Speculation: Roster Building Thread - Part XXVI

[duhmetreE]

Would there be a difference if it was all correlation and not causation really?

So it's just a coincidence that all Cup winners check off like 80-90% of these boxes and make up for shortcomings elsewhere? Even if it was, in the absence of knowing the real cause shouldn't we try to duplicate that correlation?

but we more than likely check off 80-90% of those boxes......

the ONLY question mark is 2C. Whether if Chytil earns that spot this season. A player like Barron fits in well with our high skill wingers. OR we go out and get a Larkin with our assets.

We literally check every box you've listed. The only undetermined one is what happens after Strome.

 

[mas0764]

So we need 3 top line centers?

Speculation: - Roster Building Thread - Part XXVI

To boil this down and make it a "checklist," for us, let's do that...

• Elite first-line centre that’s among the very best players in the world < -- Zibanejad (for now)
• Elite first-line winger to support the elite centre. <-- Panarin (for now)
• Two other top-line wingers on each of the top two lines. <-- Kakko and Lafreniere
• Top-line centre to play behind the elite centre. <-- We don't have this. Maybe Chytil. Probably not.
• Two more top-six forwards for depth in the middle six. <-- Kreider (for now) and Chytil
• Elite No. 1 defenceman. <-- Fox
• A second No. 1 defenceman to play behind him. <-- Who is this? Not sure. We have lots of options - Miller, Lundkvist, Schneider, Jones.
• A top pairing defenceman to help anchor a strong second pair with the No. 2. <-- the same suspects as above.
• Another top-pairing calibre defender to crush soft minutes on the third pair. <-- Lindgren? Robertson?
• A top 10 calibre starting goaltender. <--- Shesterkin

Chytil either checks the "second top line center" box (doubtful) or he checks one of the "two more top-six forwards," box. I assume the latter, and that's still projecting for him, but I think it's reasonable based on what we've seen that Chytil locks in as a good top 6 forward. Whether that's at center or wing is where this chart should be considered to have some flexibility probably. But if he's merely a top 6 center, then yes, you probably still need one more top center. If he moves to wing, then still yes, you need one top center and Chytil is a wing, so you only have two top line centers.

Either way Chytil can only fill ONE of those spots, not both, he's just one player. And I doubt he ever gets to "top line center."

We have more than enough skill on this roster.

Repeating a conclusion without evidence isn't much of an argument.

 

[mas0764]

but we more than likely check off 80-90% of those boxes......

the ONLY question mark is 2C. Whether if Chytil earns that spot this season. A player like Barron fits in well with our high skill wingers. OR we go out and get a Larkin with our assets.

We literally check every box you've listed. The only undetermined one is what happens after Strome.

We don't check off every box, I just showed you.

 

[Kravtsov420]

A former 9th overall pick who still has the talent to be a 60-70 point player, for Dylan Strome ? Yikes. Say what you want about said personality, but the the rebuild is turning to ashes in our mouth if even one of the big two don’t work out. This organization just does not know how to properly develop forward prospects. Sorry, but history is against the notion. And I fear lack of power play time (really points), it’s only a matter of time. The Rangers will waste a once in a lifetime of luck with the holier than though attitude. An attitude built from what exactly ? One cup since 1940, when six teams were in the league. I will never forgive this franchise for wasting it. I can already see people making excuses if Kakko or Laf don’t work out. “Don’t let the door hit you on the way out; terrible attitude, uRn It; year three and our first and second overall picks can’t get on the power play (and bullshit they aren’t good enough, they are). It’s because this organization’s arrogance is suffocating. When all the apples turn bad, it’s the tree. It’s the soil they were planted in.

 

[mas0764]

A former 9th overall pick who still has the talent to be a 60-70 point player, for Dylan Strome ? Yikes. Say what you want about said personality, but the the rebuild is turning to ashes in our mouth if even one of the big two don’t work out. This organization just does not know how to properly develop forward prospects. Sorry, but history is against the notion. And I fear lack of power play time (really points), it’s only a matter of time.

Exactly.

If one thing goes wrong we are short basically an unobtainable talent and will top out as a playoff team only.

We're not doing this smart.

 

[jay from jersey]

[QUOTE="mas0764, post: 180479201, member: 25858"]They don't pay a premium for it. Tampa Bay giving up late, late first round picks is not paying a premium.

Spending top 10 picks on it would be a premium, but teams don't do that. And that's exactly my point. The Rangers have a ton of late first rounders in their future arsenal.

Not so many top ten picks. That's the hard thing to get - the skill.



Nobody is denying that they are needed. I'm saying we have enough and need more skill. Empty platitudes about toughness aren't furthering any point.

And like I said, too many of the guys we imported won't move the needle anyway (Reaves, Hunt). The toughness we need is for our scorers to be tougher, but that will come from Kakko and Lafreniere simply growing and maturing.

On the flip side we could use 1-2 more 60-70 point scorers. One for now, one for the future when Panarin/Zbad are no longer elite. Kravtsov was supposed to be one but he's out the door. We definitely need at least his skill level replaced in the system.[/QUOTE]

Yes teams certainly pay a premium for it. Spending 1st rd draft picks to get a Goodrow and Coleman that are only signed for 2 years is a high price.
What Hyman got as a UFA is a high price
What we paid Goodrow
Buchnevich for Blais
Pitt trading a 1st for Reaves/Giving Tanev a huge deal.
I could go on and on..
You know what cal would want for mangipane??
Or NJD for Wood? I can guarantee you way more then anyone is going to want to pay.
I agree kakko and LaF will become tougher more physically stern on the puck as they mature, but you still need to surround these guys with players that are going to be physical on every shift. It’s better overall for the team, and it makes star players like Panarin feel they are less likely to be taken advantage of without repercussions etc.
Physical hockey also tends to get the Blood/compete level of everyone on the bench up.
It’s an attribute you can’t see on a chart or box score. Especially come playoff time.
I wouldn’t mind having 1-2 more kravys in the system at all. I’d hope they take more time to develop though, say 2-3 years down the road, so don’t have to deal with one demanding out over lack of opportunity.

 

[mas0764]

Yes teams certainly pay a premium for it. Spending 1st rd draft picks to get a Goodrow and Coleman that are only signed for 2 years is a high price.

Call it whatever term you want. There is a difference between the price Tampa pays for Goodrow and Coleman (late first, in the late 20s even), versus the type of picks needed to land Kravtsovs, Kakkos and Lafrenieres (top 10 picks).

There's also a difference in between the contracts a Panarin or Zibanejad or Kucherov or Stamkos demands versus what a Coleman or Goodrow demands.

Skill is premium.

Grit is secondary.

I agree kakko and LaF will become tougher more physically stern on the puck as they mature, but you still need to surround these guys with players that are going to be physical on every shift.

We've done that. Goodrow, Blais, Rooney. How many more do we need?

 

[jay from jersey]

Call it whatever term you want. There is a difference between the price Tampa pays for Goodrow and Coleman (late first, in the late 20s even), versus the type of picks needed to land Kravtsovs, Kakkos and Lafrenieres (top 10 picks).

There's also a difference in between the contracts a Panarin or Zibanejad or Kucherov or Stamkos demands versus what a Coleman or Goodrow demands.

Skill is premium.

Grit is secondary.



We've done that. Goodrow, Blais, Rooney. How many more do we need?

Im not taking about adding more now. But your changing the argument. Yes, we’ve added them this offseason, and they were sorely needed at this time. Much more then a kravtsov is.
No one is happy he’s demanding a trade, but he doesn’t want to be in the A. He sees the way this team is constructed currently, and what we have coming in the near future, and doesn’t like his odds of opportunities/time
Skill=Grit
Teams risk a lot to get one or the other.
Your not going to win without both.

Having one or the other will only get you so far.
Guys who score and put up points especially top 5 picks of course garner more value.
They also have higher contracts because that’s what they are paid to do.

I just think we have vastly different views of what Krav is as a player at this point. He’s got the size/tools but he’s not a can’t miss premium offensive talent.
His size and skill got him to this point. It’s also got him drafted top 10. But every year we see guys for whatever reason not being able to take that next step. Part of its their own fault, sometimes other factors come into play.

it’s why players like the Tkachuk brothers are taken over guys that may posses more pure skill. Having the total package of Grit/skill is what every coach and GM is after.
Don’t get me wrong, there’s superstars like panarin Crosby etc. they are tough and have amazing talent. That kind of skill is on another level.
But finding a 50-60 fwd which Kravy likely projects to be at this point, isn’t a major major loss. That can be found in the ladder parts of the 1st/2md rd

 

[duhmetreE]

Speculation: - Roster Building Thread - Part XXVI

To boil this down and make it a "checklist," for us, let's do that...

• Elite first-line centre that’s among the very best players in the world < -- Zibanejad (for now)
• Elite first-line winger to support the elite centre. <-- Panarin (for now)
• Two other top-line wingers on each of the top two lines. <-- Kakko and Lafreniere
• Top-line centre to play behind the elite centre. <-- We don't have this. Maybe Chytil. Probably not.
• Two more top-six forwards for depth in the middle six. <-- Kreider (for now) and Chytil
• Elite No. 1 defenceman. <-- Fox
• A second No. 1 defenceman to play behind him. <-- Who is this? Not sure. We have lots of options - Miller, Lundkvist, Schneider, Jones.
• A top pairing defenceman to help anchor a strong second pair with the No. 2. <-- the same suspects as above.
• Another top-pairing calibre defender to crush soft minutes on the third pair. <-- Lindgren? Robertson?
• A top 10 calibre starting goaltender. <--- Shesterkin

Chytil either checks the "second top line center" box (doubtful) or he checks one of the "two more top-six forwards," box. I assume the latter, and that's still projecting for him, but I think it's reasonable based on what we've seen that Chytil locks in as a good top 6 forward. Whether that's at center or wing is where this chart should be considered to have some flexibility probably. But if he's merely a top 6 center, then yes, you probably still need one more top center. If he moves to wing, then still yes, you need one top center and Chytil is a wing, so you only have two top line centers.



Repeating a conclusion without evidence isn't much of an argument.

you're asking something that's impossible to answer. We can't predict the future. We are loaded on defense, the cream will rise to the top. There's not only 1 option. If I told you last year, this time, Fox is our #1 you would have scoffed.

Kids are growing and developing into their roles. We have a lot of them. Only answers come from games being played.

What we've lacked is gamers. Guys that show up in big games. We do not know who these players will be until they, once again, actually play the games...

If I told you McDonagh Cernak is the best shutdown pair 2 years ago you would have scoffed.

 

[EdJovanovski]

you're asking something that's impossible to answer. We can't predict the future. We are loaded on defense, the cream will rise to the top. There's not only 1 option. If I told you last year, this time, Fox is our #1 you would have scoffed.

Kids are growing and developing into their roles. We have a lot of them. Only answers come from games being played.

What we've lacked is gamers. Guys that show up in big games. We do not know who these players will be until they, once again, actually play the games...

If I told you McDonagh Cernak is the best shutdown pair 2 years ago you would have scoffed. Analytics would have said otherwise.

If only we had the highest KHL playoff scoring prospect of all time

 

[duhmetreE]

If only we had the highest KHL playoff scoring prospect of all time

He did it to himself.

 

[mas0764]

you're asking something that's impossible to answer. We can't predict the future. We are loaded on defense, the cream will rise to the top. There's not only 1 option. If I told you last year, this time, Fox is our #1 you would have scoffed.

Actually, I would have easily believed that Fox becomes an elite D.

But setting that aside, I don't understand your point. So because we don't know if we might have enough skill, we should do nothing?

You said "we have enough skill."

Any available evidence really suggests that we don't, in comparison to Cup winners. We probably need one more top piece on hand that we can identify at this time as being in the system.

And if you want to get proactive, two would be even better to insulate for the future or in case something else goes wrong (which doesn't seem like a bad bet at this point).

Kids are growing and developing into their roles. We have a lot of them. Only answers come from games being played.

Oh, so just do nothing until we are sure what Kakko and Laf and Chytil and everyone else is when fully developed, so as not to threaten their roster spots?

What could go wrong with that plan?

Overinvest in talent.

Then let it sort out.

What we've lacked is gamers. Guys that show up in big games. We do not know who these players will be until they, once again, actually play the games...

This is like the fourth time you've stated that conclusion without any support for it. Posting it again won't help.

Obviously we needed gamers, and we added some.

We also still need 1-2 top forwards. Per historical context.

 

[bhamill]

Luckily the entire league, except the NYR management, coaching and a majority of their fans, can see Kravtsov's extremely high value. That he has absolutely shown he's a top six forward on most teams, and has a wonderful attitude, it's just the NYRs mucking the situation up. This ENSURES NYR get a very good return for him; calamity: averted.
Unless of course Kravtsov has shit value as a primadonna, that hasn't shown all that much, around the league... then maybe there's a 2nd rounder coming back.
Guess we will see what hockey minds REALLY think of him.

 

[RGY]

If only we had the highest KHL playoff scoring prospect of all time

He is? I must have missed that in the KHL record books…

 

[EdJovanovski]

He is? I must have missed that in the KHL record books…

Yes

 

[bbny]

A former 9th overall pick who still has the talent to be a 60-70 point player, for Dylan Strome ? Yikes. Say what you want about said personality, but the the rebuild is turning to ashes in our mouth if even one of the big two don’t work out. This organization just does not know how to properly develop forward prospects. Sorry, but history is against the notion. And I fear lack of power play time (really points), it’s only a matter of time. The Rangers will waste a once in a lifetime of luck with the holier than though attitude. An attitude built from what exactly ? One cup since 1940, when six teams were in the league. I will never forgive this franchise for wasting it. I can already see people making excuses if Kakko or Laf don’t work out. “Don’t let the door hit you on the way out; terrible attitude, uRn It; year three and our first and second overall picks can’t get on the power play (and bullshit they aren’t good enough, they are). It’s because this organization’s arrogance is suffocating. When all the apples turn bad, it’s the tree. It’s the soil they were planted in.

How so? There have been quite a few forward prospects who have been developed here over the last 10-15 years. Two immature kids who decided they would rather whine their way out the door doesn't change that.

Not saying the Rangers are perfect at it, but they are far from incompetent.

 

[NYR Viper]

Again, the team has holes, that's not a surprise. The team has assets it can utilize to plug those holes when the need presents itself clearly. Right now there are a lot of unknowns because the young players are developing. That's okay. Just them improving will make a big difference. If they find they need another high end center and someone like Larkin or other becomes available, they can target that specific asset and go get them.

 

[McRanger92]

Would there be a difference if it was all correlation and not causation really?

So it's just a coincidence that all Cup winners check off like 80-90% of these boxes and make up for shortcomings elsewhere? Even if it was, in the absence of knowing the real cause shouldn't we try to duplicate that correlation?

If the Islanders or Knights broke through and won the Cup in the past few years would that change things? Both teams have been unlucky bounces away and they dont check all the boxes for what a "true contender" is. Montreal was probably the worst team on paper in the entire playoffs last year and they got all the way to the Final. We can debate the merits of it all day but i think too many fans and analysts are tied to a team/players play driving metrics or future value based on these predictive models. Things that actually happened (wins/losses) mean more than what these models predict might happen

A good example on the player side is Mika Zibanejad. Has his play driving and defense gotten worse because of anything he did? Or has he just been playing for a bad team compared to the ones he was on earlier in his career, which is objectively true. Context is important.

Maybe im ranting a bit now, but ive found recently that everything being tied back to analytics has made fandom less enjoyable. Everyone is always angry about something

 

[New York RKY]

Yes

Wait, what? He’s ranked 208th all time in playoff scoring.

 

[NYR Viper]

I don't think what @mas0764 is all that argumentative guys. We are all saying pretty much the same thing.

1) The young players need to continue to develop
2) The Rangers are not a finished product in terms of acquisitions
3) This will more than likely be a transition year

In saying all of that, the team should be more enjoyable to watch and take a step forward. There will be bumps. Players will have ups and downs. By this time next year, the management team should have a firmer grasp on where young players like Miller, Chytil, Lafreniere, Kaako, Lundkvist and others are at and where they need to add and where they can back-fill with other talented youngsters as those kids develop.

Perhaps the layout from Dom Ldfkljwqnafdlkjsnd err's on the side of requiring too high of a bar for teams to strive for, that's his nuanced take based on his data. It doesn't make it a bad goal to have though.

I would say that adding another 45-55 point player would be helpful in general. It's part of the reason having Kreider on the 3rd line was so attractive in general because developing another top-6 forward would alleviate that concern a bit. In saying that, Kravtsov turned out to be a giant baby and the team will look to source that elsewhere. Based on his antics I'm not sure I would want him around a young developing roster anyways. Again, not a finished product.

 

[jay from jersey]

Yeah, the more I think about it, I think I push the chips to the center for Eichel now more than ever.

Can I talk Buffalo into Kravtsov as a major part (but not the only major part) of the package? Then definitely yes.

Kravtsov, Strome, Jones, first to Buffalo, Trouba to some other team for picks.

By next year

Panarin - Zibanejad - Kakko
Lafreniere - Eichel - Chytil
Kreider - Barron - Goodrow
Blais - Rooney - Hunt/Reaves

Lindgren - Fox
Miller - Lundkvist
Robertson - Schneider

Berard, Panjuniemi, and Othmann in the wings. You still need to find more forward talent for the mid term future but Eichel's presence really buys you time since he's elite and he fills the hardest hole to fill moving forward, 1C for when Zibanejad declines.

I agree there’s still probably some minor interest. They likely need a 3rd team to eat some cap. It’s unlikely but still possible.
I also think that should be the what you have listed above should have been the 3rd like to start this year, let alone next.
We’ve got too many bodies still
Lafreniere-Zibby-Blais/Kakko
Panarin-Chytil/ trade-Blais/kakko
Kreider-Barron-Goodrow
Hunt-Rooney/Richards/UFA-Reaves

The possible upgrade of Chytil if he can’t handle 2C, or adding a UFA/trade for a wing upgrade if needed. But that’s secondary imo. That line up has more then enough talent and Balance

 

[duhmetreE]

Actually, I would have easily believed that Fox becomes an elite D.

But setting that aside, I don't understand your point. So because we don't know if we might have enough skill, we should do nothing?

You said "we have enough skill."

Any available evidence really suggests that we don't, in comparison to Cup winners. We probably need one more top piece on hand that we can identify at this time as being in the system.

And if you want to get proactive, two would be even better to insulate for the future or in case something else goes wrong (which doesn't seem like a bad bet at this point).



Oh, so just do nothing until we are sure what Kakko and Laf and Chytil and everyone else is when fully developed, so as not to threaten their roster spots?

What could go wrong with that plan?

Overinvest in talent.

Then let it sort out.



This is like the fourth time you've stated that conclusion without any support for it. Posting it again won't help.

Obviously we needed gamers, and we added some.

We also still need 1-2 top forwards. Per historical context.

We are over invested in talent. Especially on defense.

The difference this season is we have more depth to our attack. We're not a homogenous finesse skill team this season. I'm only talking about this season. It seems like you're asking for last years roster. A homogenous finesse team.

Our top6 is just as good as Tampa's top6 and we're on the upswing
Panarin, Zibs, Lafreniere, Kakko, Kreider, Strome
Kucherov, Point, Stamkos, Palat, Killorn, Cirelli

Our bottom6 has been bolstered. Chytil, Goodrow, Blais, Rooney, Reaves, Hunt, Gauthier. That's about as good a bottom6, talent wise. Barron waiting in the wings.

Our defense is the question mark because they are young and developing. KAM, Jones, Robertson, Lundkvist and Schneider. Long term, we need 2, maybe 3, out of the bunch to set themselves apart. I still think KAM Trouba can be that matchup pair. Nemeth Lundkvist is as good as a 3rd pair can get.

You're nitpicking and underselling things. Kravtsov throwing a tantrum is unfortunate. Even without him we still have more than enough talent to win. You want definitive answers for next years roster but there's no definitive answers for next year.

Does Chytil impress and take the role? Barron fills in the bottom6?
Does Strome get re-signed to a team friendly deal?
Do they trade for Larkin?

What is your answer? Trade for Eichel? that's not realistic anymore.

 

[Chytilmania]

Let's be real for a second. We would love Kakko and Laf to get 60-70 points. Who on Earth was thinking Krav is hitting that anytime soon?

He would need 1st/2nd line mins plus PP1 time. For the next couple of years I don't see him being more than a 20/20 player.

 

[EdJovanovski]

Wait, what? He’s ranked 208th all time in playoff scoring.

I said prospect, so at that age

 

[mas0764]

If the Islanders or Knights broke through and won the Cup in the past few years would that change things?

Would it change what things? Would it change Dom L's formula? Sure, every winner changes the formula because it's new data and the new win shares change the formula a little. I doubt it would change the results drastically.

Even if they are a logical outlier, they are an outlier. Why would I try to construct my team after the Islanders when I have the opportunity to try to emulate the Penguins, Kings or Lightning instead? Why are people so hell bent on defending a minority approach to success? Is it because the Rangers have what they have and the fans don't have confidence in obtaining more talent so they have to tell themselves this is good enough and damn anyone who suggests the team may not have enough to win it all?

Both teams have been unlucky bounces away and they dont check all the boxes for what a "true contender" is. Montreal was probably the worst team on paper in the entire playoffs last year and they got all the way to the Final.

I would posit there is a reason those scrappy non-conformist teams don't win the actual Final, kind of like how the Rangers didn't. The Rangers really needed one more high scoring forward of their own back then.

We can debate the merits of it all day but i think too many fans and analysts are tied to a team/players play driving metrics or future value based on these predictive models. Things that actually happened (wins/losses) mean more than what these models predict might happen

It's not the end-all, be-all, but there's no better predictor. Certainly not the "eye test." Certainly not indignant insistences that "we have enough talent already because I said so!"

I'm convinced that people don't like the idea because it means more change, and more change means fan favorites like Kreider or Zibanejad might have to be part of that change. It might take too long and then Kreider isn't here to win it.

Oh well.

A good example on the player side is Mika Zibanejad. Has his play driving and defense gotten worse because of anything he did? Or has he just been playing for a bad team compared to the ones he was on earlier in his career, which is objectively true. Context is important.

Well, like I said, it's not the be-all, end-all, but I don't know what else to say when the numbers show what they show, and the argument is that we need more talent. The response is "no we don't, we don't want to be a better team?" Huh?

Maybe im ranting a bit now, but ive found recently that everything being tied back to analytics has made fandom less enjoyable. Everyone is always angry about something

Well I am finding the anti-analytic crowd to be the angry side. But again I think those people tend to be the old-school ones and they hate change, and they love winning with veterans and grit and toughness. And they love for everyone to pay their dues and get their turn.

They don't like these challenges to the old order. They don't like the idea of losing begetting winning. They don't like free agency and mercenaries.

I understand all that. But the facts are facts. The evidence says the Rangers were not shoe-ins even with Kravtsov meeting expectations.

Now that he's gone, how can anyone fricking say we don't need to replace a player with his potential? Of course we do.