Speculation: Speculation: Roster Building Thread - Part XXIII

[nsvoyageurs]

I heard the ocean called

It may be just me, but this post needs a reply from @Thirty One.

 

[LOFIN]

Frankly I'm depressed and ashamed

 

[egelband]

I am going to look like an evil genius when Kravtsov ends up the best player in the league.

“McDavid is more…I don’t know…flashy? But The Kravinator is clearly a better all-around player. Put it this way, in game seven of the finals I take The Kravinator every day of the week and twice on Sunday”.


“I can’t believe the Rangers traded him for XX Staal”

 

[Shesterkybomb]

I'm f'n pumped for the next 5 years!! Its a great time to be a Ranger fan.

 

[Shesterkybomb]

Carried over from last thread.... Nils Lundkvist.

I don't dislike Nils Lundkvist at all. I think he can be a very good player, maybe even a special player. But to tout him as a "special player" before he ever sets foot on NHL ice is way premature in my estimation. Maybe he will be "special" and maybe he will do it right out of the gate. Or maybe he will struggle and have to spend time in the AHL. And maybe all the hype surrounding him will end up being justified or maybe it won't. But there's absolutely no way to declare him "the next one" (one of what Im not sure) at this point and time.

At least wait until we see him in preseason lol.

And I would still trade him right now for an "equivalent" young center. A center who is also SUPPOSED TO BE "special". Because right now, that's what we are dealing with. A lot of cases of the "supposdas". But also, Fox is "special" like legitimately. Schneider is also "supposda" be "special" but with even more "necessary" attributes. So we will see. Lundqvist may have to switch sides to LD. Where we have a few more cases of the "supposdas" in Jones, Miller and eventually Robertson. And sure, right now you might be saying "Ugh you can't compare Lundkvist with Jones or Milller! Lundkvist is SUPPOSDA be better than both of them." and yea, he is supposda be. But that don't mean he is. And I think 2-3 years ago, if anyone had said "I prefer Fox to Quinn Hughes" you would have gotten bottles and litter thrown at you and told to just go away. But Fox now looks like the superior player, in numerous ways. Just an example that, "supposda" is another way of saying "the odds are" which is, clearly, a connotation to gambling. Which is what everyone making predictions is doing. We could be sitting here in 3 years from now saying "thank goodness we kept Jones instead of Lundkvist." And I'm sure there would be plenty of revisionist history to go along with it. Many post-hoc prophets.

And anyway, if he can bring back return the other two can't, that's meaningful if we are talking about, completely hypothetically, what we could get in return. And the entire reason we would hypothetically need to trade him, is to get a young center that is, again, "supposda" be "special". Well, you're not getting a young center who's "supposda" be "special" unless you give up a D prospect that is also "supposda" be special.

And hey, maybe Lundqvist will come into trainijng camp and we will all be drooling, with mouths agape, images of Brian Leetch and Kris Letang juxtaposing themselves over our mental image of Lundkvist. And he makes Fox look like an AHL cast off. And angels come down and proclaim him the anointed one, the Maud'dib of a spiceless universe. And we all start crying because his play, inexplicably inhuman, surrounded by a glowing halo, proves my skepticism wanting.

Or maybe he's just a 21 year old kid who has everything to prove before we start getting his HOF plaque shined. God forbid he has to spend the year in the AHL. I think some people would loes their minds.

Lundkvist is gonna be a special player, I'm just hopeful either him or Schneider can play left side, because I'd hate to lose either one of them, Schneider is the guy you go to battle with and get some clutch points and Lundkvist is the guy you build an offense around. I'm very bullish on Schneider if anyone hasn't noticed, he's the complete player, he's basically what Trouba was in Winnipeg.

 

[Levitate]

Lundkvist is gonna be a special player, I'm just hopeful either him or Schneider can play left side, because I'd hate to lose either one of them, Schneider is the guy you go to battle with and get some clutch points and Lundkvist is the guy you build an offense around. I'm very bullish on Schneider if anyone hasn't noticed, he's the complete player, he's basically what Trouba was in Winnipeg.

I'd love it if one of them could move to the left and still be a great player but it's a big ask of a player

 

[Fitzy]

I'd love it if one of them could move to the left and still be a great player but it's a big ask of a player

There used to be a hell of a lot more defensemen playing on their offside a decade ago than there are now. The devils ran 6 left d not too long ago.

Not sure the current trend of 3ld on the left and 3 rd on the right is going to stay this way for a long time

 

[nyr2k2]

There used to be a hell of a lot more defensemen playing on their offside a decade ago than there are now. The devils ran 6 left d not too long ago.

Not sure the current trend of 3ld on the left and 3 rd on the right is going to stay this way for a long time

I don't see how it can. There just aren't enough right shots to make it work. It would be like if every baseball team tried to evenly balance a lineup with lefties and righties, when only something like 35% of guys bat left or whatever.

EDIT: Somewhat OT but I always found the hockey handedness/dominant handedness discussion really interesting. So many different opinions on why it is the way it is. I think there is some sort of actually physical link, but I also know people who shoot the way they do because of something random, like my buddy who only had three lefty sticks and always begged to use my rights sticks. I would of course let him as he was more comfortable right, but eventually he just stuck with his own gear and decided he was a left shot. And he ended up with a better shot than all of us. I shoot right, but it's weird because while I can't effectively shoot left, I can golf pretty well when hitting left.

 

[Shesterkybomb]

I'd love it if one of them could move to the left and still be a great player but it's a big ask of a player

I know Trouba wasn't a fan of it in Winnipeg but its possible he could move left as he can actually do it, i mean if you say to him, you wanna play with Fox or Miller and let it all unfold. Id be fine in 2 years if we were

Trouba Fox
Miller Schneider
Lindgren Lundkvist (bottom 4 might be in wrong order depending on play)

 

[aufheben]

I'm f'n pumped for the next 5 years!! Its a great time to be a Ranger fan.

- me, two years ago.

 

[Shesterkybomb]

- me, two years ago.

That was too early man

 

[Crease]

I don't see how it can. There just aren't enough right shots to make it work. It would be like if every baseball team tried to evenly balance a lineup with lefties and righties, when only something like 35% of guys bat left or whatever.

EDIT: Somewhat OT but I always found the hockey handedness/dominant handedness discussion really interesting. So many different opinions on why it is the way it is. I think there is some sort of actually physical link, but I also know people who shoot the way they do because of something random, like my buddy who only had three lefty sticks and always begged to use my rights sticks. I would of course let him as he was more comfortable right, but eventually he just stuck with his own gear and decided he was a left shot. And he ended up with a better shot than all of us. I shoot right, but it's weird because while I can't effectively shoot left, I can golf pretty well when hitting left.

I am a righty that does everything right-handed, including baseball and golf, except hockey. Which is my number one sport, and the thing in life I’m by far most adept at. Don’t remember why I started playing left-handed or why it feels so natural.

 

[brakeyawself]

Lundkvist is gonna be a special player, I'm just hopeful either him or Schneider can play left side, because I'd hate to lose either one of them, Schneider is the guy you go to battle with and get some clutch points and Lundkvist is the guy you build an offense around. I'm very bullish on Schneider if anyone hasn't noticed, he's the complete player, he's basically what Trouba was in Winnipeg.

Everyone's a seer.

It's weird, when I suggest Lundqvist's future, if he does stay with the Rangers long term, is probably on the PP1, allowing Fox to do other things.

And then a bunch of people jump on and start telling me how Lundkvist is known for his defense and that his offense won't be as good as Fox.

Which then makes me say, so he's either going to be relegated to 3rd pair or he'll HAVE to switch to LD? If he's not getting PP1 time and not on the top 2 pairs, then he won't be getting enough minutes to want to stick around.

And then someone says "Lundkvist" is the guy you build an offense around."

Which makes me think I was correct when I suggested his only real long term future with the Rangers is on the PP1, because we have Fox. And that Fox is so good defensively, 5x5, and PK, he'd be more useful playing their than on the PP1 if we had a player like Lundkvist.

So..... I really at this point think no one really knows what Lundkvist is going to be or how good he's going to be. If he's a defense first, not as good as Fox offensively Dman, then he probably won't beat out Fox or Schneider in the long term for the top 2 RD spots nor will he take Fox's spot on the PP1. Which means he'll have to switch to LD or he'll never get any playing time. And if he's the offensive dynamo you build a team around, well then he still won't likely overtake Fox and Schneider would be more what we need out of the 2nd pair RD. But he may then take Fox's place on PP1 so he gets substantial minutes while being on pair 3. Or, he'll still have to switch to LD successfully and be better than our more natural LDs.

Neither of those situations sounds ideal to me. Even if he's a "special" player. Frankly, I don't think he's any more or less "special" than any of our other highly rated young D prospects. He comes with a set of attributes that we will either need or not need quite so much. Jones could just as easily come out to be a "special" player and then what? We just have an entire defense of "special" players and pay like $35-40 mil in salary just towards our defense eventually? While two of our "special" players are cool with getting like 10-12 minutes a game on the 3rd pair?

Right now, the only thing that's "special" about Lundkvist is how hyped up he is and how overconfident Ranger fans are that he's going to be a "special" player. That's the only thing that really separates him from our other young Dmen at the moment, before any of them have even stepped onto the ice for any adequate amount of time.

And don't get me wrong, hype is ok I guess. But the amount of certainty surrounding Lundkvist and what he will be and do in the future is borderline pathological. I feel like I'm at the Ranger fan version of a new age vegan cookout, where everyone can see the future but most can't agree on what that future is

Call me skeptical until he actually steps out on to the ice in the NHL and proves it. If people were able to discern, with any real accuracy, who is going to be a "special" player and who is not, NHL draft scouting and team scouting wouldn't have like an 85% failure rate.

The only real answer to any of this right now is "no one really knows". But I'm sure whoever gets it right is going to chock it up to their superior eye for talent and ability to analyze 20 year olds. Gotta love accuracy in hindsight.

 

[brakeyawself]

I know Trouba wasn't a fan of it in Winnipeg but its possible he could move left as he can actually do it, i mean if you say to him, you wanna play with Fox or Miller and let it all unfold. Id be fine in 2 years if we were

Trouba Fox
Miller Schneider
Lindgren Lundkvist (bottom 4 might be in wrong order depending on play)

What we really need from Trouba is him using his size and physicality to become a more defensively minded Dman. Fox, Schneider, Lundqvist isn't a long term possibility if they all turn out to be great. Maybe we could have that for one or two seasons max before they need new contracts . But even then if they are all playing up to their potential, whoever is on that 3rd line won't be happy.

And asking guys to switch sides and for them to still be as good as they are on their natural side IS asking a lot. And not everyone will be capable or equally capable.

And frankly, Miller is a big body, athletic and physical. He should be focusing on defense first since we seem to have an abundance of future offensive stud Dmen. Because he'd be better off at 1LD pairing with Fox or at whatever LD pairing with Lundqvist. And I would eventually rather see Jones at LD where I know he is comfortable and can succeed. And theoretically, he'd be our best offensive LD. We don't even know if Lundkvist or Schneider would be as effective if they switched sides. So it's nearly impossible to predict.

But if Lundkvist can't switch to LD, then I think we need Jones even more so that we have a highly effective offensive LD. If Jones pans out that is.

Lindgren - Fox
Miller - Lundqvist
Jones - Trouba

Until Schneider is ready this makes the most sense to me. And then Schneider replaces Trouba. There's no way we are keeping more than 4 of Fox, Lundkvist, Schneider, Jones, Miller, Robertson long term. It's just not plausible if they all are meeting expectations. There's not enough minutes and there isn't enough cap space. So sure, if you can have them all for like 1 or 2 seasons before they start requiring new deals and more minutes that could work. But then, how beneficial is it really to have that if they aren't yet playing up to their potential?

One thing I think I can predict. By the 2026-27 season, we will only have 4 of Fox, Schneider, Jones, Lundkvist, Miller, Lindgren and Robertson on the team. And unless Schneider or Lundkvist can successfully switch sides, while being able to outplay Jones, Miller and Robertson, then we won't have both Lundkvist and Schneider. One of them will not even want to play here if they are only getting 10 minutes a game. And I think we can all agree Fox won't be going anywhere. So really, it's 3 spots for 5 players if you count Lindgren.

And honestly, how can we ask them to develop if we can't give them more than 12 minutes a game ? That's not fair to them at all if they are worth a damn. And if they aren't worth a damn, than it really doesn't matter if they end up on the 3rd pair and they also offer no bonus over any other 3rd pair type of player. And as far as this season guys, maybe ONE of those 5 make it on the team out of preseason and then if we are lucky, maybe one more gets added during the season. The rest are probably going to be in the AHL for the entire year. And there is really no telling who those will be.
If both Schneider and Lundqvist break camp looking like Calder candidates, I still am pretty sure only one of them would stay with the Rangers and the other would still have to go to AHL.

 

[Kords]

That was too early man

Nah, I would of been pumped if Kakko was our best prospect. After the following 2 drafts, i'm over the dang moon.

 

[Bruner4329]

As far as Barron goes, I know last seasons AHL was depleted and not the same level of competition as usual, but Barron took advantage of that and more. PPG for an AHL rookie is nothing to scoff at, even if it was in the low quality year. I'm not sure how his grooming for center is going, but I actually think he can be more than just a bottom 6 forward. Not sure he has top 6 upside, but I would say middle 6 isn't out of reach.

Middle 6. That is a new one. In your post you mention upper 6, bottom 6 and middle 6. How many lines we gonna play? 6? Amazing how people make anything up trying to prove a point.

 

[brakeyawself]

Middle 6. That is a new one. In your post you mention upper 6, bottom 6 and middle 6. How many lines we gonna play? 6? Amazing how people make anything up trying to prove a point.

ROFL. "New one"? Wowza . Where have you been the last 80 years?

Yikes man, are you sure you're in the right forum? This forum is about hockey. And if you don't know the definition of top 6, middle 6 and bottom 6, I think you may want to study a little bit.

Make something up to "prove a point"? Lol. I think I did a good job with my argument.

But right now the only thing you are proving is that you don't know squat about hockey.

And the fact that you don't know, and still can't even figure out what those things mean, is just.....I pity you. It's really not that complicated. But even more importantly, these are widely used terms within hockey.

 

[KevinFinnerty]

I am a righty that does everything right-handed, including baseball and golf, except hockey. Which is my number one sport, and the thing in life I’m by far most adept at. Don’t remember why I started playing left-handed or why it feels so natural.

I’m the same exact way.

 

[Bruner4329]

ROFL. "New one"? Wowza . Where have you been the last 80 years?

Yikes man, are you sure you're in the right forum? This forum is about hockey. And if you don't know the definition of top 6, middle 6 and bottom 6, I think you may want to study a little bit.

Make something up to "prove a point"? Lol. I think I did a good job with my argument.

But right now the only thing you are proving is that you don't know squat about hockey.

And the fact that you don't know, and still can't even figure out what those things mean, is just.....I pity you. It's really not that complicated. But even more importantly, these are widely used terms within hockey.

Sure thing. If you are not good enough to be top 6 then you are playing on the 3rd or 4th lines. Teams normally carry 13/14 forwards and scratch 2 per game to roll out 4 lines. You want to play semantics go ahead but fact is you don't make top 2 lines you are part of the bottom 6.

 

[EdJovanovski]

I don't see how it can. There just aren't enough right shots to make it work. It would be like if every baseball team tried to evenly balance a lineup with lefties and righties, when only something like 35% of guys bat left or whatever.

EDIT: Somewhat OT but I always found the hockey handedness/dominant handedness discussion really interesting. So many different opinions on why it is the way it is. I think there is some sort of actually physical link, but I also know people who shoot the way they do because of something random, like my buddy who only had three lefty sticks and always begged to use my rights sticks. I would of course let him as he was more comfortable right, but eventually he just stuck with his own gear and decided he was a left shot. And he ended up with a better shot than all of us. I shoot right, but it's weird because while I can't effectively shoot left, I can golf pretty well when hitting left.

British Columbia is odd in that the rest of Canada predominant shoots left but BC shoots right. The first people to teach me how to play hockey were my dad & uncle, my dad is left hand dominant and shoots right, my uncle is right hand dominant and shoots right. But my uncle’s dad is right hand dominant and shoots left.

Then I am right hand dominant and shoot left lol, so it’s like every generation did the opposite of what their dad did. I also golf & play baseball left handed. The general idea is if your dominant hand is at the top of your stick you will have better stickhandling, if your dominant hand is at the bottom you’ll have more power in your shot. I think the shooting advantage is overstated though as you don’t generate most of the power through your arm.

I also notice the higher of level you go up the higher percentage of left shots you’ll find. Like in PE class I’d be one of the only left shots out of 40 kids. Then playing street hockey with friends who are more into hockey it becomes like 75% right 25% left. Then I’m league play it was about 60% right 40% left. I think most casual players just assume they should shoot right handed because they’re right hand dominant, or they played baseball and other sports prior

 

[brakeyawself]

I’m the same exact way.

I am a righty that does everything right-handed, including baseball and golf, except hockey. Which is my number one sport, and the thing in life I’m by far most adept at. Don’t remember why I started playing left-handed or why it feels so natural.

Interesting. I thought I was weird, whenever I would watch some CSI type show and they would say "based on the direction of the wound the suspect must have been right handed" and I would be like, "WTF are they talking about, how can they know that just by which hand was used."

And people would just stare at me like duh. But then I found out not everyone is ambidextrous and police do in fact often determine handedness as far as evidence. And that most people cant even swing a weapon with their off-hand let alone a hockey stick or baseball bat. Which I'd been doing with both hands since I was like 7.

I also found out that not everyone can write with both hands or do a whole slew of other things with both hands. And somehow, I didn't know that until I was like 27.

I think it may have something to do with playing musical instruments, which require both hands, from a very young age. My handwriting with each hand is different. It's like two completely different people's handwriting.

But now I just feel super lucky. Because I seriously don't know what I'd do if I didn't have the use of both hands regarding all variety of tasks. All though, I don't throw quite as hard with my left hand as my right. But then, my baseball swing is way smoother from the left than the right. In hockey, I had a difficult time deciding. But my slapshot with my right hand had more power so I just went with that. A few times in games, I would switch hands, usually on defense and use the curve backwards. But my coaches yelled at me a lot lol.

 

[brakeyawself]

Sure thing. If you are not good enough to be top 6 then you are playing on the 3rd or 4th lines. Teams normally carry 13/14 forwards and scratch 2 per game to roll out 4 lines. You want to play semantics go ahead but fact is you don't make top 2 lines you are part of the bottom 6.

Bro. You don't want to get into this argument because you seriously don't understand what you are talking about.

It's real easy. Top 6 means the 1st and 2nd lines. Middle 6 means the 2nd and 3rd lines. Bottom 6 means the 3rd and 4th lines.

God, I'm afraid to even mention "top 9" you might have a stroke.

I have to think you just started watching hockey yesterday to have never heard these terms used before.

Some forwards aren't quite cut out for the 1st line, but they are suited to play on the 2nd or 3rd line. Thus they are "middle 6" players.

Here, go sulk in a corner while you realize what an ass you've made of yourself. I can do this all day.

Best middle-six winger



How does the Avalanche middle-six scoring pedigree stack up?

Player grades: Middle six, secondary scorers take charge as Edmonton Oilers blow away Hurricanes | Edmonton Journal

 

[brakeyawself]

British Columbia is odd in that the rest of Canada predominant shoots left but BC shoots right. The first people to teach me how to play hockey were my dad & uncle, my dad is left hand dominant and shoots right, my uncle is right hand dominant and shoots right. But my uncle’s dad is right hand dominant and shoots left.

Then I am right hand dominant and shoot left lol, so it’s like every generation did the opposite of what their dad did. I also golf & play baseball left handed. The general idea is if your dominant hand is at the top of your stick you will have better stickhandling, if your dominant hand is at the bottom you’ll have more power in your shot. I think the shooting advantage is overstated though as you don’t generate most of the power through your arm.

I also notice the higher of level you go up the higher percentage of left shots you’ll find. Like in PE class I’d be one of the only left shots out of 40 kids. Then playing street hockey with friends who are more into hockey it becomes like 75% right 25% left. Then I’m league play it was about 60% right 40% left. I think most casual players just assume they should shoot right handed because they’re right hand dominant, or they played baseball and other sports prior

Just curious, when you say Canada predominantly shoots left, but BC right, you mean in most of Canada, regardless of what hand a kid is, they make him shoot left? But in BC even if a kid is purely left handed, they make him shoot right?

I mean, I know handedness does not always equate to which side someone holds their stick on. But the regional aspect of it is pretty interesting and I've never heard of that.

You're right about the higher level though. It's the same in baseball. Little league, most everyone is batting right, throwing right, pitching right. As you move up more lefties begin to aggregate. And in baseball if you can use both, switch hitting, at a young age it makes you a pretty unique addition to a team. And if you can throw or pitch with both hands, well, then that just makes you a weirdo like me lol.

 

[EdJovanovski]

Just curious, when you say Canada predominantly shoots left, but BC right, you mean in most of Canada, regardless of what hand a kid is, they make him shoot left? But in BC even if a kid is purely left handed, they make him shoot right?

I mean, I know handedness does not always equate to which side someone holds their stick on. But the regional aspect of it is pretty interesting and I've never heard of that.

You're right about the higher level though. It's the same in baseball. Little league, most everyone is batting right, throwing right, pitching right. As you move up more lefties begin to aggregate. And in baseball if you can use both, switch hitting, at a young age it makes you a pretty unique addition to a team. And if you can throw or pitch with both hands, well, then that just makes you a weirdo like me lol.

Most youth coaches in Canada, hockey dads, etc will teach you to hold your stick with your dominant hand on top, so since 90% of peoples dominant hand is their right; that results in almost 90% of Canadian players being left handed. But in BC for some reason, most people are raised to shoot with their dominant hand on the bottom, which would inverse that percentage. It seems the US & Russia also have higher percentage of right handed shots than Canada. In the case of the US I would think it’s because many kids play baseball first. Sweden I think has more left handed shots, Finland I think right handed.

The stereotypes about handedness do tend to hold true with the very elite players, lefties having the hands (Kane, McDavid, Crosby, Kucherov, Gaudreau, Pettersson) righties with their powerful shots (Ovechkin, Stamkos, Kovalchuk, Hull, Laine)

And haha I’m one of the weird ones like you, I am quite ambidextrous. I can write as well as play sports with either hand if I want

 

[brakeyawself]

Interesting. I never noticed it in clips, but Gordie Howe and Bill Durnan both played ambidextrously. I guess the increasing curve of the stick has made that harder to do. But I still say sometimes, you can better protect the puck with the curve pointing towards you. Heh, at least in like highschool.

It’s Not Political, but More Canadians Are Lefties (Published 2010)

Why Are So Many Hockey Players Left-Handed? | Pure Hockey

This is rather interesting. Really never realized, but it makes a lot of sense.

I wonder how well a player would do today using a flat stick, no curve. Obviously if using your stick ambidextrously was THAT beneficial, more players might. But I imagine the curve is way more important to today's game.