Larry Brooks: Sather must decide: Is dealing Girardi best for Rangers?

[Tikkanese]

Poor correlation studies

It has been scientifically proven that managing your zone entries to gain the zone with possession greatly increases your shot volume and goal volume, and that preventing controlled entries against you is the most effective way of preventing shots and goals against.

I keep seeing this in various fora, and I cannot help but wonder about the bias inherent in the historical information - who do you think carries pucks through the neutral zone effectively, good offensive players or bad ones? And who do you think gets off more shots and scores more goals, good offensive players or bad ones?

That complex statistical analysis you're referencing relly just says that the more good offensive players you have, the better you are on offense, but it is dressed up and phrased such that it appears scientific. Did anyone advise Gretzky, Lemieux, Crosby etc. to play dump and chase? Of course not - you have players who aren't as good handling the puck do dump and chase, because at least then if it results in a turn over they don't get caught going the wrong way.

All that being said, I do think that the statistics show that coaches should be pushing their forwards to attempt more zone entries with the puck. But you need to recognize the relative strengths of your roster. If you have Milan Lucic, you tell him to dump and chase. If you have Pavel Datsyuk, you tell him to carry in.

 

[Vidic15*]

Rangers management never talks to the fans. When Tortorella was here,he would go on the radio with Kay and you would get a feel of what was going on. He was the mouthpiece for Rangers management. Sather hasn't done an interview on NY radio since 2002. He was terrible in them because Francesa and Russo would destroy him. Those guys don't know hockey but they are very good interviewers. Pump them with information and they would get to the bottom of any situation.

It's a shame we have to listen to Edmonton radio to hear anything insightful from Sather regarding this team. You posted a link over the summer. It's obvious he insulates himself from the NY media. He runs the Rangers like the politicians run this country. Zero accountability.

 

[bathgate]

Last time I did that,all of the Zuccarello people came after me for suggesting selling high on the player. The player is having a really good year and is a year away from group III. Arbitration eligible. He is a $3.5M-$4M player.

Build the team around Stepan,Kreider,Nash and Miller. Keep Brassard as a stop gap center for a year. I like Hagelin but would move him in the right deal. The rest of them can go. Amnesty Richards. Trade Callahan. He isn't worth 7 years at $6M-$7M per.

Build the D around McDonagh. Hopefully,McIlrath wins a spot next season. I like Moore but he's soft. Maybe the Rangers can get something out of him. Allen. The rest of them can go. Girardi isn't worth a long-term contract. Staal's contract expires in July 2015 which isn't that far away. DZ needs a change of scenery. Stralman. The Rangers haven't talk about a new contract with him.

Lundqvist in net. Try to sign Talbot to an extension.

I generally agree with two exceptions. I also keep Staal who is still a shutdown defenseman and attempt to trade Lundqvist despite his new contract. By the time we retool, Lundqvist May no longer be elite

 

[Jabroni]

I generally agree with two exceptions. I also keep Staal who is still a shutdown defenseman and attempt to trade Lundqvist despite his new contract. By the time we retool, Lundqvist May no longer be elite

Lundqvist has an NMC. Unless he waives it, he can't be moved.

http://www.capgeek.com/player/643

 

[Tikkanese]

If there was even an inkling of a plan to move Lundquist, so many things would have been different about the contract extension/negotiation, not least the inclusion of a full NMC.

He is too valuable to the franchise (merchandise, media coverage, etc) for Dolan to consider moving him. As ownership, better to compete for a playoff spot every year with Lundquist than to trade him and lose all the ancillary benefits even if it resulted in a SC down the road. From a financial perspective, that Lundquist contract is NPV positive for NYR.

 

[bathgate]

Lundqvist has an NMC. Unless he waives it, he can't be moved.

http://www.capgeek.com/player/643

Understood but if Lundqvist wants a Cup, he might waive during a rebuild. In my opinion , no individual should receive a seven year contract after the age of twenty eight or twenty nine

 

[Thirty One]

Understood but if Lundqvist wants a Cup, he might waive during a rebuild. In my opinion , no individual should receive a seven year contract after the age of twenty eight or twenty nine

I don't think it should be that black and white, but you definitely shouldn't give a 32 year old a 7 year deal with an AAV of 20% greater than any of his peers.

 

[Mikos87]

If there was even an inkling of a plan to move Lundquist, so many things would have been different about the contract extension/negotiation, not least the inclusion of a full NMC.

He is too valuable to the franchise (merchandise, media coverage, etc) for Dolan to consider moving him. As ownership, better to compete for a playoff spot every year with Lundquist than to trade him and lose all the ancillary benefits even if it resulted in a SC down the road. From a financial perspective, that Lundquist contract is NPV positive for NYR.

And plenty of FV as well. Losing the captain of the team would be a big blow in both regards as well. Same with the anchoring the defense for years in G.

Confusion within the organizational ranks is only a means towards disharmony. My guess is there is an internal rift of ideologies. Perhaps AV and the rest of the staff don't share the same set of principles.

Any well run organization and management staff should now it's assets inside out, and who to keep and move. Hockey or not.

 

[Blue Blooded]

I don't think it should be that black and white, but you definitely shouldn't give a 32 year old a 7 year deal with an AAV of 20% greater than any of his peers.

When even a big goalie sceptic like Tulsky says it's a decent contract, it can't be THAT bad though.

 

[Kwayry]

Slats biggest mistake was hiring John Tortorella.

I don't think that's a fair statement to make.
The problem was the system, not the coach. I don't think Torts set out to play that style from the get go. Given the lack of high end talent, that's the system he though would win games.
In retrospective, the mistake that Sather made was not forcing Torts to hire an offensive assistant.

 

[Kwayry]

Last time I did that,all of the Zuccarello people came after me for suggesting selling high on the player. The player is having a really good year and is a year away from group III. Arbitration eligible. He is a $3.5M-$4M player.

A reasonable question to ask. When do you trade Zuke and why?
I am a big fan, but will his value be any higher than today? Maybe, maybe not. I'd rather sell a little too soon, than a little too late.
The problem is, Zuke appears to be a perfect fit for AV's system. He has good vision, can skate, can pass and has great hands.
He backchecks like a demon to cover for bad pinches, has enough snarl to his game.
If AV is here to stay, then so is Zuke.

 

[spiller19]

If the rangers were to be moving girardi is there anything reasonable from the avalanche you would want. Tyson Barrie might make sense as part of a deal

 

[TheTakedown]

moving girardi has to include at least 1 nhl ready forward and a top 4 defenseman... There's no less of a package you could take, because G and McD are the anchors of our defense, as piss poor as it's been.

 

[Blue Blooded]

I keep seeing this in various fora, and I cannot help but wonder about the bias inherent in the historical information - who do you think carries pucks through the neutral zone effectively, good offensive players or bad ones? And who do you think gets off more shots and scores more goals, good offensive players or bad ones?

That complex statistical analysis you're referencing relly just says that the more good offensive players you have, the better you are on offense, but it is dressed up and phrased such that it appears scientific. Did anyone advise Gretzky, Lemieux, Crosby etc. to play dump and chase? Of course not - you have players who aren't as good handling the puck do dump and chase, because at least then if it results in a turn over they don't get caught going the wrong way.

All that being said, I do think that the statistics show that coaches should be pushing their forwards to attempt more zone entries with the puck. But you need to recognize the relative strengths of your roster. If you have Milan Lucic, you tell him to dump and chase. If you have Pavel Datsyuk, you tell him to carry in.

Well considering that it has been shown that there is no discernible difference in shots generated by a controlled entry from Zac Rinaldo (i.e. a useless 4th liner) or Claude Giroux (i.e. a skilled 1st line center). The difference between the players lie in the frequency of controlled entries generated and shot quality upon entry. But the expected amount of shots per controlled/non-controlled entry is the same for all players.

I can't find the link to the more extensive academic paper right now, but here is one of Tulsky's posts on the subject.

 

[Ola]

I keep seeing this in various fora, and I cannot help but wonder about the bias inherent in the historical information - who do you think carries pucks through the neutral zone effectively, good offensive players or bad ones? And who do you think gets off more shots and scores more goals, good offensive players or bad ones?

[...]

All that being said, I do think that the statistics show that coaches should be pushing their forwards to attempt more zone entries with the puck. But you need to recognize the relative strengths of your roster. If you have Milan Lucic, you tell him to dump and chase. If you have Pavel Datsyuk, you tell him to carry in.

You of course have a point that skill matters when you enter the zone, but I think you are spot on with your last paragraph.

For a long time, you risked a broken arm if you tried to stick-handle across the blue-line. The game was about not giving up anything, and a stickhandling move against a 4-5 man at the blueline that could slash, hook and grab you as much as they wanted just didn't pay off. And this was especially the case in the PO's.

Now you just have soo much more room to operate there. And taking advantage of that area, also really opens up for dump-ins. The last 4 years, we faced many teams that just collapsed with one D to fetch dump-ins, when you start to challenge in that area, the D will have to stand in and the dump-in will pay off.

I think the key really is to get the players away from the dump-in being the default option when you enter the zone. The guy with the puck needs to take the puck into dangerous areas, and the other forward and a D must get up ice to provide him with options. When you do that, you get all kind of room in that high area of the attacking zone.

So in the end, I definitely don't think this is a phenomen that only is skill related. Skill matters, but it don't have to be Crosby type of skill. Can just as well be the 2-3 lineer that aint brain-dead that executes those type of plays.

 

[RangerBoy]

Trading Callahan and Girardi isn't rebuilding. Their contracts are up. They want big contracts. Its a business. The Rangers have talked to both players. No progress has been made. Callahan is a third line winger on this team. He plays on the PK. Vigneault doesn't use him on the PP. Many people say the Rangers can't trade or not re-sign the captain of the team because it doesn't look. They sound like AROD who is obsessed with how people perceive him. The Rangers will either meet the asking price or they won't. Sather and Gorton should trade him. Same thing with Girardi.

 

[RangerBoy]

A reasonable question to ask. When do you trade Zuke and why?
I am a big fan, but will his value be any higher than today? Maybe, maybe not. I'd rather sell a little too soon, than a little too late.
The problem is, Zuke appears to be a perfect fit for AV's system. He has good vision, can skate, can pass and has great hands.
He backchecks like a demon to cover for bad pinches, has enough snarl to his game.
If AV is here to stay, then so is Zuke.

The Rangers have a tendency to trade players at the low end of their value. Zuccarello has a chip on his shoulder. He is playing for a big contract. Dubinsky got his big contract in 2011 after the contract squabble in 2009. Prucha was another guy who had good value after his first year. Zuccarello will be arbitration eligible in July and can be a group III in 2015. Do the Rangers want to commit $3.5M-$4M in a long term deal for him? Zuccarello has played one full NHL season. This one. Does management believe the player can do it again? They do a one year deal with the player and he can become a group III in 2015. Then the player is definitely going to group III with the possibility of losing him for nothing.

I think Dubinsky relaxed a bit after getting his contract. Its only human nature.

AV has a 5 year contract. Where was he going? When the Rangers lose,AV's system sucks. When they win,the system isn't mentioned.

Zuccarello will be here for all five years? Most Ranger players have a short shelf life on Broadway.

 

[Leonardo87]

Trading Callahan and Girardi isn't rebuilding. Their contracts are up. They want big contracts. Its a business. The Rangers have talked to both players. No progress has been made. Callahan is a third line winger on this team. He plays on the PK. Vigneault doesn't use him on the PP. Many people say the Rangers can't trade or not re-sign the captain of the team because it doesn't look. They sound like AROD who is obsessed with how people perceive him. The Rangers will either meet the asking price or they won't. Sather and Gorton should trade him. Same thing with Girardi.

Callahan is NOT a third line winger on this team. He has been playing on the top line and that line has 5 goals in 5 games. AV has been using him for top 5 on 5 mins and it has been very successful. He is adjusting well to AV's system with 4 points in the last 5 games.

 

[haohmaru]

The Rangers have a tendency to trade players at the low end of their value. Zuccarello has a chip on his shoulder. He is playing for a big contract. Dubinsky got his big contract in 2011 after the contract squabble in 2009. Prucha was another guy who had good value after his first year. Zuccarello will be arbitration eligible in July and can be a group III in 2015. Do the Rangers want to commit $3.5M-$4M in a long term deal for him? Zuccarello has played one full NHL season. This one. Does management believe the player can do it again? They do a one year deal with the player and he can become a group III in 2015. Then the player is definitely going to group III with the possibility of losing him for nothing.

I think Dubinsky relaxed a bit after getting his contract. Its only human nature.

AV has a 5 year contract. Where was he going? When the Rangers lose,AV's system sucks. When they win,the system isn't mentioned.

Zuccarello will be here for all five years? Most Ranger players have a short shelf life on Broadway.

You're just way off base here on at least 2/3 of the guys your advocating trading.

Girardi/McD are our shutdown pair. How'd the Flyers top line do last night? How about Seguin & Co.? How about Chicago? Toronto? Etc... That's a guy you sign long term and a pair you keep together. Girardi CAN'T be replaced with a prospect and a #1. It could take years to develop another #1 RD. Girardi has to be signed. Period.

MZA - the Rangers have their first decent PP in how long and he's clearly the catalyst. You think now that he's got a coach that sees what he brings to the team that we should shuffle him off for another forward or some picks makes some kind of sense? It doesn't. The Rangers PP has been ~6th in the league for weeks for a reason: MZA. The Nash unit does nothing compared to the 2nd unit, which I have to remind you gives Mats a supporting cast of Pouliout and Brassard. And he somehow makes THAT work. 3.5/4 million with an escalating cap for a guy that took a steep discount to play here to begin with? Sign him.

Callahan is the only guy I'd consider trading DEPENDING on what his demands are. We don't know. If it's 5-6, I entertain it. Is it a coincidence that the Rangers are 4-1-1 with him back in the lineup? Probably not. But, he's a guy I can certainly see getting overpaid elsewhere.

 

[CharlieCharleschuk]

The only problem with signing Callahan is his durability over the length of the contract. Otherwise he's the freaking Captain and you do what you need to to keep him.

 

[nyr2k2]

I'd like to keep one of the two, if possible. Moving both is just too drastic of a shakeup for me. I don't think the team needs a massive overhaul. Trading your captain and a top pair defenseman is a big change. And then with Richards gone in the summer... We don't need that much turnover.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

The only problem with signing Callahan is his durability over the length of the contract. Otherwise he's the freaking Captain and you do what you need to to keep him.

Just a durability issue? How about the fact hes going to get more years and more $'s than his on-ice play dictates? Im not interested in paying for that C on his sweater.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

I'd like to keep one of the two, if possible. Moving both is just too drastic of a shakeup for me. I don't think the team needs a massive overhaul. Trading your captain and a top pair defenseman is a big change. And then with Richards gone in the summer... We don't need that much turnover.

Fair enough. When looking at it that way, I think Girardi is the safer investment.

 

[CharlieCharleschuk]

Just a durability issue? How about the fact hes going to get more years and more $'s than his on-ice play dictates? Im not interested in paying for that C on his sweater.

At this point, I'd say he's quite valuable for his on-ice play. He's not Drury, yet... but who knows in two or three years how he'll hold up. He seems to be increasingly out of the lineup. Yeah, I agree that a huge contract over a long period with a NMC would be a bad bad idea with a guy showing this kind of wear.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

At this point, I'd say he's quite valuable for his on-ice play. He's not Drury, yet... but who knows in two or three years how he'll hold up. He seems to be increasingly out of the lineup. Yeah, I agree that a huge contract over a long period with a NMC would be a bad bad idea with a guy showing this kind of wear.

Hes going to be going after 7 years. He'll get it somewhere on the open market. The Rangers, being a mediocre team, have done quite a job of inflating the worth of good players by depending on them so much. These are not great players we are talking about.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what a 36 year old Callahan will look like. He'll need to play with a walker.