Proposal: Ana/NYR/NJ/Edm

[ManofSteel55]

It's the two most recent full seasons for each player when both had similar team situations. It was also the last part of the statement with career points before it. If you really want to break it down we can go points per minute played. You need to jump on one piece of my statement and forget the rest because you've got nothing.

The point being debated is that RNH is 2x the player Kreider is, which I've blown out of the water. You have an open floor to prove it since you've now joined the conversation.

The 2X the player part was obviously hyperbole, so let's not get too hung up on that. Objectively, RNH is the more valueable player to date as he can play C, produces slightly more offense (and has in all but one season so far). Kreider certainly has the advantage in a number of ways in regards to physical tools, might have a higher goal scoring upside, and is better around the net, while Nuge is a more cerebral player and has shown to be a better playmaker and two way player. Both guys bring pretty rare skill sets - Kreider with his combination of strength, speed, and touch, and Nuge with his vision, agility, and intelligence. But if we are talking today, you have to consider that one can play C and is coming off of a far superior year than the other.

In regards to the "Nuge sucks at faceoffs" argument, he was horrid earlier in his career. Sub 40% bad, probably shouldn't have been taking faceoffs at all. He has worked on it so his faceoff numbers are at least respectable now (48% last year - nothing stellar, but higher than a number of guys who are 1 C's, so obviously it isn't that big of a deal - Getzlaf, Kuznetsov, Malkin, Barzal, and Karlsson and supposed defensive C's like Henrique and Zetterberg were all lower than Nuge in face off percentage last season). So why are you taking faceoff ability from his entire career into play when he obviously has worked on it? Also, winning faceoffs isn't the entirety of playing C. There is far more to it than they, especially defensively, and Kreider has never been asked to play that type of role, and we know that Nuge can and does well.

 

[Boom Boom Apathy]

I think your reading comprehension needs work man. What are you highlighting? The sentence above that is me making an absurd argument(like you're doing) saying Kreider has more playoff points. Then what you're highlighting is me showing how ****ing absurd my point was before it.

Given how bad your 1 season comparison was and the fact that you are sticking by it, I couldn't be sure what you were saying with your ranting.

And... the old "If you can't see that, then I can't help you" is always a great cop out. Hell of an argument there bub. You probably should have just kept your bad arguments to yourself.

LOL. My "Bad Argument" is you using 1 season (and 1 players worst and the other players best) is an absurd way to compare players. I'll gladly own up to that argument every day of the week.

Anyhow, you seem like a very angry person (or extremely immature one) with all your **** and what not, so I'll leave you to your venting.

 

[One Winged Angel]

Side note, do you see the Rangers being bad enough to get a guy like Hughes (barring a lottery win)? Unless they trade off a bunch of guys, it seems they will be more competitive than many people outside people give them credit for, especially if a couple of the rookies (Chytl/Andersson step up).

I actually do. The defense was absolutely pitiful last year with McDonagh and Holden (can't believe I just mentioned the latter). Now, you subtract those two and you're relying on Staal and Smith to give you quality minutes? Smith if he's in shape could possibly bounce back from last year, but that's not saying much. Although, if they pull the same crap they did with Rozsival, Malik and others and give a workload that he can't handle, he'll look just as bad again. Claesson isn't anything special and there are too many offensive minded defenders who don't fare well at puck retrieval and don't play well when hemmed in their own zone.

You also have to subtract solid two way play and goal scoring from Nash, Namestnikov for Miller swap is a downgrade and Grabner is gone on top of that. Lundqvist is a year older and he can't steal games every night like he used to, we've seen this for the last couple of years. If I had to pick one player that would prevent them from getting that first pick, it's Hank. He just won't leave and has too much pride.

Carolina could be competition if Darling is a sieve again, but you would imagine he has to bounce back after having that bad of a year, no? I like Carolina's defense and maybe Peters being gone will help their defensive game, because it seemed non-existent at times under him.

Ottawa is a huge obstacle because of how badly they got fleeced in the Karlsson trade, but they have zero incentive to tank, so maybe they'll be in games and win a few more than people will think for all we know.

Vancouver has one of the worst rosters in the league. Even with their bottom-6 additions, where is the scoring coming from outside of Horvat and Boeser? Their defense to me is better than the Rangers and Ottawa though.

It's gonna be a race and a real interesting one at that.

 

[NYR713]

@Boom Boom Apathy This here is a visual representation of our debate here. Just stay down, man.

 

[Boom Boom Apathy]

I actually do. The defense was absolutely pitiful last year with McDonagh and Holden (can't believe I just mentioned the latter). Now, you subtract those two and you're relying on Staal and Smith to give you quality minutes? Smith if he's in shape could possibly bounce back from last year, but that's not saying much. Although, if they pull the same crap they did with Rozsival, Malik and others and give a workload that he can't handle, he'll look just as bad again. Claesson isn't anything special and there are too many offensive minded defenders who don't fare well at puck retrieval and don't play well when hemmed in their own zone.

You also have to subtract solid two way play and goal scoring from Nash, Namestnikov for Miller swap is a downgrade and Grabner is gone on top of that. Lundqvist is a year older and he can't steal games every night like he used to, we've seen this for the last couple of years. If I had to pick one player that would prevent them from getting that first pick, it's Hank. He just won't leave and has too much pride.

Fair points. I guess I'm still thinking of Hank of old that could keep almost any team in it.

Carolina could be competition if Darling is a sieve again, but you would imagine he has to bounce back after having that bad of a year, no? I like Carolina's defense and maybe Peters being gone will help their defensive game, because it seemed non-existent at times under him.

I'm not sold on Darling bouncing back. I realize he was terribly out of shape last year, but what I saw was bad fundamentals. Now, maybe that was all confidence, but still, it seemed to me to be more than just being out of shape. I think there's a better chance Mrazek (gulp!) is better. The defense "should" be vastly improved though. And, the Canes did move some of their worst defensive players (statistically) so who knows.

Ottawa is a huge obstacle because of how badly they got fleeced in the Karlsson trade, but they have zero incentive to tank, so maybe they'll be in games and win a few more than people will think for all we know.

Vancouver has one of the worst rosters in the league. Even with their bottom-6 additions, where is the scoring coming from outside of Horvat and Boeser? Their defense to me is better than the Rangers and Ottawa though.

It's gonna be a race and a real interesting one at that.

Montreal and Islanders could be in there too.

 

[NYR713]

The 2X the player part was obviously hyperbole, so let's not get too hung up on that. Objectively, RNH is the more valueable player to date as he can play C, produces slightly more offense (and has in all but one season so far). Kreider certainly has the advantage in a number of ways in regards to physical tools, might have a higher goal scoring upside, and is better around the net, while Nuge is a more cerebral player and has shown to be a better playmaker and two way player. Both guys bring pretty rare skill sets - Kreider with his combination of strength, speed, and touch, and Nuge with his vision, agility, and intelligence. But if we are talking today, you have to consider that one can play C and is coming off of a far superior year than the other.

In regards to the "Nuge sucks at faceoffs" argument, he was horrid earlier in his career. Sub 40% bad, probably shouldn't have been taking faceoffs at all. He has worked on it so his faceoff numbers are at least respectable now (48% last year - nothing stellar, but higher than a number of guys who are 1 C's, so obviously it isn't that big of a deal - Getzlaf, Kuznetsov, Malkin, Barzal, and Karlsson and supposed defensive C's like Henrique and Zetterberg were all lower than Nuge in face off percentage last season). So why are you taking faceoff ability from his entire career into play when he obviously has worked on it? Also, winning faceoffs isn't the entirety of playing C. There is far more to it than they, especially defensively, and Kreider has never been asked to play that type of role, and we know that Nuge can and does well.

As I've posted in this thread conversation and explained fully already, I have to disagree that RNH produces more offense. It's only true when you don't take into account that he's been deployed by his coaches for 3 minutes more per game thank Kreider over their careers. RNH's last 2 big seasons (13-14 & 14-15 = 56 points each) he averaged 5 more minutes per game of ice time than Kreider. When you break it down to Points Per Minute played, to help make up for that major discrepancy of minutes played through their careers, they are dead even with Kreider having the slightest edge.

The face offs thing was me being a dick and making a generalized statement about who has the better career FO% without taking outside factors in to play... like the fact that RNH has 7000 FO's compared to Kreider's 115 career face offs. I explained how ridiculous my statement was right below that, if anyone actually cares to read. But if people can say RNH is a better point producer without taking into account that he's played 2700 more minutes, then I can say Kreider is better at face offs because he has the higher FO%. It's supposed to sound stupid, to make a point.

And to be fair... RNH wasn't just horrid early in his career. 16-17 he had a 43.8% while coming off a 44.8% season. And his Possession Metrics aren't very good either.

Either way, Rangers aren't taking RNH for Kreider, due more to their team positional needs than the comparison of players. And I think we can all agree that the hyperbolic statement that RNH is 2x the player was just that and completely wrong.

 

[ChaoticOrange]

I still don’t see what all the arguing is about, considering Edmonton doesn’t even end up with Kreider. From our POV it doesn’t really matter which one is worth more - IMO either are worth substantially more than Severson.

 

[One Winged Angel]

Fair points. I guess I'm still thinking of Hank of old that could keep almost any team in it.

I personally haven't seen that Hank in a few years now. The defense has gotten worse, yes and he's still playing at a high level, but he can't steal them every night, like he used to.

I'm not sold on Darling bouncing back. I realize he was terribly out of shape last year, but what I saw was bad fundamentals. Now, maybe that was all confidence, but still, it seemed to me to be more than just being out of shape. I think there's a better chance Mrazek (gulp!) is better. The defense "should" be vastly improved though. And, the Canes did move some of their worst defensive players (statistically) so who knows.

Fair points, I watched a little last season, I get center ice every year but it's honestly hard to watch anymore than 2-3 teams with any regularity. I knew he looked bad but I wasn't specifically watching for Darling, just watching to watch hockey, so your word is a lot stronger than mine here. Bad Fundamentals is definitely a scary thing to see, but hopefully a good goaltending coach can fix that.

Montreal and Islanders could be in there too.

I have a theory on Montreal, some might agree, others will disagree. It's that Montreal will win 50% of the games Price starts. Reason being that Price is so good that he'll keep them in every game. It's just a matter of how much scoring they get. They can win 1-0 and 2-1 games. The caveat is obviously Price's health. If he stays healthy, they'll stay out of the basement. If not, all bets are off.

The Islanders are interesting because even though they lost Tavares, they filled out their bottom-6, which was a problem for them last year and I think they're a tougher team to play against this year with their additions. Plus I think Trotz will help them play better defense. Barzal might drop down some points because he has to face all of the top defensive pairings and checking units, but will still be a force. I think the Islanders defensive unit is better than the Rangers as well.

 

[ManofSteel55]

As I've posted in this thread conversation and explained fully already, I have to disagree that RNH produces more offense. It's only true when you don't take into account that he's been deployed by his coaches for 3 minutes more per game thank Kreider over their careers. RNH's last 2 big seasons (13-14 & 14-15 = 56 points each) he averaged 5 more minutes per game of ice time than Kreider. When you break it down to Points Per Minute played, to help make up for that major discrepancy of minutes played through their careers, they are dead even with Kreider having the slightest edge.

The face offs thing was me being a dick and making a generalized statement about who has the better career FO% without taking outside factors in to play... like the fact that RNH has 7000 FO's compared to Kreider's 115 career face offs. I explained how ridiculous my statement was right below that, if anyone actually cares to read. But if people can say RNH is a better point producer without taking into account that he's played 2700 more minutes, then I can say Kreider is better at face offs because he has the higher FO%. It's supposed to sound stupid, to make a point.

And to be fair... RNH wasn't just horrid early in his career. 16-17 he had a 43.8% while coming off a 44.8% season. And his Possession Metrics aren't very good either.

Either way, Rangers aren't taking RNH for Kreider, due more to their team positional needs than the comparison of players. And I think we can all agree that the hyperbolic statement that RNH is 2x the player was just that and completely wrong.

You see, your problem seems to be in that you think that given equal ice time, Kreider would produce more than Nuge. I am looking at raw numbers. Not pace. Not what if's. Not "but ice time". If Kreider was as good as Rangers fans say, he should be getting that prime ice time. If he is getting 3 minutes per game less than a 2nd line centre, that says something about how his own coach deploys him. Using the "if he played the same minutes" argument to me is the same as arguing 'if he wasn't injured he might have gotten x number of points instead". Okay, IF. But being injured is a negative for a player. So is getting less ice time.

Nuge plays the penalty kill more than Kreider does too, so you have to consider those minutes as well, for what its worth.

 

[Taytro]

The player argument?

Career PPG
Kreider - 0.57
Nuge - 0.68

They've been in the league the same length of time yet Nuge has 76 more games played while being 2 years younger.

I don't know about you but I'll take the younger, more experienced, and more productive player who can play more positions any day of the week.

But Edmonton doesnt even get Krieder so it doesnt matter. We take a big ol pass on Severson.

 

[Kakko Schmakko]

why would Rangers trade a power forward like Kreider for a soft center like RNH?

 

[Brock Radunske]

This is a proposal for fun doubt this would ever happen.
Rangers-Ryan Nugent Hopkins
Devils- Jacob Silfverberg
Ducks- Chris Kreider
Oilers- Damon Severson
Rangers get a much improved Center fit for a rebuild.
Devils get a secondary goal scorer.
Ducks add some speed and goals on the wing
Oilers add a defensemen which can jump into plays and be offensive.

The Ducks with highway robbery.

 

[Boom Boom Apathy]

I have a theory on Montreal, some might agree, others will disagree. It's that Montreal will win 50% of the games Price starts. Reason being that Price is so good that he'll keep them in every game. It's just a matter of how much scoring they get. They can win 1-0 and 2-1 games. The caveat is obviously Price's health. If he stays healthy, they'll stay out of the basement. If not, all bets are off.

Yeah, that's true. Whenever he's healthy, they are decent.

The Islanders are interesting because even though they lost Tavares, they filled out their bottom-6, which was a problem for them last year and I think they're a tougher team to play against this year with their additions. Plus I think Trotz will help them play better defense. Barzal might drop down some points because he has to face all of the top defensive pairings and checking units, but will still be a force. I think the Islanders defensive unit is better than the Rangers as well.

I completely forgot about Trotz. Weight let the run and gun and I've never seen a team as bad defensively as they were, and it wasn't just personnel. Will be interesting to see how they do under Trotz.

 

[dracom]

The Ducks with highway robbery.

it's refreshing to see a deal where we come out on top.

 

[780il]

LOL...I "jumped" on your one piece because it was the central point and 2/3rds of your post. I'm saying that choosing 1 season to compare players is downright useless.



I don't think RNH is 2x the player as Kreider is and wasn't trying to say he was. I was simply pointing out the absurdity of your analysis using 1 season (1 players best, the other players worst). And a couple of NYR fans said Kreider > RNH AINEC, yet I don't see you "jumping" on them for that statement.

But, since you ask.
1) Kreider is 2 years older than RNH
2) Kreider is strictly a winger, RNH can play both positions.
3) RNH had three 50+ point season, Kreider has one
4) RNH has averaged 21G, 56P / 82 games across his NHL career, Kreider has averaged 23G, 47P / 82 games across his career.

I realize there is more to it than points so I can see a case made for either player, so no, I do NOT think RNH is 2x the player that Kreider is. Nor do I think that Kreider > RNH "AINEC". And as I repeated, using 1 season to make your assessment is pretty absurd.

Kreider is not better than RNH, but the gap isnt so big that Nuge is 2x the player. I agree with Apathy here.

Nuge>>Kreider for many reasons but its kinda close

 

[Broole]

As usual I find myself flabbergasted with Rangers fans love affair with a guy with a career high of 53 points and one 50+ point season. I don’t get it. He’s not as productive as Nuge, he doesn’t play as important a position as Nuge, he’s older than Nuge, but somehow he’s still surefire the best player in this deal (also ignoring that Edmonton doesn’t even end up with him in this deal, we get a guy that’s not even a clear upgrade on Matt Benning right now)

Because Ranger fans remember the handful of games a year when he dominates, and forget all the games in which he disappears.

 

[pbgoalie]

As a Ducks guy......yes! Hell yes!
Silfv is great
We will settle for Kreisler

 

[TFHockey]

why would Rangers trade a power forward like Kreider for a soft center like RNH?

Pathetic attempt.

 

[TheBloodyNine]

That's an easy absolutely not from the Rangers.

 

[TGWL]

why would Rangers trade a power forward like Kreider for a soft center like RNH?

I'd say the value is pretty equal to be honest. RNH is a lot more skilled than Kreider. Kreider is fast and can obviously use his size a lot more, which is what we currently need more, but people who think of RNH as this soft, shitty center, has no clue about RNH.

 

[NYR713]

You see, your problem seems to be in that you think that given equal ice time, Kreider would produce more than Nuge. I am looking at raw numbers. Not pace. Not what if's. Not "but ice time". If Kreider was as good as Rangers fans say, he should be getting that prime ice time. If he is getting 3 minutes per game less than a 2nd line centre, that says something about how his own coach deploys him. Using the "if he played the same minutes" argument to me is the same as arguing 'if he wasn't injured he might have gotten x number of points instead". Okay, IF. But being injured is a negative for a player. So is getting less ice time.

Nuge plays the penalty kill more than Kreider does too, so you have to consider those minutes as well, for what its worth.

You see, your problem seems to be that you think that you don't have to take in any other variables into account except for points per game and you call them "raw numbers." When you want to compare two things accurately, you have to find some common ground and then as you want to get more precise you have to break things down to smaller factors. It's like in math finding common factors or denominators before being able to move forward... or measuring speed, time and distance where you would break hours in MPH down to minutes or even seconds to more accurately compare two things with different variables. I do agree that specials teams should have taken a heavier weight than I gave it, which would change some things up, but even taking away the difference in PK minutes would have him playing well over 1000 more minutes over the same time span.

Kreider's playing less minutes per game isn't due to skill either. He was on a deep team with a coach that ran 4 lines fairly evenly compared to RNH being on a trash team for most of his career and staff leaning heavily.

You see, your other problem is that you and the other guy keep coming with more nonsense trying to argue stuff I was never looking to discuss in the first place. You've pulled all of it way off course. I responded to a stupid, hyperbolic post stating that RNH was 2x the player Kreider is. I knew it was a troll and once in a while I decide I want to take a shit on a troll and call them out for the dumb stuff they say. So I started my statement refuting RNH was 2x the player, filled the middle with some facts and then ended my thought with refuting RNH is 2x the player Kreider is. The troll doesn't respond, but the other guy nitpicks crap that I wasn't even talking about and then you drag it even further off on a tangent.

I was never saying Kreider is better overall or worth more money or anything at all between the two players, other than the fact that RNH is not 2x the player Kreider is. That is as simple as I can make it for you, bud. If you have any evidence to prove to the world that RNH is 2x the player, let it rip.

 

[Kupo]

I wouldn't do it as a Rangers fan, but I feel like RNH is being underrated here. He's the younger and more productive player, playing the most important position on the ice.

 

[bucks_oil]

A legit number 1?

The Rangers need a legitimate number one center. RNH has never shown that type of production at any point in his career.

Nice player, but the Rangers traded Derek Stepan, who is a very similar player, at the 2017 draft. I have a very hard time seeing the Rangers trading for RNH to be their answer at center, especially at the expense of Chris Kreider.

That's just not true. RNH was top 30 in scoring among C for all of his healthy seasons as our #1C prior to McD & Drai coming along. Nobody would/could argue he's proven capable of being a top 15 C (if that's what you really mean when you say "legit"), but top 30 has been demonstrated repeatedly.

 

[ManofSteel55]

You see, your problem seems to be that you think that you don't have to take in any other variables into account except for points per game and you call them "raw numbers." When you want to compare two things accurately, you have to find some common ground and then as you want to get more precise you have to break things down to smaller factors. It's like in math finding common factors or denominators before being able to move forward... or measuring speed, time and distance where you would break hours in MPH down to minutes or even seconds to more accurately compare two things with different variables. I do agree that specials teams should have taken a heavier weight than I gave it, which would change some things up, but even taking away the difference in PK minutes would have him playing well over 1000 more minutes over the same time span.

Kreider's playing less minutes per game isn't due to skill either. He was on a deep team with a coach that ran 4 lines fairly evenly compared to RNH being on a trash team for most of his career and staff leaning heavily.

You see, your other problem is that you and the other guy keep coming with more nonsense trying to argue stuff I was never looking to discuss in the first place. You've pulled all of it way off course. I responded to a stupid, hyperbolic post stating that RNH was 2x the player Kreider is. I knew it was a troll and once in a while I decide I want to take a **** on a troll and call them out for the dumb stuff they say. So I started my statement refuting RNH was 2x the player, filled the middle with some facts and then ended my thought with refuting RNH is 2x the player Kreider is. The troll doesn't respond, but the other guy nitpicks crap that I wasn't even talking about and then you drag it even further off on a tangent.

I was never saying Kreider is better overall or worth more money or anything at all between the two players, other than the fact that RNH is not 2x the player Kreider is. That is as simple as I can make it for you, bud. If you have any evidence to prove to the world that RNH is 2x the player, let it rip.

The post I quoted of yours literally stated that you disagree that RNH produces more offense. Not that he isn't 2X the player, but that he doesn't produce more offense. I showed you that you are wrong.

 

[WhiskeyYerTheDevils]

How do the ducks swing Silf for Kreider??? LOL