he positions himself in such a way not to compensate exactly, but to direct the play next, before the player with the puck has decided what to do with it in most cases. Fox is always steering his opponents to their least valuable play, especially when it seems they have the upper hand on him.

He mitigates and manages play in the defensive zone. That's why, especially in the aggregate, he's grades fantastically in scoring chance differentials. A player like Miller, who is absolutely inept in these facets of the game, compliments Fox so well because his strengths compensate for the times that Fox can't be ahead of the play and manage it pre-emptively. And Fox also can direct a player like Miller, play off of him and direct his opposition in a way that takes Miller's strengths into consideration.

All that's to say, that in a one-game series, the importance of Fox having a partner who can compensate for his weaknesses rather than accentuate them (Lindgren), makes an enormous difference. And it's why in large-scale samples, it seems less important. JMO.

Point is, I think Fox can be a site of huge variation of opinion and evaluation, but that variance could be a cause for really fun and interesting discussion. Instead the "Fox discourse" has basically been: "he's too slow and small and Fox Mafia will hate me for saying so."

 

[LokiDog]

Starts with Kreider and Perreault. Nothing I'm ok with giving up.

Like @Boris Zubov said, I don’t think so. Schneider for sure - they need RD. With Fox and Borgen signed though I’d be willing to move a young RD for a still young LD. Byram has very good upside still. Injuries plus him being surplus with Dahlin/Power signed long term on the left and him possibly not wanting to extend in Buffalo allows him to be a solid buy low target. McLeod is also an RFA who may not want to sign there and he doesn’t have the kind of value to get Perreault. I think you could get Byram and McLeod for Schneider + Chmelar/Laba or Schneider + Kaliyev + 2nd. Buffalo would covet a physical young RHD.

 

[Machinehead]

Can Panarin/Fortescue to VGK for Hertl/Hague be a viable option in the offseason?

Hertl has declined pretty hard.

Still decent but no longer the play-driver we're lacking.

He's more of a "soak up points" type of guy these days. Leans a lot on the powerplay.

 

[McRanger92]

I would love to make a deal with Buffalo where we can get a young center and a young defenseman but the NMCs make it difficult. Feels like we need to acquire assets for Panarin/Kreider/Mika first and then work on using them to add.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

The issue is that people are coming out of the woodwork to harp on his shortcomings, and glossing over the point you yourself make "he’s a great defenseman because of his overall impact"

Isn't my team outchancing and outscoring the opposition, ultimately the end goal of what we are trying to do here? If they do that overwhelmingly when a given player is on the ice, across competition, yes even in the playoffs, shouldn't that ultimately be the largest part of player evaluation?

The culture of this sport is obsessed with physical characteristics, size and strength in the corners and netfront particularly, dating back to the 70s with the Summit Series and the Broadstreet Bullies. These characteristics have been the defining branding of 'Canadian hockey' in contrast to 'European hockey' for 50+ years. This distinction has been passed down from generation to generation through the hockey media, youth hockey coaches, and fan to fan. Given that being a former player raised in this culture is the surest way into NHL coaching, management, and media positions, this narrative continues to be dominant to this day, and seeps into all decision making.

And before you mistake me - I'm not saying it's a false bias, or grounded in untruths. The idea that size and strength presents and advantage in many areas of NHL hockey IS correct. However it is far too often used as a primary consideration when evaluating a player's effectiveness, usually via the eye test. "Fox looks slow" "Fox lost his man in front of the net again" "Wow Fox got pushed around the the corner" "The game is moving too fast for this guy" is all we seem to hear from certain posters. If his net results are still good, how much should we care? Are these perceived issues a predictor of future results, or a blow to our own ego i.e. how could he be that good, if I think he looks so slow and weak?

My mom walked into the room and I had close my tab when reading this post it was that sexy! Best post I've read here in years!

 

[Boris Zubov]

To your and @HatTrick Swayze 's points here, I think the "eye test" is also something that has more value in conversation because what you see and how you evaluate a player is subject to what you look for. I think Fox is a fascinating, if imperfect, defender. I think that what makes him a very good defender are qualities that pair perfectly with K. Miller and Lindgren of past seasons. Because Fox isn't particularly strong as an attacking-defender from a standstill. He doesn't have the reach, speed, or strength to close on players that bigger, faster, stronger players can.

But Fox is a fairly unique and very 'new-age' player in that his strengths defensively are in his anticipation, decisiveness, and ability to problem-solve in real time faster than other players. He doesn't just lose puck races, he knows in advance whether or not he will, and he positions himself in such a way not to compensate exactly, but to direct the play next, before the player with the puck has decided what to do with it in most cases. Fox is always steering his opponents to their least valuable play, especially when it seems they have the upper hand on him.

He mitigates and manages play in the defensive zone. That's why, especially in the aggregate, he's grades fantastically in scoring chance differentials. A player like Miller, who is absolutely inept in these facets of the game, compliments Fox so well because his strengths compensate for the times that Fox can't be ahead of the play and manage it pre-emptively. And Fox also can direct a player like Miller, play off of him and direct his opposition in a way that takes Miller's strengths into consideration.

All that's to say, that in a one-game series, the importance of Fox having a partner who can compensate for his weaknesses rather than accentuate them (Lindgren), makes an enormous difference. And it's why in large-scale samples, it seems less important. JMO.

Point is, I think Fox can be a site of huge variation of opinion and evaluation, but that variance could be a cause for really fun and interesting discussion. Instead the "Fox discourse" has basically been: "he's too slow and small and Fox Mafia will hate me for saying so."

What you're saying about Fox's anticipation & IQ is, IMO, is the only thing that allows him to compete as such as high level defenseman. I'm going to catch heat for this, but he plays the position like Wayne Gretzky would've if he was a d-man. He doesn't skate to where the puck is, he skates to a spot to where the put will be. I've seen Fox lose multiple puck races to the corners only to put himself in position to either take away the passing lane entirely or intercept the pass itself. Unfortunately, we haven't seen that enough this season, for whatever reason.

With that said, I do believe there are things he can be doing to improve the physical part of his game, mainly training harder in the off season. I will say, I hate that this has become such a recurring theme for so many players on this team.

 

[Machinehead]

I would love to make a deal with Buffalo where we can get a young center and a young defenseman but the NMCs make it difficult. Feels like we need to acquire assets for Panarin/Kreider/Mika first and then work on using them to add.

In retrospect, I would have liked to swoop in on Buffalo a couple of years back when the vibe would have been "we're almost ready, we just need a couple of vets now."

I don't think Buffalo would believe that at this point. They're pretty clearly towards the cellar.

 

[Boris Zubov]

Hertl has declined pretty hard.

Still decent but no longer the play-driver we're lacking.

He's more of a "soak up points" type of guy these days. Leans a lot on the powerplay.

I wanted him 3 years ago, but in that time he had yet another knee procedure & looks like he's declined hard.