Speculation: Offseason Thread #15: Thinking of a new title is Vesey difficult

[Gospel of Prospal]

Awful.

Terrible price to pay for Shattenkirk. He's a guy you can wait on and just overpay via UFA.

If he signs before then, too bad. Not need to give up good assets for him.

In the meantime though, we do need a PMD, top-4 RD

 

[Mikos87]

In the meantime though, we do need a PMD, top-4 RD

For sure, I can definitely see a packaged deal or two from the Rangers. Would gander and say older assets that could get packaged off for younger players is what the Rangers want.

They want skaters.

Zucc
Nash
Klein
Staal

Could all be in play, and I'd say Klein is the least likely to move unless there's a better upgrade.

I can see a Zucc deal but only if it gets back a really good piece.

Nash would probably be a multiplayer deal, possibly losing a young cheap NHL piece with him so the acquiring team can depreciate that contract value in some way... cheap role players.

It'll be interesting to see it unfold.

 

[GoAwayPanarin]

In the meantime though, we do need a PMD, top-4 RD

Only if they really want to compete. If the FO is smart, they can really revamp the RD in the next 10 months or so.

In the mean time, The FO's first priority should be finding a taker for Marc Staal.

 

[Mikos87]

The more I think about it, the better I think that Nick Holden and Brady Skjei allow for a Marc Staal trade.

Those two, arguably or inarguably just eat up the minutes and role that Staal plays... and could actually perform better.

Any team needs a lefty-righty swap?

 

[Gospel of Prospal]

What about taking out Fast?


Nash (money retained), McIlrath and Halverson for Shattenkirk (extended)?

 

[Gospel of Prospal]

Only if they really want to compete. If the FO is smart, they can really revamp the RD in the next 10 months or so.

In the mean time, The FO's first priority should be finding a taker for Marc Staal.

Agree with that. If we can get rid of Tanner Glass, Marc Staal and/or Dan Girardi, I will be one happy camper.

 

[silverfish]

This is awesome, thanks for taking the time to do this.

Okay, SF, if you genuinely would like to receive less antagonism (and are genuinely confused as to why you get it in the first place), let me offer a few more/more detailed observations as to why I think you "get it" from other posters when you make these arguments. Please take them in the spirit of intending to be helpful, because I value you as a poster and do, in fact, intend to be helpful:

1) In making your proposals, you seem obsessed with dumping/acquiring specific players as opposed to looking at the team as a whole and considering any deal, involving any player, that might benefit the organization. It comes off as "what about Miller for this, what about Miller for that, what about Miller for a 6th rounder, oh for the love of God can we PLEASE just get rid of Miller?"

Personally, I would have NO problem trading Miller for the right return. But I ALSO wouldn't have a problem trading Kreider or anyone else on the team for the right return (which in Kreider's case would be higher, BTW). Were you to suggest ideas outside of dumping Miller, signing Nakladal and "firing Girardi to the moon" over and over again, I think you'd be surprised how much less "hate" you receive - INCLUDING as regards to your suggestions for those three players.

Totally. The reason I keep including Miller in deals is because I think the Rangers have three prime trade chips right now between Kreider, Hayes, and Miller. Of those three, I think the Rangers could lose and replace Miller the easiest. I also feel that Miller has enough value to get the players I (personally) want, like Manson. But you are right. It's tired, it's played out. And I can definitely see how it's annoying to read every day. I'll tone it down.

2) Apologies in advance for being harsh, but... your points on advanced stats are dogmatic to the point of being alienating. Now, don't get me wrong. I absolutely appreciate the info you've shared - I've learned from it, and continue to read your posts with interest, because they've added to how I analyze players, and the game as a whole. But you, conversely, come off as dismissive, and sometimes (despite the clever memes) disrespectful of those who don't share your views 100%. The debates you have frequently go:

"This guy is good/bad because of advanced stat X."
"Well have you considered traditional stat A or non-statistical reason 1?"
"Yeah, no, stat X says he's good/bad. Period."
(And then you frequently add humor, which I suspect is meant to deescalate, but in context can actually seem to end your point with "but I guess you're just not smart enough to see that.")

That mode of "debate" is off-putting to the point of being inflammatory, even when just sitting on the sidelines and reading it.

This is something that I've definitely been accused of, but don't really see why this is such a bad thing. Actually, let me start somewhere else, with this, I don't think I've ever claimed to be indisputably right. I've perhaps stated that the facts and metrics say that what I was arguing can't be disputed. Like when I say that there was no other d-man in the league who suppressed shots against his team better than Josh Manson, that's a fact based off of an objective statement based off a stat. It'd be the same thing as saying that no one put up points like Kane last year, but I think it's taken less as gospel since it's not something that everyone believes in the measurement of. And that's totally an okay thing.

Recently, I have made more of an effort to try and back up my views peacefully rather than try and change other poster's opinions, and I hope that helps sort of eliminate some of the harshness that I've been seen as posting with as of late.

The memes and gifs and pictures are always an attempt to deescalate, but definitely see how they are taken another way. Hopefully in the future, there won't be a need for that.

I can assure you, I'm working on it.

3) A related, but different point: you seem to believe that advanced stats are the be-all, end-all without giving any credence to other forms of analysis, the underlying reasons why those stats may be what they are, or importantly, the fact that eventually they need to translate into traditional stats for a team to win. Nakladal is a great example. He's 28, has only played 27 NHL games. During that span, his "box stats" (a term which, BTW, I'm increasingly coming to recognize as a coded sneer) were lousy - and frankly, they weren't all that great at the AHL level either.

Would I be adverse to taking a flyer on the player if he were willing to take a Clendenning-like contract? Absolutely not! In fact, your arguments on the subject have me somewhat intrigued. But to suggest a guy who couldn't crack a North American squad for the first 27 years of his life, has only had a cup of coffee with a big club, during which time he didn't have much "traditional" impact, who hasn't yet been signed by anyone (including his own old club)... I'm sorry, it just comes off on choosing to die on the analytics hill, rather than taking into account the fact that maybe, just MAYBE, he's not as good as you think he is.

I mean, to take the point to the extreme, if we were to ice a squad filled with your oft-mentioned favorites who put up great supporting numbers but don't ever actually get on the score sheet, how would we win games? Would every game be 1-0? Or would they suddenly, magically, for the first time after years of not scoring, see their "box stats" shoot up?

Box stats is in no ways a demeaning term. But I think at this point if I said 'stats', people would run for the hills or accuse me of something I'm not going for. It's like 'slash stats' in baseball. It's not demeaning, but a way to differentiate between G/A/P and Shot Attempts or anything else.

Shot attempts have been proven to be an important factor in hockey. Does outshooting your opponent guarantee you're going to win? No, of course not. Mostly now, I'm scouring the NHL's resources for players who allow less shot attempts and scoring chances against for their teams when they are on the ice. I think that's an important factor to have on a team. Guys who limit shots, who limit chances, who limit goals.

You bring up a good point, though, in that these things don't necessarily translate into goals and assists and points on the individual level. There is so much inherent randomness in hockey that we don't know about, and I'm truly fascinated to find out tomorrow what I don't know today. However, I don't believe this to mean that we should ignore any new statistic or way of thinking about hockey that goes against our traditional beliefs. I think we should explore those things and try and prove if they are what we think they are, or if they're something entirely different altogether.

In regards to Nakladal, I get excited about him because for me, he seems like an Anton Stralman. A guy who is probably good and needs a consistent shot to prove it. Is there a reason he wasn't in NA prior to last season despite being 27? Of course. Is that reason because maybe he's not the most traditional d-man? Probably, I don't really know. What I do know, is that I watched him a few times last season, and he looked good. I looked up his stats to either confirm or deny what I saw, and they look good. I think he's just a guy that needs a shot. I'm not saying to lock him up to a 4 year deal, but I'd be more than happy if the Rangers gave him a one-year prove it deal, and let him try to stick. Since it became sort of a 'meme' with me, I've run with it. The only times I ever talk about Nakladal now are when other posters bring him up, and usually it's in meme form when I respond. I see now that maybe these one word, or image responses were taken in a way that I did not intend.

I know he's not going to be a Ranger. Hell, he may not even be an NHLer this season. At this point now, I'm just excited to watch him play again in the World Cup.

4) You talk a lot (recently in particular) about learning from when you are wrong. I really like this point - and if you actually backed it up, I think it would go a long way towards earning you some slack. Indeed, it'd be the fastest, easiest way to make you seem less dogmatic. Yet, for all that you say this about yourself, I don't think I've seen any evidence of it to date. So, while on its face, the statement seems to be generous and open-minded, the subtext communicated is actually "I'm never wrong" (at least not on HFNYR).

Personally, just off the top of my head I was wrong about Enver Lisin, Evgeny Grachev, and Mats Zuccarello. Can you throw out some similar examples? (And before you do: I trust you see that if you name guys that fit in the context of "but that was before I discovered advanced stats", it won't help your cause, right...?)

Hope that was helpful - again, that's how it was meant!

Well, I think it would be totally unfair if I didn't allow the discovery of advanced stats on my end to disprove what I thought about players. I'm using it to prove other players I think are good, thus, I believe they should also be used by me to prove that players I thought were good that are actually bad.

I thought Girardi was a victim of his usage and much better than he got credit for from some of the other stat heads on here, I was wrong. Girardi is terrible.

I thought McDonagh would never be better than Staal, but to be fair, this was pre-Staal injuries where he was a machine for us.

I liked the AV hiring, even though I really wanted Ruff.

I don't think Vesey will ever be more than a third-liner, so we'll see on that one.

JT Miller has consistently proven me wrong, and I hope he continues to do so.

I thought Pekka Rinne was a top-5 goalie in the league.

I traded Patrick Kane in my keeper league during his rookie season because I thought he'd never make it in the NHL due to his size.

If you stumble into the advanced stats thread, I mean ****, half of that thread is me disproving things I thought I knew

Could go on for days here.

Anyway, as I said at the top, I really appreciate you taking the time to do this, BRF. You are a great poster, and I have a great respect for your viewpoints and your feedback.

I hope you can trust that I'm doing what I can on my end to both not back down on my beliefs that analysis can be a great thing when discussing hockey - but also to make sure that it's done in a respectful manner.

 

[Brooklyn Rangers Fan]

Staal, McIlrath, Halverson/Shestyorkin for Trouba?

Gives them two hometown boys, solves their problem on LD, provides a guy more suited to be the 3rd pair RD (at a bargain price) behind Buff and Myers, and gives them some visibility towards an eventual solution for their goaltending problem...

 

[Brooklyn Rangers Fan]

This is awesome, thanks for taking the time to do this.



Totally. The reason I keep including Miller in deals is because I think the Rangers have three prime trade chips right now between Kreider, Hayes, and Miller. Of those three, I think the Rangers could lose and replace Miller the easiest. I also feel that Miller has enough value to get the players I (personally) want, like Manson. But you are right. It's tired, it's played out. And I can definitely see how it's annoying to read every day. I'll tone it down.



This is something that I've definitely been accused of, but don't really see why this is such a bad thing. Actually, let me start somewhere else, with this, I don't think I've ever claimed to be indisputably right. I've perhaps stated that the facts and metrics say that what I was arguing can't be disputed. Like when I say that there was no other d-man in the league who suppressed shots against his team better than Josh Manson, that's a fact based off of an objective statement based off a stat. It'd be the same thing as saying that no one put up points like Kane last year, but I think it's taken less as gospel since it's not something that everyone believes in the measurement of. And that's totally an okay thing.

Recently, I have made more of an effort to try and back up my views peacefully rather than try and change other poster's opinions, and I hope that helps sort of eliminate some of the harshness that I've been seen as posting with as of late.

The memes and gifs and pictures are always an attempt to deescalate, but definitely see how they are taken another way. Hopefully in the future, there won't be a need for that.

I can assure you, I'm working on it.



Box stats is in no ways a demeaning term. But I think at this point if I said 'stats', people would run for the hills or accuse me of something I'm not going for. It's like 'slash stats' in baseball. It's not demeaning, but a way to differentiate between G/A/P and Shot Attempts or anything else.

Shot attempts have been proven to be an important factor in hockey. Does outshooting your opponent guarantee you're going to win? No, of course not. Mostly now, I'm scouring the NHL's resources for players who allow less shot attempts and scoring chances against for their teams when they are on the ice. I think that's an important factor to have on a team. Guys who limit shots, who limit chances, who limit goals.

You bring up a good point, though, in that these things don't necessarily translate into goals and assists and points on the individual level. There is so much inherent randomness in hockey that we don't know about, and I'm truly fascinated to find out tomorrow what I don't know today. However, I don't believe this to mean that we should ignore any new statistic or way of thinking about hockey that goes against our traditional beliefs. I think we should explore those things and try and prove if they are what we think they are, or if they're something entirely different altogether.

In regards to Nakladal, I get excited about him because for me, he seems like an Anton Stralman. A guy who is probably good and needs a consistent shot to prove it. Is there a reason he wasn't in NA prior to last season despite being 27? Of course. Is that reason because maybe he's not the most traditional d-man? Probably, I don't really know. What I do know, is that I watched him a few times last season, and he looked good. I looked up his stats to either confirm or deny what I saw, and they look good. I think he's just a guy that needs a shot. I'm not saying to lock him up to a 4 year deal, but I'd be more than happy if the Rangers gave him a one-year prove it deal, and let him try to stick. Since it became sort of a 'meme' with me, I've run with it. The only times I ever talk about Nakladal now are when other posters bring him up, and usually it's in meme form when I respond. I see now that maybe these one word, or image responses were taken in a way that I did not intend.

I know he's not going to be a Ranger. Hell, he may not even be an NHLer this season. At this point now, I'm just excited to watch him play again in the World Cup.



Well, I think it would be totally unfair if I didn't allow the discovery of advanced stats on my end to disprove what I thought about players. I'm using it to prove other players I think are good, thus, I believe they should also be used by me to prove that players I thought were good that are actually bad.

I thought Girardi was a victim of his usage and much better than he got credit for from some of the other stat heads on here, I was wrong. Girardi is terrible.

I thought McDonagh would never be better than Staal, but to be fair, this was pre-Staal injuries where he was a machine for us.

I liked the AV hiring, even though I really wanted Ruff.

I don't think Vesey will ever be more than a third-liner, so we'll see on that one.

JT Miller has consistently proven me wrong, and I hope he continues to do so.

I thought Pekka Rinne was a top-5 goalie in the league.

I traded Patrick Kane in my keeper league during his rookie season because I thought he'd never make it in the NHL due to his size.

If you stumble into the advanced stats thread, I mean ****, half of that thread is me disproving things I thought I knew

Could go on for days here.

Anyway, as I said at the top, I really appreciate you taking the time to do this, BRF. You are a great poster, and I have a great respect for your viewpoints and your feedback.

I hope you can trust that I'm doing what I can on my end to both not back down on my beliefs that analysis can be a great thing when discussing hockey - but also to make sure that it's done in a respectful manner.

Awesome - glad it was helpful, and appreciate your answers!

Also, I do think that the process of thinking you were right, and then, when you discover you were wrong, seeking out new ways of analyzing what you thought you knew is absolutely the right way to go. Looking forward to seeing what new stuff you come up with.

And for the record, I LOVED the meme exchange when someone else said "a call goes out across the hills and valleys"...

 

[Mikos87]

Staal, McIlrath, Halverson/Shestyorkin for Trouba?

Gives them two hometown boys, solves their problem on LD, provides a guy more suited to be the 3rd pair RD (at a bargain price) behind Buff and Myers, and gives them some visibility towards an eventual solution for their goaltending problem...

I like it, it's a fair concept, but the Rangers probably have to up the package and take on WPG's contracts.

WPG has 16-20 forwards legitimately competing for spots and some of those guys are on one way deals.

Thorburn/Stafford/Postma/Chariot/Strait/Peluso/Stuart.

All are on one way deals. WPG's defensive depth is weak but getting two NHL guys, guys that fit their identity, is a nice return.

Propping up Morrison, and giving them a potential starter is very fair.

But I'd expect some crap coming back, and Trouba's contract may be a high one.

 

[Doctor King Schultz]

I'd rather not give up Shesty

 

[Brooklyn Rangers Fan]

I like it, it's a fair concept, but the Rangers probably have to up the package and take on WPG's contracts.

WPG has 16-20 forwards legitimately competing for spots and some of those guys are on one way deals.

Thorburn/Stafford/Postma/Chariot/Strait/Peluso/Stuart.

All are on one way deals. WPG's defensive depth is weak but getting two NHL guys, guys that fit their identity, is a nice return.

Propping up Morrison, and giving them a potential starter is very fair.

But I'd expect some crap coming back, and Trouba's contract may be a high one.

More than willing to accept that, if need be. (This is why it's good that Gorton left us with cap space.)

Unfortunately, Chevy is probably the biggest impediment to any deal...

 

[Raspewtin]

Way way too many forwards on the team right now.

Kreider, Step, Hayes, Nash, Zucc, Zib, Fast, Lindberg (hurt), Vesey, Miller are all but guaranteed for opening night

Buch is likely starting in the NHL. That's 11 forwards already.

Jooris and Grabner are obvious NHL'ers and are likely playing every night. 13 forwards.

Gerbe is also an obvious NHL'er IMO, 14 forwards.

Jensen and Hrivik could impress in camp. Even if Jensen totally bombs, Hrivik has proven he can at least play at the NHL level.

Lapierre and Glass being on the team in any capacity at all is a fireable offense at this point.

That's 18 forwards competing for 14 spots at the VERY most.

If it were up to me I'd be more inclined to play Hrivik every night considering his age and potential development, or at least in a 13th forward role.

 

[gump116]

So our (meaning us posters) targets are:

Kevin Shattenkirk
Ryan Ellis
Jacob Trouba
Cody Ceci


Anyone else?

Vatanen, Dumba/Spurgeon

 

[Brooklyn Rangers Fan]

Way way too many forwards on the team right now.

Kreider, Step, Hayes, Nash, Zucc, Zib, Fast, Lindberg (hurt), Vesey, Miller are all but guaranteed for opening night

Buch is likely starting in the NHL. That's 11 forwards already.

Jooris and Grabner are obvious NHL'ers and are likely playing every night. 13 forwards.

Gerbe is also an obvious NHL'er IMO, 14 forwards.

Jensen and Hrivik could impress in camp. Even if Jensen totally bombs, Hrivik has proven he can at least play at the NHL level.

Lapierre and Glass being on the team in any capacity at all is a fireable offense at this point.

That's 18 forwards competing for 14 spots at the VERY most.

If it were up to me I'd be more inclined to play Hrivik every night considering his age and potential development, or at least in a 13th forward role.

Yup. And that's even without the possibility that a Nieves or Tambo takes a leap forward, which after all does sometimes happen.

Obviously it takes two to tango, but I'll be surprised if we don't see at least one more deal prior to camp.

 

[NewLife]

Center: Lindberg, Miller, Stepan, Jooris, Zibanejad
LW: Gerbe, Hrivik, Glass, Jensen, Kreider, Nash, Vesey.
RW: Buch, Fast, Grabner, Hayes, Zucc
D: Clendening, Gilmour, Girardi, Holden, Klein, McD, McI, Skjei, Staal

Too many horses in the stable.

I'm probably missing players, too.

Those old horses isn't worth anything.

Clendening and Gilmour are bound for the ahl so is Mr. Glass and hopefully Gerbe is pushed out as well.

 

[Raspewtin]

Yup. And that's even without the possibility that a Nieves or Tambo takes a leap forward, which after all does sometimes happen.

Obviously it takes two to tango, but I'll be surprised if we don't see at least one more deal prior to camp.

Same. I'm curious as to what though. Especially because for all intents and purposes Jensen is a total wildcard right now.

 

[Mikos87]

More than willing to accept that, if need be. (This is why it's good that Gorton left us with cap space.)

Unfortunately, Chevy is probably the biggest impediment to any deal...

Yeah he's not a good dance partner. Shame really, don't know how desperate he'd be to move a guy like Stafford.

I'd buy him out, and take on two even three of those sub $950k one way deals. Two years of dead cap space at $1.45M. Negligible if Trouba is on a 5 year deal at a shade below $6M.

That's 25 a night of premium minutes.

I see teams that are need of taking the next step and their depth and go from there:

ANA
NAS
BUF
MIN

All those teams, in one form or another can benefit from an exchange with the Rangers. Whether it's that reliable veteran LD for BUF, a secondary scorer and depth forwards for ANA, or "Gamebreaker" for NAS. Forward depth for MIN.

 

[Brooklyn Rangers Fan]

I'd rather not give up Shesty

Gotta give to get, and goalie is the one position where the organization has significant prospect depth. If Shesty vs. Halverson is the one impediment to getting a Jake Trouba, I don't think twice about it.

But as I said, a bigger problem is probably the fact that Chevy is notoriously hard to deal with.

 

[Raspewtin]

Strongly agree with this. This Rangers 4th line has some serious defensive potential.

 

[New York RKY]

Vatanen, Dumba/Spurgeon

They just re-upped Vatanen, HIGHLY doubt they move him.

 

[Mikos87]

MIN can be devastated through expansion on their defense. Some of those players will be moved IMO.

They have Reilly who is exempt I believe.

Brodin could net them what Marc Staal could if the Rangers don't find a way to make the move.

 

[Brooklyn Rangers Fan]

Yeah he's not a good dance partner. Shame really, don't know how desperate he'd be to move a guy like Stafford.

I'd buy him out, and take on two even three of those sub $950k one way deals. Two years of dead cap space at $1.45M. Negligible if Trouba is on a 5 year deal at a shade below $6M.

That's 25 a night of premium minutes.

Absolutely. The one hope, I suppose, is that his hard-assed-ness makes him more willing to move a "problem" player for something closer to even value.

I see teams that are need of taking the next step and their depth and go from there:

ANA
NAS
BUF
MIN

All those teams, in one form or another can benefit from an exchange with the Rangers. Whether it's that reliable veteran LD for BUF, a secondary scorer and depth forwards for ANA, or "Gamebreaker" for NAS. Forward depth for MIN.

Yup. I'd add Dallas to that list as well. They could use bottom nine talent and a stable RD like Klein.

 

[Pavel Buchnevich]

Nash (at 30% retained), McIlrath, Fast and Halverson for Shattenkirk (extended). Bad trade?

For us? No.

For STL? Yes.

 

[New York RKY]

Patience should be the word of the thread.

Yes, I understand we're not cup contenders as currently constituted and the defense definitely needs work. Just remember the rebuild/retool doesn't need to be completed all in one offseason.

Gorton is well aware the defense needs fixing, just have patience for the right deal to come along.