Salary Cap: 2014 - 2015 New York Rangers :: Roster Building / Proposal Thread Part X

[Gardner McKay]

With Maata done for the year I wonder if Pittsburgh hop on the Sekera train. Another team in our division to compete with us over available defensemen.

 

[ArPanet]

That's not the point. The point is: Does that matter enough in order to make a major shakeup on the hottest team in the NHL? No, it doesn't.



Actually you're improving on what he brings in the scoring department. Kreider's size is an important piece, as is his familiarity with the team. So is his contract status.

If we're really debating in purely hypothetical situations without any real concept of how they would impact the current team, let's talk about someone more exciting than Taylor Hall.

Yeah like Shea Weber...

 

[Synergy27]

There is a pretty simple solution to this. One of you open Excel and run a correlation on FO win% and CF%. Download the stats from War-On-Ice.

I'd do it, but Windows is a damn Monopoly and doesn't let you run correlations (or any data analysis, for that matter) on Macs.

 

[haveandare]

No, I agree. I'm not advocating any of that, I'm just saying what would need to happen to actually improve significantly on Face-offs. And I meant we still wouldn't be that great on face-offs.

Oakalee dokalee - I'm an idiot.

Seriously though, I agree that's what would need to happen to be better on face-offs and it probably wouldn't be worth it.

I totally misunderstood.

 

[aufheben]

Oakalee dokalee - I'm an idiot.

Seriously though, I agree that's what would need to happen to be better on face-offs and it probably wouldn't be worth it.

I totally misunderstood.

It's ok, I was cooking while I wrote that so it may have been unclear.

 

[bernmeister]

Just another point on Hall.

Up to the point in his career so far he has put up better numbers than Nash in a similarly bad situation. We traded two solid players (though not great), a former first round pick, and a first rounder for him. And that was for a guy who demanded a trade to one of few teams.
Hall has
1. Put up better numbers (First 5 seasons. Hall 282 games. 103 goals. 149 assists. Prorates to 30-43-73 per 82. Nash first 5 seasons: 154 goals. 122 assists. 363 games [no lockout and less injuries]. Prorates to 35-28-62)
2. Makes less money/year
3. Not demanded a trade.

If you think we could get him for Miller and dime a dozen prospects you're crazy. And I'm not saying I'd empty the whole farm to trade for him but to say you wouldn't trade Miller+Lindberg for him is just ridiculous (Again that's assuming the cap situation would work. Obviously like that it wouldn't).

Hall will be a bargain 5 yrs from now when still under contract.

The whole ? is the right move.
I'm willing to retool a prior suggestion.

We need to keep Miller to stay under cap.
Oil will pay THRU THE NOSE for both Brass + Zuc

What about
something like:

Brass + Zuc + Staal + McIlrath + + Zapski + Glass + 2016 Ranger 1st
for
Hall, Nurse, J. Schultz + Edm 2016 1st

we surrender Brass + zuc but get cap space, so if we get a Sekera as a rental we can plug him in at around 4.8 (Staal will want more). Also cap space for Glass + better pick next year. significantly we add Nurse.
Schultz is RFA. Glass has longer contract

They get a C and expiring Zuc who likely will re-up.
First dibs on Staal if he wants max $$ and for how long.
Some nice prospects.

something around that...

 

[Leetch3]

Last year Nashville finished 1st in FO% at 53.0% (2,548 [/4,807] wins)

Calgary was 30th with 46.3% (2,226 [/4,803] wins)

That's 322 more wins, which is about 4 more per game. And that's the difference between the best and the worst.

---

We were 48.8% last year (22nd), and this year we're 46.1%. That's like, what, 1.5 more FOW per game?

not all faceoffs are equal...those 1-4 faceoffs could mean nothing, they could also cost you the game. in a close game there are normally a handful of key faceoffs, being able to win those key faceoffs could be the difference between winning or losing...or at the very least makes things easier

 

[bernmeister]

1 - Fitting Hall in is actually impossible. No really. It financially cannot be done unless the Rangers send back serious cap hits back. Hall makes 6 mill. Currently Rangers have 1.48 mill open. According to NHL numbers, Miller's cap number is 1.08. That makes 2.56 mill. Taking on 6, means we'd have to free up 3.44 mill, at the very least to exactly fit under the cap. What about having leeway room, in case of injuries? Realistically that total becomes around 4-4.25 to just give us 500-750k breathing room. Let's say 4.25 mill needs to be cleared in addition. And let's say we get lucky and find a Glass taker. 2.8 mill. Are you willing to give up Klein, too? How about Hagelin and having to cut Stempniak? Or both Hagelin and Fast? Hayes? Stepan? Zucc? Take a pick, one of them needs to be moved. Still want to do the trade?

2 - This is the best team i've ever seen during my 22 years being a NYR fan. I was 1.5 when they won the 94 cup. I remember none of it. I can't remember another team being this good. Obviously it is still early. But this team looks to have a good coach. A good core. Talent. Diversity. That killer instinct. A buy low like this isn't a buy low. It's a bad deal. Because it'll prevent me, and everyone else that is a Rangers fan, from witnessing a potential Rangers cup this year. Another cup dream deferred.

Getting Hall sets us back, big time. They will have to gut their team to get him. Considering how we've looked... that would be incredibly disheartening. Just 1 cup, I want to see. This would crush that hope for years, maybe even a full decade (if not longer) if the trade completely fails.

And sending those cap hits back would be a terrific way to get out of that problem.
As long as we get enough, it can work.

Hall = most of offensive production of Brass + Zuc
you get production / offense or defense from the other guy on the team.

If you get one other real gem in there, like Nurse, that could be killer enough.

 

[silverfish]

That's actually incredibly interesting. I thought it would be stronger.

 

[NYRFANMANI]

Atm, the team is playing terrific, tomorrow is a real test!

Only couple of players I'm uncertain about, we are in great shape right now. Only couple of guys more catch up, to where 75% of the squad is already at, we have a steam roller here. Supposed the players stay in this shape.

I think, we all agree that, what we need are draft picks, a #6-dman and primarily a real faceoff specialist, you know? the guy that wins the draw of draws, with like 10 seconds on the clock, in the game.

Here's my list of guys, the rest is atm quite untouchable:

Hagelin- he's fast, he's got heart, but his offensive skills and his size are inconsistent. Worst he's making boneheaded plays on the ice for quite some while. Any thing close to three million would be unwarranted. Yet he is a big part of the integrity of the locker room. Dealing him away, may screw up Brass and Zucc though, they look like bruuhs.

John Moore- had a real solid game agaist one of the Cali teams in particular, he is under observation. It's like, if he plays great till March keep him, if not it's an option. His speed is important though. Still, he ain't there yet and could be a risk come playoffs. Like Hags boneheaded plays.


ps.: why Hall? Christ. EDM really going to trade him? The asking price already would be ridiculous.

 

[BarbaraAlphanse]

And sending those cap hits back would be a terrific way to get out of that problem.
As long as we get enough, it can work.

Hall = most of offensive production of Brass + Zuc
you get production / offense or defense from the other guy on the team.

If you get one other real gem in there, like Nurse, that could be killer enough.

I'll make you a deal. Just let me keep my team in tact for 1 cup, and then i'll be on board with any trade proposals you may have in the future. Sounds fair?

 

[aufheben]

The hell does this mean?

 

[haohmaru]

Hall will be a bargain 5 yrs from now when still under contract.

The whole ? is the right move.
I'm willing to retool a prior suggestion.

We need to keep Miller to stay under cap.
Oil will pay THRU THE NOSE for both Brass + Zuc

What about
something like:

Brass + Zuc + Staal + McIlrath + + Zapski + Glass + 2016 Ranger 1st
for
Hall, Nurse, J. Schultz + Edm 2016 1st

we surrender Brass + zuc but get cap space, so if we get a Sekera as a rental we can plug him in at around 4.8 (Staal will want more). Also cap space for Glass + better pick next year. significantly we add Nurse.
Schultz is RFA. Glass has longer contract

They get a C and expiring Zuc who likely will re-up.
First dibs on Staal if he wants max $$ and for how long.
Some nice prospects.

something around that...

Your team just won 12 out 13, including the horrific death valley 3, for the first time in FORTY YEARS and you're shooting out 4 starters, a 1st, and 2 potential NHL'ers?

This is ridiculous and borders on insanity. There's NO reason. ZERO. NONE. WHATSOEVER. To make a move like this.

They've been something like 17-3 in their last 20 and you want to nuke the roster & chemistry?

Did you see that your "second coming of Mark Messier" Oiler center got sent down?

Are we trying to win the Cup or trading Pokemon cards? This is nuts.

 

[BarbaraAlphanse]

At work, just reading about this Hall nonsense, and it is making my blood boil. Some of you are actually trying to legitimately justify this as "making the team better". "I'm all for it if it makes the team better". Implying that 1) acquiring Hall is guaranteed to make the team better and 2) that you know what will make the team better more-so than others advocating against the trade.

Getting Hall guarantees nothing but adding risk for success. Getting Hall guarantees lowering the legitimate probability that this Rangers team will win a cup this year, and probably next year, and perhaps quite a long time afterwards.

There is no evidence that acquiring Hall will improve this team. Given the cost of what it will take, the probability actually favors that acquiring Hall will not only make this team worse immediately, but worse in the long run.

This has nothing to do with his personality, ceiling of potential, leadership. This purely has to do with what he would cost and what he would bring.

As I said in a previous post, it is impossible to acquire Hall without sending back significant cap back. And, just to cater to the dreamers out there that think its possible, I hypothetically traded Glass for a draft pick and helped lower the bridge between where we would be at, cap wise, sending Miller to Edmonton and Glass to an unwitting team, and where we would need to get to legally add Hall's 6 million dollar cap hit.

Miller + Halverson (because that seems to be roughly what Dagoon's rumor implies). That leaves the inherent need to clear about 2.8 million dollars more to fit Hall and leave room for emergency injury cap wiggle room. That's an extra piece of: Hagelin + Fast or Hagelin + cutting Stempniak or Klein or Zucc or Brass or Stepan.

That is just to get us to work the cap this year. And moving forward... it would mean losing at the very least Staal or MSL. Very least.

And immediately... Our depth will take a major hit. No more rolling out 4 lines consistently. Team chemistry immediately will take a hit since they'll be playing w/ someone that they're unfamiliar with on the ice.

And in the grand scheme of things... all it really does is prevents the Rangers from being contenders at the cup this year. Prevents the Rangers from sustaining any type of cup hope for the next few years at the least, as it would cripple their flexibility w/ the cap. Prevents me from seeing and remembering perhaps the first Rangers cup victory I would ever see.

Which is why my blood is really boiling. People justifying that "this helps the team win" when the probability says it's not likely to do this at all. People ignoring blatant and unnecessary heavy risk of failure, for at least this season, for? I can't quite understand. Selfish shiny new toy syndrome.

 

[Kakko]

The hell does this mean?

There is a positive correlation, but not a very strong one

 

[Zuccarello Awesome*]

Glass for futures should be the first move NYR make.

Then, one of the following:

Option A:

JT Miller, Duclair, J.Moore, 2nd

for

Darren Helm and one of [DeKeyser / Kindl]


Playoff Lineup:

Kreider Stepan St. Louis
Zuccarello Brassard Nash
Hagelin Hayes Helm (can take faceoffs)
Stempniak Moore Fast
Malone

McDonagh Girardi
Staal Boyle
DeKeyser Klein
Hunwick

Lundqvist
Talbot

I think it's a long shot to get DeKeyser in the deal, but I think that package gets Helm and Kindl for sure. DET may need to clear some space to bring in Tyler Myers or Byfuglien. Helm and Kindl = ~5M

The Rangers address faceoffs, as well as insurance for Hayes (having never played more than 45 games in a season in NCAA). That H-H-H line would be very difficult to play against, and Helm can certainly take faceoffs for Hayes. DeKeyser (hopefully) or Kindl (more likely) help round out an already impressive blue-line. DeKeyser/Kindl are more consistent and reliable than John Moore has proven thus far.


Option B:

1) JT Miller, J.Moore, Kristo for Carl Soderberg

2) Ryan Haggerty and two 2nds for Andrej Sekera

Playoff Lineup:

Kreider Stepan St. Louis
Zuccarello Brassard Nash
Hagelin Hayes Soderberg
Stempniak Moore Fast
Malone
Duclair

McDonagh Girardi
Staal Boyle
Sekera Klein
Hunwick

Lundqvist
Talbot

Soderberg is set to hit UFA after this season. He's 29 and on pace for 50+ points while playing smart, two-way hockey. The versatile Swede can help lighten the faceoff load for Hayes on that third line.

Sekera addresses two needs: 1) reliable partner for Klein. 2) insurance if Staal walks on July 1st



Both scenarios involve NYR giving up quite a lot in assets / young prospects, but that's the urgency of the situation we are in.

When your roster has no glaring holes, and the core of the team is coming off a SCF run, you add that one or two players who could put you over the top.

Adding guys like Helm, DeKeyser, Kindl, Soderberg, or Sekera to this roster helps accomplish that.

(Note: I think there will be too many suitors for Vermette and he will cost a fortune; not to mention he wants 6M per season on his next deal. His "rental" value is going to be skewed because of so many teams in need of center depth and he's the main veteran name out there.

Not only do I think guys like Helm and Soderberg would fit this roster/system seamlessly, but the relative perceived value will be more realistic.)

 

[Idlerlee]

Trade Brian Boyle for Tanner Glass, it can be done. #believe

 

[aufheben]

There is a positive correlation, but not a very strong one

What would a strong one be? I went to art school goddamnit.

 

[Krams]

What would a strong one be? I went to art school goddamnit.

A higher number.

 

[The Gloaming]

What would a strong one be? I went to art school goddamnit.

The highest can be 1. So a strong correlation would be in the .90s, usually .95+.

 

[silverfish]

The highest can be 1. So a strong correlation would be in the .90s, usually .95+.

.90 is a ridiculously high correlation. I'd say anything over 0.4 is an 'average' correlation. So while .4___ (whatever it was) isn't that strong, it's still not negligible.

And for the education of others, even a -# close to -1 represents a strong correlation, just negative.

0 represents no correlation.

1 represents a perfect positive correlation (as one variable goes up, so does the other)

-1 represents a perfect negative correlation (as one variable goes up, the other goes down)

 

[Synergy27]

What would a strong one be? I went to art school goddamnit.

The closer to 1 (or -1), the higher the correlation. "Strong" is pretty subjective, but I typically use 0.80 as a threshold. If the number is close to -1, it means that the two variables are strongly correlated, but in opposite directions (i.e., when one goes up, the other goes down).

So, a correlation coefficient of 0.45 for FO% vs CF% basically means "meh, nothing to see here".

 

[The Gloaming]

.90 is a ridiculously high correlation. I'd say anything over 0.4 is an 'average' correlation. So while .4___ (whatever it was) isn't that strong, it's still not negligible.

And for the education of others, even a -# close to -1 represents a strong correlation, just negative.

0 represents no correlation.

1 represents a perfect positive correlation (as one variable goes up, so does the other)

-1 represents a perfect negative correlation (as one variable goes up, the other goes down)

Sorry. I took AP stats, but it was two years ago. I'm a little rusty.

 

[Let Blaine Die]

Some of the trade proposals are absolutely mental in here. Yep, let's destroy our depth so we can make a run at a high price scoring winger. Never mind that it would kill us cap wise next year.

 

[Synergy27]

And the three responses before mine are a perfect example of why statistics is such a difficult field to get a handle on. People aren't used to uncertainty, subjectivity, and open interpretation when it comes to math.