B. Boyle, Stralman, D. Boyle, Glass - Pick your combo

[Garfinkel1]

So, with both B. Boyle and T. Glass and Stralman and D. Boyle having somewhat comparable contracts, which combination of players/contracs makes the Rangers better over the next two years?

A) [F] B. Boyle | [D] Stralman
B) [F] B. Boyle | [D] D. Boyle
C) [F] T. Glass | [D] Stralman
D) F[] T. Glass | [D] D. Boyle

My choice: A - I was a huge Boyle fan. I probably have my homer glasses on but I think he could have played 3rd line minutes for us and I think it was a mistake not to sign him. I liked Stralman but I think D. Boyle is a good replacement, however, I would have preferred cementing the Staal/Stralman line for a few years and let them build chemistry together, something we rarely see in this organization.

Click to read more...

 

[Rangerfan4life90]

Boyle>Glass, AINEC

Stralman or Boyle mainly depends on what you're looking for. That said, I'd go with Stralman here. Younger, was a beast paired with Staal, etc.

I don't like the changes they made. I hope I'm wrong once the season comes around.

 

[vladmyir111]

Biggest thing about Boyle was his PK skills really. Dude can't shoot or pass and is less physical than MZA. Granted he was an ideal fourth liner and would have loved to keep him at a reasonable price.

Let's be serious though how many awesome PKers (remember what a stud Ortmeyer was on the PK lol?) have we had over the last 10 years that we all totally thought would ruin the defensive side of the game when they left. Only to be forgotten 2 months later. Regardless if Glass sucks he will get buried in the AHL and someone else will do the role Boyle did. There's a reason it's a 1mil a year job in the NHL.

 

[Machinehead]

The two guys that helped us get to the Stanley Cup Finals. AINEC.

 

[ZiGOODejad]

Undoubtably NYR will miss Boyler next season but if he did want 3 mil a season I'd waive goodbye too...

 

[Brooklyn Ranger]

Why get all hot and bothered over something that can't be changed? Brian Boyle wanted more responsibility. Anton Strålman wanted a long-term contract that above all, gave his family stability (ie a NTC) and a decent raise.

The Ranger organization didn't want to meet those demands, so the two of them signed elsewhere. I'll continue to like both of them, will root for them to succeed in Tampa Bay (just not when they play the Rangers when it matters) and probably watch Tampa Bay a little more often next season and beyond. But, the past is the past and I don't have a time machine.

 

[Garfinkel1]

Why get all hot and bothered over something that can't be changed? Brian Boyle wanted more responsibility. Anton Strålman wanted a long-term contract that above all, gave his family stability (ie a NTC) and a decent raise.

Whose "hot and bothered"? It looks like we replaced two guys on the team for somewhat comparable players for a similar price to what they got on the free market so the question is, with these moves having been made, do you agree with management? Obviously, a lot goes on behind the scenes but I kinda thought this was a hockey discussion board so I figured, why not .. i don't know, discuss it?

 

[Blue Blooded]

I'd prefer Dorsett/Strålman or Bissonnette/Strålman, but Boyle/Strålman over Glass/Boyle every day.

 

[Blue Blooded]

I still can't get over that a superior player in Gilbert got a contract half as expensive as the one we gave Boyle.

 

[Zil]

I still can't get over that a superior player in Gilbert got a contract half as expensive as the one we gave Boyle.

I get the sense that very, very few front offices pay any attention to analytics at this point. They're about 30 years behind baseball.

 

[Blue Blooded]

I get the sense that very, very few front offices pay any attention to analytics at this point. They're about 30 years behind baseball.

You see a team like the Sharks and think "there is someone that's got it figured out", and then they turn around and do whatever they are doing this off-season. If they trade Thornton they've basically nuked what was likely the best team in the league last season. Insane.

I mean I don't trust a team that's decided to use one of the best defencemen in the league as a 3LW and thinks Pavelec is an NHL-level goaltender to know what they got in Mathieu Perreault, I just think they lucked into that one - like Sather did with Zuccarello/Strålman/Pouliot.

 

[17futurecap]

You see a team like the Sharks and think "there is someone that's got it figured out", and then they turn around and do whatever they are doing this off-season. If they trade Thornton they've basically nuked what was likely the best team in the league last season. Insane.

I mean I don't trust a team that's decided to use one of the best defencemen in the league as a 3LW and thinks Pavelec is an NHL-level goaltender to know what they got in Mathieu Perreault, I just think they lucked into that one - like Sather did with Zuccarello/Strålman/Pouliot.

Think Tampa maybe using the advanced stats a bit. Although I don't care for that Callahan contract, I think they did a good job at getting Boyle and Stralman to fair contracts. Also think they did a good job getting Garrison for next to nothing. He has a highish cap hit, but still pretty young, 30 in November.

 

[Doctyl]

Brian Boyle cannot play 3C. We saw what that looks like and I'm personally not a fan of going back to 2 4th lines.

I also feel it's a bit unfair to compare him to Glass. I think the choice management had to make was Boyle or Moore, not Boyle or Glass.

 

[silverfish]

I get the sense that very, very few front offices pay any attention to analytics at this point. They're about 30 years behind baseball.

If you're referring to Corsi/Fenwick/etc... those advanced stats, then I hope you praised the Pouliot contract.

There's more to the game than stats. No matter how advanced they are.

 

[Blue Blooded]

Think Tampa maybe using the advanced stats a bit. Although I don't care for that Callahan contract, I think they did a good job at getting Boyle and Stralman to fair contracts. Also think they did a good job getting Garrison for next to nothing. He has a highish cap hit, but still pretty young, 30 in November.

I don't think so, if they paid any real attention to it then they would never had traded Purcell to make room for Callahan.

I like and dislike Tampa's offseason. Getting Garrison and Strålman was great for them. Moving Purcell to make room for Callahan and signing Boyle was terrible. Callahan is great at standing in front of the net on the PP and not much else, not close to be worth that contract. Boyle was the worst player on our 4th line if you look closer at the numbers, yet he will be paid the most of the lot in 14-15.

I think Tampa will contend for the East despite the bad moves, mainly because Strålman is fantastic and I think Drouin and the rest of the young players will improve their offence a lot.

Brian Boyle cannot play 3C. We saw what that looks like and I'm personally not a fan of going back to 2 4th lines.

I also feel it's a bit unfair to compare him to Glass. I think the choice management had to make was Boyle or Moore, not Boyle or Glass.

Very much this.

 

[Fletch]

Why get all hot and bothered over something that can't be changed? Brian Boyle wanted more responsibility. Anton Strålman wanted a long-term contract that above all, gave his family stability (ie a NTC) and a decent raise.

The Ranger organization didn't want to meet those demands, so the two of them signed elsewhere. I'll continue to like both of them, will root for them to succeed in Tampa Bay (just not when they play the Rangers when it matters) and probably watch Tampa Bay a little more often next season and beyond. But, the past is the past and I don't have a time machine.

This...it would've been tough to keep the guys going out. Can argue that the guys coming in don't effectively replace the outgoing guys, but also that they weren't meant to be replacements for the guys going out. The organization needs to build an entire team. They need to fit that team within a salary cap. They need and needed to plug certain holes. At the end of the day the fair question will be, does this roster look better than the roster that ended last season, although that even isn't fair since the roster will be in flux during the season as it wasn't constant last season. Further, again, in this salary cap era, it's not easy keeping the same team together forever. If the Rangers aren't as good as last season it will likely be blamed on these two moves, although with the cap, raises due, and the release of a 50-point guy, it would've been tough to begin the season on paper as a SCF team; heck, did last season's team begin as a SCF team?

 

[Jersey Girl]

So what's the consensus on Sather signing Boyle over Stralman? Basically the same contract, but Stralman gets five years while Sather gave Boyle two years. Then again, Stralman is 27 and Boyle is 37. Was Sather worried about the NTC? Or the cap hit in years 3-5 of Stralman's contract?

Not saying Sather made the wrong choice - let's give Boyle a chance - but it seems odd that the same Sather who gave out so many insane contracts chose to cut back with a guy who is still in the upside of his career trajectory, and who had such a huge role in us making the Stanley Cup Finals.

 

[KreiMeARiver*]

So what's the consensus on Sather signing Boyle over Stralman? Basically the same contract, but Stralman gets five years while Sather gave Boyle two years. Then again, Stralman is 27 and Boyle is 37. Was Sather worried about the NTC? Or the cap hit in years 3-5 of Stralman's contract?

Not saying Sather made the wrong choice - let's give Boyle a chance - but it seems odd that the same Sather who gave out so many insane contracts chose to cut back with a guy who is still in the upside of his career trajectory, and who had such a huge role in us making the Stanley Cup Finals.

Probably because they bought out Richards and someone had to run the PP. Swap Stralman for D. Boyle on a shorter term deal.

 

[dmjt4160]

So what's the consensus on Sather signing Boyle over Stralman? Basically the same contract, but Stralman gets five years while Sather gave Boyle two years. Then again, Stralman is 27 and Boyle is 37. Was Sather worried about the NTC? Or the cap hit in years 3-5 of Stralman's contract?

Not saying Sather made the wrong choice - let's give Boyle a chance - but it seems odd that the same Sather who gave out so many insane contracts chose to cut back with a guy who is still in the upside of his career trajectory, and who had such a huge role in us making the Stanley Cup Finals.

I think Stralman has gone from underrated through most of the regular season to overrated since the playoff run on here. Hes a very strong 2nd pair d but I think Boyle is a better fit if he can play at a solid level for two years. With Girardi, Staal and Klein we needed to add more offense. Stralman, for as solid as he was, still put up only 13 points in 81 regular season games and 5 assists in 25 playoff games.

I would take Boyle/Boyle pretty easily.

 

[Fletch]

So what's the consensus on Sather signing Boyle over Stralman? Basically the same contract, but Stralman gets five years while Sather gave Boyle two years. Then again, Stralman is 27 and Boyle is 37. Was Sather worried about the NTC? Or the cap hit in years 3-5 of Stralman's contract?

Not saying Sather made the wrong choice - let's give Boyle a chance - but it seems odd that the same Sather who gave out so many insane contracts chose to cut back with a guy who is still in the upside of his career trajectory, and who had such a huge role in us making the Stanley Cup Finals.

I think Sather decided to address the PP point question more than anything with the Boyle signing, hoping the defense won't suffer much of a downtick and the team defensively seems to go as Henrik goes anyways so he needed to find some scoring.

 

[Jersey Girl]

I think Sather decided to address the PP point question more than anything with the Boyle signing, hoping the defense won't suffer much of a downtick and the team defensively seems to go as Henrik goes anyways so he needed to find some scoring.

Does Dan Boyle address the PP point question? The Sharks finished 20th in the league last season on the power play, behind teams like the New York Rangers. Not to mention that San Jose has better offense than the Rangers, but the power play was still ranked 20th.

What evidence do we have that Dan Boyle will make our power play better?

 

[Fletch]

Does Dan Boyle address the PP point question? The Sharks finished 20th in the league last season on the power play, behind teams like the New York Rangers. Not to mention that San Jose has better offense than the Rangers, but the power play was still ranked 20th.

What evidence do we have that Dan Boyle will make our power play better?

Anecdotal evidence. Richards was the PP point guy last season. He is gone. There really isn't anyone here that can take his place. Boyle can take his place. If the PP is not better with Boyle, it could mean that without him it would've been worse, and thus it was better having him than not having him. My opinion is that there were problems outside the PP point, but again, they are missing a point guy with Richards gone and he needed to be replaced. All else being equal, I don't think the PP got worse. I think there are issues in front of the net, which will not be addressed, unless Nash and Kreider play big in front of the goalie, since both are quite big, and get those loose pucks and second chances. Perhaps Graves needs to get out there and show them what needs to be done.

 

[Thirty One]

Does Dan Boyle address the PP point question? The Sharks finished 20th in the league last season on the power play, behind teams like the New York Rangers. Not to mention that San Jose has better offense than the Rangers, but the power play was still ranked 20th.

What evidence do we have that Dan Boyle will make our power play better?

The Sharks drop in powerplay was largely due to a shooting percentage drop especially with Boyle on the ice.

Producing a high volume of shots is a lot more predictive of future powerplay success than a high shooting percentage.

 

[Thirty One]

If you're referring to Corsi/Fenwick/etc... those advanced stats, then I hope you praised the Pouliot contract.

There's more to the game than stats. No matter how advanced they are.

Because if you like statistics, you have to like any contract given to a player with good statistics, regardless of the terms?

And I've never understood the iron wall between "the game" and "stats", as the stats measure only what occurs in that game.

 

[Fletch]

The Sharks drop in powerplay was largely due to a shooting percentage drop especially with Boyle on the ice.

Producing a high volume of shots is a lot more predictive of future powerplay success than a high shooting percentage.

so...who's to blame? Didn't watch their PP enough to fill in the blanks. Damn stats! I still believe that much of the Rangers' problem of their average PP is not cleaning up around the net and finishing the chances. Too many goals rely on the extra pass around the perimeter that results in the empty net one-timer. Fine to have them, but someone needs to get to those rebounds.