Player Discussion Ryan Strome

[Edge]

Out of curiosity, do you have a sense in general of what types of players are more likely to succeed in the current system? To me it doesn't appear like the system rewards specialists, maybe on the defensive side but not really the offensive specialists. Hard to say for sure since we haven't seen a ton of different players come through the current system, but Strome seems to fit that kind of mold. A player with a motor that can do a little bit of everything. At the same time I can see him as less valuable to a team looking to address a specific weakness rather than general depth.

I think Strome specifically is in a weird zone. He's not necessarily talented enough to drive a line, but he's skilled enough that he can compliment skilled players. Right now, with the way this roster is built, and likely will be built, there's the potential for a useful role there - especially if he can be a swing-man who plays both center and RW.

 

[Raspewtin]

I tend to agree that Strome can "compliment" skill players, but we have plenty of players that are better than him at that already and bring more to the table than (historically) spotty offense and bad defense.

 

[McRanger]

I just dont see it with Strome. Usually when we get a guy who suddenly looks great you can kind of figure out why. With a player like Brassard (or Pouliot or Stralman or even role players like Prust or Boyle) you could usually put your finger on what makes them fit or that thing that they bring to the table that is better than advertised: defensive play, physicality, skating, playmaking or maybe just a change in role or expectations.

I just dont see anything with Strome other than that he has been opportunistic and shooting at a ridiculous and unsustainable rate. In other words he reminds me more of an Erik Christensen (who went bananas for a while when Gaborik was hot) than a Brassard.

Strome has been a good soldier accepting any role we've put him in so its great that he is producing and it would be great if he continues to succeed. I just dont think its likely.

 

[Edge]

I tend to agree that Strome can "compliment" skill players, but we have plenty of players that are better than him at that already and bring more to the table than (historically) spotty offense and bad defense.

At the end of the day, complimentary or not, Strome has scored 22 goals and 44 points over a season's worth of games (74) for the Rangers. He's essentially on a 25 goal, 50 point pace through a full 82 games.

Historical performance and flaws aside, that pace would place him second or third in team scoring last season, and has him tied for first this year.

So while his production isn't everything, it's not nothing either.

Considering how this board can get bent out of shape about someone's performance over a 3 or 4 game stretch, a 74 game sample size isn't really that small. There's some value there.

 

[Machinehead]

Does not always work that way. Simply stating "Find the next Strome" is great with tunnel vision. But not that easy to work out. Sometimes failed former top prospects just stay that way.

So we miss out on another Strome? Willing to take that risk.

 

[Raspewtin]

At the end of the day, complimentary or not, Strome has scored 22 goals and 44 points over a season's worth of games (74) for the Rangers. He's essentially on a 25 goal, 50 point pace through a full 82 games.

Historical performance and flaws aside, that pace would place him second or third in team scoring last season, and has him tied for first this year.

So while his production isn't everything, it's not nothing either.

Considering how this board can get bent out of shape about someone's performance over a 3 or 4 game stretch, a 74 game sample size isn't really that small. There's some value there.

He also had 2 points in 18 games as a member of the Oilers last year.

I like the word "opportunistic" to describe him. Good on him for maximizing his time here but I am simply not seeing any kind of driving player that we need to (or even should) keep beyond the deadline. There's nothing Ryan Strome has or does that we shouldn't have a replacement for.

 

[Edge]

He also had 2 points in 18 games as a member of the Oilers last year.

I like the word "opportunistic" to describe him. Good on him for maximizing his time here but I am simply not seeing any kind of driving player that we need to (or even should) keep beyond the deadline. There's nothing Ryan Strome has or does that we shouldn't have a replacement for.

Well opportunistic isn't inherently a bad thing either. And again, 22 goals and 40+ points over 74 games from guy who has played on the second and third lines isn't a bad thing, nor is it something that we've easily found over the years.

If we're going to bring up 2 points in 18 games for the Oilers, then we also have to bring up 50 points for the Islanders, and 19 goals the season before the Oilers. It's not like he's completely come out of nowhere hovering around that 20 goal/50 point mark.

Having said all that, I think they move him. The return will be good, and they'll need the money for some re-signings next year.

 

[Ghost of jas]

Having said all that, I think they move him. The return will be good, and they'll need the money for some re-signings next year.

Thoughts on what that return might be? They need to replace the potential 2nd they are likely to lose in the upcoming draft.

 

[LokiDog]

I just dont see it with Strome. Usually when we get a guy who suddenly looks great you can kind of figure out why. With a player like Brassard (or Pouliot or Stralman or even role players like Prust or Boyle) you could usually put your finger on what makes them fit or that thing that they bring to the table that is better than advertised: defensive play, physicality, skating, playmaking or maybe just a change in role or expectations.

I just dont see anything with Strome other than that he has been opportunistic and shooting at a ridiculous and unsustainable rate. In other words he reminds me more of an Erik Christensen (who went bananas for a while when Gaborik was hot) than a Brassard.

Strome has been a good soldier accepting any role we've put him in so its great that he is producing and it would be great if he continues to succeed. I just dont think its likely.

This is how I feel as well.

Look, there’s no denying that so far in NY, Strome has produced very well. Yet, I cannot watch a single game and say I’m glad he’s a Ranger or I hope he’s part of the future. It’s a strange feeling. He seems to end up on the board every night but at the same time I seem to find the eye test telling me I can’t wait until he’s no longer a key player on our roster. How do you reconcile what your eyes are telling you (and fancy stats support) about a player’s overall game with the fact that he’s producing at an excellent clip over a 70+ game sample? I don’t know the answer but I find myself hoping that he keeps up the production and a team gets caught looking more at the stats than the player himself and we cash in on a guy who, for some reason, my 30 years of fandom tells me is overachieving and isn’t a net asset, especially long term.

 

[Machinehead]

The issue with keeping Strome is that I don't see any scenario where he isn't overpaid.

 

[Raspewtin]

Well opportunistic isn't inherently a bad thing either. And again, 22 goals and 40+ points over 74 games from guy who has played on the second and third lines isn't a bad thing, nor is it something that we've easily found over the years.

I'm not disputing that but you can use this exact same selective windowing exercise to make a lot of players look good. Not that you're being disingenuous or anything but his mediocre career has vastly outpaced this nice little run he's on.

If we're going to bring up 2 points in 18 games for the Oilers, then we also have to bring up 50 points for the Islanders, and 19 goals the season before the Oilers. It's not like he's completely come out of nowhere hovering around that 20 goal/50 point mark.

I don't know what you're gaining by bringing up his only good season that was 5 years ago.

He had 13 goals that season, not 19. He never came within 15 points of 50 in his career outside his rookie year even if you pro-rate his seasons he didn't finish. I never disputed Strome can be an offensive tweener that has bursts of effectiveness. I'm disputing that that is the kind of player we should invest in.

Having said all that, I think they move him. The return will be good, and they'll need the money for some re-signings next year.

Good. I will be happy with Grabner Part 2.

 

[Edge]

Thoughts on what that return might be? They need to replace the potential 2nd they are likely to lose in the upcoming draft.

I could see a Grabner-type deal: a second and prospect with some intrigue.

If the team elected to move Kreider, Strome and Fast, I think you could be looking at a total return of a first, a second, a third and a pair of prospects.

 

[McRanger]

Well opportunistic isn't inherently a bad thing either. And again, 22 goals and 40+ points over 74 games from guy who has played on the second and third lines isn't a bad thing, nor is it something that we've easily found over the years.

If we're going to bring up 2 points in 18 games for the Oilers, then we also have to bring up 50 points for the Islanders, and 19 goals the season before the Oilers. It's not like he's completely come out of nowhere hovering around that 20 goal/50 point mark.

Having said all that, I think they move him. The return will be good, and they'll need the money for some re-signings next year.

He scored 13 goals in 82 games (34 points) the year before he scored 1 goal in 18 games. The year before that he scored 13 in 69 games (30 points) and before that 8 goals in 71 games (28 points).

So since his 17 goal 50 point season in 14-15 he has scored 35 goals and 94 points in 240 games for the Isles and Oilers which breaks down to 12 goals and 32 points over 82 games where he had a shooting percentage of 8.2.

For the Rangers he's had 22 goals and 44 points in 74 games with a shooting percentage of over 22.

One thing that is impressive is that a lot of his production is at ES. That's a big check in the positive column. A negative is that his shooting percentage is about double Ovechkins career shooting percentage and is in no universe sustainable.

So which one is the real Strome? Maybe neither? I'd rather not find out after we signed him long term.

 

[Edge]

I'm not disputing that but you can use this exact same selective windowing exercise to make a lot of players look good. Not that you're being disingenuous or anything but his mediocre career has vastly outpaced this nice little run he's on.



I don't know what you're gaining by bringing up his only good season that was 5 years ago.

He had 13 goals that season, not 19. He never came within 15 points of 50 in his career outside his rookie year even if you pro-rate his seasons he didn't finish. I never disputed Strome can be an offensive tweener that has bursts of effectiveness. I'm disputing that that is the kind of player we should invest in.



Good. I will be happy with Grabner Part 2.

See now, I think he's had several good seasons overall: 2015, 2018 and 2019. Not world beating seasons, but he's shown that 15-20 goals and 40 points really isn't out of the question. Keeping in mind that that some of his mediocre seasons came when he was younger than guys like ADA or Lemieux are now.

But it all comes down to what one views as an investment. Is four years at $4 million a fair amount that balances what he's done here? Potentially.

Is it a contract the Rangers want to sign knowing ADA could be due for a payday? Maybe not.

 

[Edge]

He scored 13 goals in 82 games (34 points) the year before he scored 1 goal in 18 games. The year before that he scored 13 in 69 games (30 points) and before that 8 goals in 71 games (28 points).

So since his 17 goal 50 point season in 14-15 he has scored 35 goals and 94 points in 240 games for the Isles and Oilers which breaks down to 12 goals and 32 points over 82 games where he had a shooting percentage of 8.2.

For the Rangers he's had 22 goals and 44 points in 74 games with a shooting percentage of over 22.

One thing that is impressive is that a lot of his production is at ES. That's a big check in the positive column. A negative is that his shooting percentage is about double Ovechkins career shooting percentage and is in no universe sustainable.

So which one is the real Strome? Maybe neither? I'd rather not find out after we signed him long term.

I think it comes down to what the contract terms are.

If you pay him like a support player, with the expectation that you're looking at 20 goals and 40 points, there's the potential for a deal. If you pay for him the pace he's on currently, that's not going to turn out well.

But the truth of the matter is that a lot of the contract is going to come down to how he fits here, now and moving forward, not necessarily how he fit in Edmonton or with the Islanders when he was 23.

 

[Raspewtin]

See now, I think he's had several good seasons overall: 2015, 2018 and 2019. Not world beating seasons, but he's shown that 15-20 goals and 40 points really isn't out of the question. Keeping in mind that that some of his mediocre seasons came when he was younger than guys like ADA or Lemieux are now.

But it all comes down to what one views as an investment. Is four years at $4 million a fair amount that balances what he's done here? Potentially.

Is it a contract the Rangers want to sign knowing ADA could be due for a payday? Maybe not.

To me there's a lot of 30-40 point tweeners in the league and there's good reason to steer clear of them. They're characterized as tweeners because outside of their bursts of high-skill effectiveness, they provide next to nothing. I've never thought of Strome as good at anything other than these bursts and tbh I think even his best seasons prove this hypothesis correct. He's bad defensively, a bad PKer, and undisciplined. He's the kind of player you stash on your 4th line as a reclamation project or drop him for a kid. Which I wouldn't exactly mind but not at the price tag it'll require.

 

[Edge]

The issue with keeping Strome is that I don't see any scenario where he isn't overpaid.

It depends on where one draws that line on salary.

Something to consider is that Strome isn't completely unlike Zibanejad in the sense that he's a former high pick who is hitting his prime. Obviously no one should expect him to match what Zibanejad is doing/expected to do, nor keep up his current pace, but the concept that he could be peaking as a 20 goal/50+ point forward isn't unrealistic either.

From the 2013/2014 season until now, Zibanejad has played 449 NHL games for two organizations and posted 132 goals and 299 points.

Over the same span, Strome has played 432 NHL games for three organizations, and posted 81 goals and 230 points, for a bunch of lottery teams. So it's not like Strome is a guy whose toiled in the minors this whole time.

For the right price, and expectations, I'm not inherently opposed to extending him.

 

[Edge]

To me there's a lot of 30-40 point tweeners in the league and there's good reason to steer clear of them. They're characterized as tweeners because outside of their bursts of high-skill effectiveness, they provide next to nothing. I've never thought of Strome as good at anything other than these bursts and tbh I think even his best seasons prove this hypothesis correct. He's bad defensively, a bad PKer, and undisciplined. He's the kind of player you stash on your 4th line as a reclamation project or drop him for a kid. Which I wouldn't exactly mind but not at the price tag it'll require.

Well, what if he's not a 30-40 point tweener? What if he's more of a 40-50 point tweener? Or a 50+ point player in the right role until someone pushes him out of the way?

And for all this talk about price, no one knows what that price even is. So how can we say one or the other?

 

[True Blue]

So we miss out on another Strome? Willing to take that risk.

Am willing to take the risk and trade virtually everyone. That said, there is a path in which Strome is here and some other pieces are moved. But there are too many factors that figure in and a lot of time to go.

 

[SA16]

Thoughts on what that return might be? They need to replace the potential 2nd they are likely to lose in the upcoming draft.

I wouldn't expect much more than a 3rd round pick.

 

[duhmetreE]

To me there's a lot of 30-40 point tweeners in the league and there's good reason to steer clear of them. They're characterized as tweeners because outside of their bursts of high-skill effectiveness, they provide next to nothing. I've never thought of Strome as good at anything other than these bursts and tbh I think even his best seasons prove this hypothesis correct. He's bad defensively, a bad PKer, and undisciplined. He's the kind of player you stash on your 4th line as a reclamation project or drop him for a kid. Which I wouldn't exactly mind but not at the price tag it'll require.

what?

 

[Fitzy]

The issue with keeping Strome is that I don't see any scenario where he isn't overpaid.

Yup.

We should 100% capitalize on his increase in trade value and move him before he gets overpaid. Good NHL teams cant afford to overpay mid-level 2nd-3rd line players. If we're going that route I'd much prefer we overpay Kreider than Strome. Kreider actually brings some unique elements.

I'm thrilled that he's playing at his old 50 point level, but he's been a streaky player his whole career and there is no reason to assume that his play this last year for us has been what we could expect over a 5 year period.

Re-signing him with the current state of our rebuild would be a huge mistake IMO

 

[duhmetreE]

The issue with keeping Strome is that I don't see any scenario where he isn't overpaid.

Not even going through the motions with arbitration? on a 1 year deal?

 

[Edge]

I don't think it would come down to Kreider or Strome. The difference between the two is several years, several million, a movement clause, two years of age and UFA negotiations vs. RFA negotiations.

I'm not saying we give Strome a 6x6 contract and build a line around him, but I don't consider him an automatic no either --- again, depending on the terms.

To some extent, we're arguing this two ways. On the one hand, he's streaky, a dime-a-dozen, destined for the wheels to fall off, and we want to trade him. On the other hand, he's due for a huge payday. I feel like the truth is somewhere in the middle and his next contract will be within range of his current deal.

 

[duhmetreE]

I don't think it would come down to Kreider or Strome. The difference between the two is several years, several million, a movement clause, two years of age and UFA negotiations vs. RFA negotiations.

I'm not saying we give Strome a 6x6 contract and build a line around him, but I don't consider him an automatic no either --- again, depending on the terms.

To some extent, we're arguing this two ways. On the one hand, he's streaky, a dime-a-dozen, destined for the wheels to fall off, and we want to trade him. On the other hand, he's due for a huge payday. I feel like the truth is somewhere in the middle and his next contract will be within range of his current deal.

For me, best case scenario, 2 years $3.5-4M.