Speculation: Roster Building Thread XXXVI: The End (The Apocalypse Is Now)

[Oscar Lindberg]

Miller should go back for his junior year.

It would do him good if he plays more and he would play more in the AHL, but I'm semi concerned if he signs the team will get desperate at some point next year and bring him up when he's not ready.

I'd say let him continue to work on his game at Wisconsin another year, sign him after the season is over

 

[SA16]

Yes but if both of them miss, Toronto picks in the top 10 and Carolina wins the lottery, we get that pick.

I do always enjoy betting on outcomes that are under 1% to occur.

 

[Amazing Kreiderman]

Speaking of Karl, when do you expect him to make the jump here?

Let him play in the SHL and make an impact before they bring him over. They have no reason to rush him. Rights until 2023, He's 19. Sign him in 2022 unless he forces his way on the team (Not happening)

 

[GoAwayPanarin]

I do always enjoy betting on outcomes that are under 1% to occur.

Me too.

 

[Ola]

I've preached patience with Miller forever, now all of a sudden I am starting to feel, just bring him in and throw him out there. Let him loose (could be the first time I use the word "loose" correct in a sentence, if it is correct that is).

Seriously though. You have zero marginals when the play turns in today's NHL. Like experienced steady Ds from Europe that comes over having established themselves outside the NHL can struggle a lot because the NHL game is just so darn fast right now. The D guards the blueline and will step up at times, but every time that can't be done you have to start a sprint to get home. For a big guy like K'Andre this will be a challenge. What sets someone like McAvoy apart is that he was able to adjust to this so effortlessly, and he is the exception not the rule.

When K'Andre turns pro I think it will be necessary to ease him in during camp, point out what he needs to work on, and have him practice it in the AHL for half a season or whatever, at least.

But, from my POV this is the big challenge that I see him facing. I am not that concerned with many other factors of his game. Its always hard to read. But I think he steps out of his way a bit to take risks to impact a game as much as possible, and that he takes many risks because he wants to take over games. If he aims lower when turning pro, I think those rough edges will disappear too.

 

[GoAwayPanarin]

Miller should go pro.

The extra reps are the best way for him to learn.

 

[MrPodz]

I actively read the boards, but i am not as active on writing my thoughts(you guys fill so many pages so fast!) My thoughts on the skjei trade were- and still are- that we won an amazing trade. Deep draft- tor has meh goalies (no muzzin either, or morgan oreilly) and if they make it theyll get knocked out first round. That means that itd be prob a 17-19 pick, and for a draft this deep, id take that. Yet, in the same regard, I just dont see them making the playoffs. Their forwards dont play defense and they lost a shot supression player and their other best player on the blue line. Offense can win a championship, but def must be above average to truly be a contender. Playoff contenders will limit chances against, and I don't see tor able to. Carolina has no goalie and the key thing here is time. If the goalies are out for a while, no matter how good your teams defense is, you need a goalie to be able to come up with a good save and at least be average. That being said, i truly expect a 13-14 pick from them, and i see us making the playoffs. I always have tbh, and thats because i thought we had enough starpower with panarin, mika, and i was high on tony d (albeit i did want him flipped for a star winger- now with skjei out, not really). What i missed on was kakko, i had slightly higher expectations, but I know hes 18 and Im okay with the fact that, at least, hes getting better and better. In terms of cap, we escaped a deal thats not an over pay (for skjei) due to the rising cap, but just not worth it for someone not as consistent. I hope he figures it out... next year tho . In terms of roster construction, holy shit, we are going to be lethal. Red wings/ penguins dynasty anyone?

 

[MrPodz]

I also didnt think fox would be a first pairing defenseman with the iq of einstein on the ice

 

[Leetch3]

Regarding the condition of the pick

I dont like it.

The way it reads on CapFriendly is that it's the later/lower pick of the two.

So if one of Toronto or Carolina misses the POs, we get the pick of the team that DOES make the POs

That sucks

right now the canes & leafs are tied with 74 points so there isn't much difference between the picks...and if it was just straight up the canes pick with no condition we could end up with the lower pick anyway.

what if, without that condition, the canes either don't give us a 1st or don't take skjei with no retention or $$ going back?

 

[Leetch3]

I don't think so. Look at how many seven and eight year contracts there are (106). None of those guys wanted five years to reach UFA earlier (exception: Matthews). Most players do not risk the potential loss of money if their game falls off or they get injured when they can get locked in for a big amount soon. Additionally DeAngelo's agent is Pat Brisson who is the biggest NHL agent and has signed many 7 or 8 year contracts so it is not his policy not to do so.

It is mostly the Rangers choice. They do not ever go 7+ years on guys early in their careers. It has not happened one time.

Kreider - 4 years
Skjei - 6 years
Staal - 5 years
Girardi - 6 years
Stepan - 6 years
Zibanejad - 5 years
Lundqvist - 6 years
McDonagh - 6 years
Hayes - bridge/trade

So either somehow the Rangers only manage to acquire players who want to reach FA early or they have generally had a policy where they do not max out the years as soon as possible which leads to their players becoming FA around 28-29 which makes the second contract difficult. Or it leads to bridging them early and then paying more on the next deal. If you see enough in a player to commit to him long term in his early 20s for 5-6 years then you really should be trying to sign them for 7-8 years instead considering it will work out better for the cap, you get them at a better rate during their prime, and they reach FA at an older age where you likely won't have to then give them a huge 7 year deal (like just happened with Kreider)

of those 106 contracts, how many were:

1) signed before the matthews deal? he changed the game/broke the system
2) signed by guys coming off their ELC so at the end of 7-8 years they were still under 30
3) signed by guys 29+ that were looking to cash in on their final big paydays?

if a 24, 25 year old is signing a contract that takes them beyond their prime so they can't get another big contract they should fire their agent

 

[bobbop]

Huh? What are talking about? More than ten years, I have never seen @bobbob losing patience on anyone with counter arguments - if those did not come out of one’s ass (in a matter of speaking).

Thank you for the shout out.

I try to win arguments with facts. I’m not always right (anyone who has followed my evolution on DeAngelo knows that)

I did have the wonderful opportunity to spend four years in minor league hockey with a lot of great players, coaches and others. I was very lucky to learn from some very good people. Additionally, because of my marketing career, I was able to become friends with a wide number of NHL owners, officials and other influential people.

I’ll hang in and reason with people as long as I can. If it gets stupid silly, I just use the ignore button. Let them learn from someone else the way I learned from others.

 

[E-Train]

Get Miller to Hartford for next season. Let him finish developing in a pro environment.

 

[nyr5186]

Any chance we try to move one of our righties to the left side? Maybe Trouba? Has he ever played his off side? Might create some more balance and give Lundqvist an opportunity to fit in the lineup down the line.

 

[GAGLine]

I don't like going 5 years on ADA. This is what we've done with everyone in the past and how we always end up getting in a tough spot by having them reach UFA at age 28-29.

Fox is going to get paid on his next contract and we have Lundkvist on the way. Whether we give ADA 5 years or 7 years, I don't think he's going to play out the full contract here. Better IMO to give him the 5 and keep the AAV down a bit.

 

[haohmaru]

He's been playing the "I know what I'm talking about, having vets in the locker room matters" card for a few days now; it's in relation to those posters (assumedly, particularly myself) who maintain that veteran leadership isn't as important as talent.

And it's dismissive of anyone arguing against his point of view.

The thing is, he's not making any substantive points. Just "If you don't agree, you're wrong."

The passive-aggressive part is how he's trying to disclaim it as "I welcome debate," but implying that the only perspectives to be taken seriously are those experienced enough to realize his position (that experience in the locker room matters) is the right one.

The insane part is, this is a straw man that no one is actually arguing against. Everyone really agrees that leadership in the locker room matters.

How much and who provides that leadership and the balance of whether it's more important than talent, are the issues in play here.

It's an argument that's hard to quantify if you haven't "been in the room". I mean, I understand where you're coming from, but I haven't seen a team win a Stanley Cup yet without veteran leadership but I've seen a lot of talented teams not win a damned thing.

I don't think it's "dismissive" at all - how can you really know how much of a factor that is if you're not there day in day out to experience it? Who is mentoring who? Who's keeping who on the straight and narrow? Who's leading by example? Who's out there first on and last off the ice? Who's consoling a rookie after a bad mistake? Who's pointing out this and that little things that make young guys better players? Who's believing in the team no matter what during the lowest lows? I mean, it goes on and on and, this isn't being dismissive, it's simply unknowable what a factor it is without having experienced it on some pro level and it varies by team how important it is.

Look @ Kreider - a 40-50 point guy every year that's gotten all kinds of grief around here over the years for "disappearing", "inconsistent", "streaky", and everything else thrown his way. What was the team's reaction to him being signed? The coaches? The management? it's not because of his talent.

Quantifying leadership > talent or talent > leadership is an absurd argument to begin with. You need the right mix of both to succeed.

 

[mas0764]

It's an argument that's hard to quantify if you haven't "been in the room". I mean, I understand where you're coming from, but I haven't seen a team win a Stanley Cup yet without veteran leadership but I've seen a lot of talented teams not win a damned thing.

None of us are in the room, and assuredly, even within the room, there would be differences of opinion.

Also.... again, no one is saying no veteran leadership is needed, that is a straw man. It's an issue of who provides it, how much you need, and how much you need to balance that with talent acquisition.

I don't think it's "dismissive" at all

Arguing for leadership is not dismissive in itself.

But that's not really what was happening here. The qualifiers of "the people with a clue" is inherently implying that only those who think one way have that clue.

Quantifying leadership > talent or talent > leadership is an absurd argument to begin with. You need the right mix of both to succeed.

I agree completely that you need the right mix, but of course the priority of that mix (the ">" or "<" issue when contrasted with the need to "tank" and acquire talent) is of course up for debate as it relates to any given player's retention, dismissal, or acquisition.

 

[haohmaru]

Also.... again, no one is saying no veteran leadership is needed, that is a straw man. It's an issue of who provides it, how much you need, and how much you need to balance that with talent acquisition.

Not sure why you felt the need to point this out since I said as much in my summary.

Arguing for leadership is not dismissive in itself.

But that's not really what was happening here. The qualifiers of "the people with a clue" is inherently implying that only those who think one way have that clue.

It's still not dismissive to say that someone that has experienced something on a professional level has "more of a clue" than someone who hasn't. It's honesty. It's not dismissive. Would you say a career AHL player probably has a better idea of the impact of leadership on the locker room and success of a professional team than you or I do? Most assuredly. I don't know why you'd argue otherwise.

I agree completely that you need the right mix, but of course the priority of that mix (the ">" or "<" issue when contrasted with the need to "tank" and acquire talent) is of course up for debate as it relates to any given player's retention, dismissal, or acquisition.

I'm not going to go down the tank road or the myriad of possibilities that are the sum of parts on a successful team. It's unique to each team and almost unknowable without actually fielding a team and evaluating it each and every night.

 

[SA16]

of those 106 contracts, how many were:

1) signed before the matthews deal? he changed the game/broke the system
2) signed by guys coming off their ELC so at the end of 7-8 years they were still under 30
3) signed by guys 29+ that were looking to cash in on their final big paydays?

if a 24, 25 year old is signing a contract that takes them beyond their prime so they can't get another big contract they should fire their agent

Matthews changed the game? Hischier, Connor, Chabot, Keller, Girard, Vasilevskiy, Trouba, Theodore all signed 7+ year deals since Matthews signed his shorter one and were 25 years old or younger at the time. You can throw in Lindell/Provorov/Marner/Konecny/Rantanen for 6 year deals. And yes most were coming off their ELCs. DeAngelo is one year off his ELC not exactly a gigantic difference.

 

[duhmetreE]

Georgiev for Zadarov? Fair?

After that Trouba smash, I've been jonesin' for more...

Just the thought of

ADA Trouba
Lindgren Fox
Zadarov Lundkvist

 

[Off Sides]

Signing UFAs is their top priority, whatever is left over they use on their RFAs. Other than maybe Lundqvist I can not remember them ever extending a RFA before July 1st, and usually not until much later in the off-season. Difficult to sign any RFA to something like 7-8 years when the cap space has already been used up.

 

[mas0764]

It's still not dismissive to say that someone that has experienced something on a professional level has "more of a clue" than someone who hasn't. It's honesty. It's not dismissive. Would you say a career AHL player probably has a better idea of the impact of leadership on the locker room and success of a professional team than you or I do? Most assuredly. I don't know why you'd argue otherwise.

But I'm not arguing that a career AHL player wouldn't have insight that I don't have... of course they would.

But even if so, that's not some sort of "mic drop" moment, like, oh, this AHL player must know everything since he played, people who post on a message board have invalid perspectives. Human beings are smart, I think we are capable of understanding complex concepts like the value of leadership in a sports locker room. And again, even within said locker room, you are going to have disagreements over degrees (which is really what is being debated here: the degree. Not whether there should be 100% leadership or 0% leadership). So this hypothetical AHL experience is not issue-resolving as to how much leadership and experience is enough.

On top of that, though, the dismissiveness in question isn't a career AHL player versus someone who isn't. It's the presupposition that, and I'm quoting, "most of those [who are arguing less leadership is needed or that it's less important] are very young. Have little to no real world job experience."

and

"You are right.... I enjoy differences of opinion especially if they are educated. When they are clearly not [ie the people who have no real world experience and don't believe in leadership as much], all they do is take up space in this thread."

I mean, there's no way to read those two posts without inferring that. If that's not what the post meant, anyone can feel free to clarify, but it's pretty obvious that it was implying that.

It's passively-aggressively dismissive. In the middle of a debate about leadership and experience, two posts posit "You people on the other side of this argument simply don't know what you're talking about because you're not in the real world." and followed by "Yep... when they are educated and disagree with me, that's fine, but these takes are uneducated and simply take up space/waste my time."

Dismissive is putting it nicely, actually.

 

[EpicDing]

Any chance we try to move one of our righties to the left side? Maybe Trouba? Has he ever played his off side? Might create some more balance and give Lundqvist an opportunity to fit in the lineup down the line.

Being forced to play LD was one of the reasons he initially asked Winnipeg to trade him.

 

[Leetch3]

Matthews changed the game? Hischier, Connor, Chabot, Keller, Girard, Vasilevskiy, Trouba, Theodore all signed 7+ year deals since Matthews signed his shorter one and were 25 years old or younger at the time. You can throw in Lindell/Provorov/Marner/Konecny/Rantanen for 6 year deals. And yes most were coming off their ELCs. DeAngelo is one year off his ELC not exactly a gigantic difference.

Hischier, Connor, Chabot, Keller, Girard, and Theodore all signed those deals coming off their ELC contracts expired so scenario #2 I mentioned..they will all be UFAs again between 28 & 31.

 

[Edge]

Being forced to play LD was one of the reasons he initially asked Winnipeg to trade him.

I know this is not a popular belief, but the odds are very, very small that you see a long-term lineup that features all of ADA, Lundkvist, Fox and Trouba all in it.

That takes into account moving someone to the left side. Maybe for a spell you'll see that, but I really think the odds are fairly low that it's something you see over an entire season, let alone multiple seasons.

Likewise, I don't think you're as likely to see the Rangers go with Fox, ADA and Lundkvist as their right side. I get that their skilled, I get that there are smaller defenseman in the NHL. But teams still look for balance, and I don't know if there are many teams that want all over their right defenseman hovering around 5'11, 195 pounds.

Again, that's not a slight against any of these players. It's just the reality of what we see way more often than not.

 

[mas0764]

Being forced to play LD was one of the reasons he initially asked Winnipeg to trade him.

I do remember that.

I still wonder if DeAngelo can make that move.

Is there any reason why DeAngelo couldn't be on a top pair with, say, Lundkvist himself someday?

And then the second pair could be Miller-Fox and the third pair Robertson/Lindgren - Trouba eventually.