"Debunking" the 11-12 team's dominance and Nash Trade woes

[SnowblindNYR]

I think you've been retreating all along here. The Rangers replaced the a lot of depth but it took some time and the 12-13 team didn't start to begin to get it together until the second trade with Columbus was made. The problem with losing Anisimov and Dubinsky is they could be spotted up and down the lineup. Fedetenko and Prust were just good 3rd line types. They were all defensively responsible--they all pk'ed well. The Rangers continued to add depth in the off season. Moore and Pouliot are good players but they're still not the quality of Dubinsky or Anisimov--they do however give the team more flexibility.

In any case I don't play the game of one year's team against another team in a different year. It does not make sense. But the Bruins in 11-12 were the team to beat. They were the Cup champs. Rangers beat them every time in the regular season. The 11-12 Rangers team was going places. The 12-13 not so much. A bunch of games at the end against the division's bottom feeders pushed us over the finish line and that wasn't by much. Last year was a step back--another proof of which is the coach got fired. Coaches don't usually get fired when their teams meet expectations.

It WAS a step back but that's because the 11-12 team overachieved big time in the regular season and Gabby and Richards fell off the face of the earth.

 

[16 To Stanley*]

Wow...just wow...It's stunning what you people say in responses. I don't know how to make it any clearer in the post you quoted that I am not simply saying he sucks or anything. If I WAS saying that then these responses would make all the sense in the world. How are you people not grasping that what I'm saying is we would have kept Artie instead. Do you have to agree that keeping Artie would have been better? Of course you don't. But you people seem utterly unaware that I was even referring to this as a possibility. Lastly his performance in that PO came BEFORE the Nash trade so wtf does his performance in the PO's have to do with anything? We still would have gotten his performance and then traded him afterwards.

Yea and i'd argue that Kreider was more vital to that teams success in the playoffs (which is where this argument is based from vs. the current team) then Anisimov's. So it is relevent.

And no, I don't agree keeping a 2nd/3rd line player over a potential first line player is the right move.

Kreider had already shown he has the talent to be a gamebreaker at this level. Everyone who follows hockey knows and knew what Anisimov is/was at that point.

10 times out of 10 you keep a guy who has a chance to be a 1st line gamebreaker over a guy you KNOW is a mediocre 2nd liner/good third liner.

You're seriously overreacting if you think that trading Anisimov was a MASSIVE error.

Here's an example of a MASSIVE error.

The Vancouver Canucks traded Alek Stojanov to the Pittsburgh Penguins for Markus Naslund.

 

[Clown Fiesta]

I've always been one of Anisimov's biggest fans and I'm ok he got dealt it stinks but the guy we got out produced the three we traded. Which is what you need when you do a trade like that, the issue is the depth we replaced them with didn't come close to matching their production in which case it's a lateral move.

 

[Hi ImHFNYR]

Yea and i'd argue that Kreider was more vital to that teams success in the playoffs (which is where this argument is based from vs. the current team) then Anisimov's. So it is relevent.

And no, I don't agree keeping a 2nd/3rd line player over a potential first line player is the right move.

Kreider had already shown he has the talent to be a gamebreaker at this level. Everyone who follows hockey knows and knew what Anisimov is/was at that point.

10 times out of 10 you keep a guy who has a chance to be a 1st line gamebreaker over a guy you KNOW is a mediocre 2nd liner/good third liner.

You're seriously overreacting if you think that trading Anisimov was a MASSIVE error.

Here's an example of a MASSIVE error.

The Vancouver Canucks traded Alek Stojanov to the Pittsburgh Penguins for Markus Naslund.

It isn't relevant at all because your post implied I was unaware that CK had a good PO which is a ridiculous assertion. Also it has nothing to do with anything because I am talking about the future of both players. Whether or not CK was good in those PO's has no bearing on the future of either player

Are you really wasting time with a semantics argument about the word massive? You're ignoring that it's just my opinion that it's possibly a massive error. I do not assert this opinion as fact. You're ignoring the fact that I could very well be wrong and admit it's up in the air. Yet I got responses as if I said the team should trade CK for beans and give up on him. You're ignoring that I don't THINK it IS a massive error. I did indicate I am disappointed with CK's development AND with AA's departure by saying I am STARTING TO THINK that it was a massive error . And there's a ...dare I say...massive difference between those two lines of thought. Even if I had said that so the heck what? I'd be wrong or right what's the big deal? Why the need to flip out and attack and tell me how wrong I am? How dare I have a differing opinion!?

It is the right move if you think the first line guy won't make it to his potential. It is when the 2/3 line guy has repeatedly performed on and at a 1st line level (but why not just ignore that). It is when you think that CK won't even surpass what AA is. Not to mention at 24 we act like he was in his prime he was still developing too. Are you just ignoring that bc it doesn't suit your arguement? Should I ignore the disappointing season CK had last year including his time in the AHL? Should I ignore the preseason he had? Should I ignore the inability to crack the top line until late in his college career? SHould I ignore his inability to dominate like a superstar or even just be a 1st liner for most of his career? It boggles the mind. Whyis it so many want to act like questions about him are unreasonable?

Right now the guy can't make the team but he's shown enough where I think he'll be a regular NHLer I do not think he'll be an outright bust. I do think that the overall game AA brings, brought and will bring is just significantly better. I don't think Artie was this superstar though either. I'm glad we kept Stepan who is significantly better now. I'm glad we kept hagelin who I think is already better than Artie.

I've always been one of Anisimov's biggest fans and I'm ok he got dealt it stinks but the guy we got it produced the three we traded. Which is what you need when you do a trade like that, the issue is the depth we replaced them with didn't come close to matching their production in which case it's a lateral move.

Agree 100%.

 

[16 To Stanley*]

It isn't relelvant at all because your post implied I was unaware that CK had a good PO which is a ridiculous assertion. Also it has nothing to do with anything because I am talking about the future of both players. Whether or not CK was good in those PO's has no bearing on the future of either player

The discussion is about whether the team is better off with or without the trade. The main fact is one team had successs, while the other has yet to show any. You're of the belief that Kreider should have been traded instead of Anisimov. Kreider was more relative to the deep run of the 11-12 team then Anisimov. Get my point?

Are you really wasting time with a semantics argument about the word massive? You're ignoring that it's just my opinion that it's possibly a massive error. I do not assert this opinion as fact. You're ignoring the fact that I could very well be wrong and admit it's up in the air. Yet I got responses as if I said the team should trade CK for beans and give up on him. You're ignorign that I don't THINK it IS a massive error. I did indicate I am disappointed with CK's development AND with AA's departure by saying I am starting to think that it was a massive error. And there's a ...dare I say...massive difference between those two lines of thought. Even if I had said that so the heck what? I'd be wrong or right what's the big deal? Why the need to flip out and attack and tell me how wrong I am? How dare I have a differing opinion!?

Attack you? Calm down.... no one is attacking you. They are simply disagreeing. You said it could be a massive error. Trading a guy like Anisimov in a package for Nash will never be a massive error, no matter how you look at it. Trading Anisimov for "beans" as you put it, would be closer to a massive error.

It is the right move if you think the first line guy won't make it to his potential. It is when the 2/3 line guy has repeatedly performed on and at a 1st line level (but why not just ignore that). It is when you think that CK won't even surpass what AA is. Not to mention at 24 we act like he was in his prime he was still developing too. Are you just ignoring that bc it doesn't suit your arguement? Should I ignore the disappointing season CK had last year including his time in the AHL? Should I ignore the preseason he had? Should I ignore the inability to crack the top line until late in his college career? SHould I ignore his inability to dominate like a superstar or even just be a 1st liner for most of his career? It boggles the mind. Whyis it so many want to act like questions about him are unreasonable?

Sorry, i never saw Anisimov perform at a 1st line level. And I don't think anyone in the fan base, nor the Rangers management, felt CK wouldnt make it to his potential. There's a reason it's called potential. Is it possible to not make it there, always, but assuming a player won't is a recipe for disaster when it comes to young propsects. And now you're bringing up Kreider's performance after the trade, which is completely irrelevant. We have to talk about what his value/potential was AT the time of the trade.

Right now the guy can't make the team but he's shown enough where I think he'll be a regular NHLer I do not think he'll be an outright bust. I do think that the overall game AA brings, brought and will bring is just significantly better.

That's fine. I disagree. But again, you're basing that opinion off of an extra year+ of development for Kreider.

I think everyone in the organization was of the belief, coming out of those playoffs, that Kreider very likely could be a stud first line player.

What he did last year may diminish things look back, but AT the time of the trade, it was much wiser to keep him then Anisimov.

 

[nyr__1994]

The discussion is about whether the team is better off with or without the trade. The main fact is one team had successs, while the other has yet to show any. You're of the belief that Kreider should have been traded instead of Anisimov. Kreider was more relative to the deep run of the 11-12 team then Anisimov. Get my point?




Attack you? Calm down.... no one is attacking you. They are simply disagreeing. You said it could be a massive error. Trading a guy like Anisimov in a package for Nash will never be a massive error, no matter how you look at it. Trading Anisimov for "beans" as you put it, would be closer to a massive error.




Sorry, i never saw Anisimov perform at a 1st line level. And I don't think anyone in the fan base, nor the Rangers management, felt CK wouldnt make it to his potential. There's a reason it's called potential. Is it possible to not make it there, always, but assuming a player won't is a recipe for disaster when it comes to young propsects. And now you're bringing up Kreider's performance after the trade, which is completely irrelevant. We have to talk about what his value/potential was AT the time of the trade.



That's fine. I disagree. But again, you're basing that opinion off of an extra year+ of development for Kreider.

I think everyone in the organization was of the belief, coming out of those playoffs, that Kreider very likely could be a stud first line player.

What he did last year may diminish things look back, but AT the time of the trade, it was much wiser to keep him then Anisimov.

Everything you said here leads to the simple decision of organizational evaluation and the teams that do it well win on a continual basis...

Not saying that Kreider will be a stud or a bust, but the teams that can mark those decisions early and capitalize on then are the ones that are successful in the long run...

 

[Raspewtin]

the thing that just pisses me the **** off about the Nash trade was that, we traded ****ing Dubinsky and Anisimov. Two players that really aren't that hard to replace. Sure Dubinsky was a pain in the ass and hit people but COME ON SATHER it's not that hard to find a fiesty third line center out there. Same with Anisimov. Guy never broke 40 points and to some NYR fans losing him was like losing Bobby Orr. Seriously all Sather had to ****ing do was sign or trade for a few competent centers, and resign two of Prust, Feds, and Mitchell. THAT'S ALL. That's what pissed me off about the trade. It's not like we lost the Grind Line. We lost depth that could easily be replaced, but wasn't.

 

[Florida Ranger]

What do you think would happen if the 11-12 Rangers played last year's Bruins? They'd get killed. It's about the matchups not what team went farther.

"Killed" is a bit dramatic.... And how would you know? And last years Rangers team would beat the 11-12 Senators, Capitals and Devils? Proof?

Have the 11-12 Devils play the 94 Rangers and they'd get killed... Can I say that?


Can't say it any better.

vvv

The 12-13 team scratched and clawed their way to a lot less.



1) Since an 11-12 team can't play a 12-13 team how would you know?--anyway we beat the Bruins in the 11-12 regular season every time and 2) the 12-13 Rangers team didn't get killed by last year's Bruins team?--you can argue the 12-13 Rangers team was better than the 11-12 team but what evidence there is is against you--Rangers 11-12 team--first in the east--missed the Presidents trophy for best regular season by one point. Played 20 playoff games--winning two rounds. Last year's team--6th in the east--didn't lock up a playoff spot until the last week of the season--won one playoff round and were bounced out of the 2nd round rather easily--more easily by the Bruins in 12-13 than by the Devils in 11-12.

 

[Tawnos]

the thing that just pisses me the **** off about the Nash trade was that, we traded ****ing Dubinsky and Anisimov. Two players that really aren't that hard to replace. Sure Dubinsky was a pain in the ass and hit people but COME ON SATHER it's not that hard to find a fiesty third line center out there. Same with Anisimov. Guy never broke 40 points and to some NYR fans losing him was like losing Bobby Orr. Seriously all Sather had to ****ing do was sign or trade for a few competent centers, and resign two of Prust, Feds, and Mitchell. THAT'S ALL. That's what pissed me off about the trade. It's not like we lost the Grind Line. We lost depth that could easily be replaced, but wasn't.

I think Anisimov could've been easily replaced, but players like Dubinsky are more rare than 1st line forwards.

 

[Holocene]

Yeah I think we miss Dubi the most. He was great at bringing the puck into the zone and protecting it. Very good forechecker, defensively responsible/great pker. Hopefully one day Miller can be his replacement. He seems to have better hockey IQ than Dubi so fingers crossed.

 

[alkurtz]

Said it once, said it twice: Dubinsky, one of the most undervalued players in Ranger history

 

[SnowblindNYR]

Dubi has become a ridiculously frustrating player to watch. He has forgotten how to score goals completely.

 

[Clown Fiesta]

I think Anisimov could've been easily replaced, but players like Dubinsky are more rare than 1st line forwards.

It's true most 3rd liners who can't score don't make more than 4m.

Said it once, said it twice: Dubinsky, one of the most undervalued players in Ranger history

Absolutely, if by undervalued you mean overrated.

 

[eco's bones]

Dubi has become a ridiculously frustrating player to watch. He has forgotten how to score goals completely.

There is some truth in that but at least last year 20 points in 29 games--albeit mostly assists is pretty good production. Pro rated that's about 55 points. Considering he's become a go to guy on face-offs winning them at 58.3% clip is excellent. It's like a more productive version of Manny Malhotra at his peak with all his other intangibles of defensive awareness, penalty killing, size and physicality.

 

[Hi ImHFNYR]

The discussion is about whether the team is better off with or without the trade. The main fact is one team had successs, while the other has yet to show any. You're of the belief that Kreider should have been traded instead of Anisimov. Kreider was more relative to the deep run of the 11-12 team then Anisimov. Get my point?




Attack you? Calm down.... no one is attacking you. They are simply disagreeing. You said it could be a massive error. Trading a guy like Anisimov in a package for Nash will never be a massive error, no matter how you look at it. Trading Anisimov for "beans" as you put it, would be closer to a massive error.




Sorry, i never saw Anisimov perform at a 1st line level. And I don't think anyone in the fan base, nor the Rangers management, felt CK wouldnt make it to his potential. There's a reason it's called potential. Is it possible to not make it there, always, but assuming a player won't is a recipe for disaster when it comes to young propsects. And now you're bringing up Kreider's performance after the trade, which is completely irrelevant. We have to talk about what his value/potential was AT the time of the trade.



That's fine. I disagree. But again, you're basing that opinion off of an extra year+ of development for Kreider.

I think everyone in the organization was of the belief, coming out of those playoffs, that Kreider very likely could be a stud first line player.

What he did last year may diminish things look back, but AT the time of the trade, it was much wiser to keep him then Anisimov.

I get your point but it makes no sense. He had a good PO. And? For all we know Anisimov would have had a brilliant PO's last year or this year if we still had him. Whether either guy ends up better will be completely independent of one single PO run.

I got comments that were definitely antagonistic. Lots of exaggerated frustration and incredulity. "Jesus christ" and "so much hyperbole" Unfortunately people are not capable of disagreeing without adding some kind of shot or overreaction. Yours wasn't as bad

The massive error was not trading Anisimov for Nash. The error MAY be basically trading AA for CK in terms of who to put in that deal. Not saying it IS an error bc we have a lot of time to go to determine that but I have a bad feeling. I didn't think that saying something that indicated I have a bad feeling would ruffle so many feathers but I suspect people are just sensitive about CK and his development and so any criticism is amplified.

I just intimated my disappointment in how CK has utterly stalled in his development, his low performance in the AHL and his past career where he could not win a high position until it was given by default while others in that program have grabbed 1st line roles as juniors. It also is a vote of confidence toward AA. He was still developing and was a player with a good overall game who repeatedly went on hot streaks where he produced at a first line rate and he always brought a solid D game at any line.

I honestly also think AA would have done wonderfully well with Nash. I think Nash would have been setting him up and getting him room to start using that great shot of his and he in turn would have been making up D wise for Nash.

It wasn't just a single year of pro play that I watched and followed CK.
Potential is fine but you also have to look at how likely someone is to reach it. I have never thought CK would come close to reaching his potential. I think he'll reach a 35-50 point level but won't bring a power forward game or good D. I will be through the roof if he turns into a 30 goal defensively sound almost all star but I don't think he'll be much better overall than AA.

Based on this feeling I'd be an idiot if I still wanted to keep CK based solely on his potential (which I don't think he'll come close to reaching) compared to a player who I think is getting underrated a bit.

I hope AA doesn't have a breakout year. I'd prefer to be wrong b/c I don't want to think we blew a chance to have a very D sound, 60 point Centerman to keep a guy who just doesn't seem very smart/aware on the ice or engaged.

 

[smoneil]

Dubi has become a ridiculously frustrating player to watch. He has forgotten how to score goals completely.

And this would be a concern if his game had EVER been about goal-scoring. It isn't and it never has been. Dubi has always been more of an assist man.

It's true most 3rd liners who can't score don't make more than 4m.

Absolutely, if by undervalued you mean overrated.

Dubi is and was a 2nd line player, and a damn good one at that. He does all the things Callahan does away from the puck, and he has out-produced him almost every year of their careers. Is Callahan a 3rd liner as well? (and before the Cally cult comes in all butt-hurt, no, I am not claiming that Callahan is a 3rd liner. He, like Dubinsky, is a VERY good 2nd liner.)

 

[Samuel Culper III]

I'd like to debunk a few myths here myself.

Dubinksy is currently playing on the top line in Columbus. After a very hot pre-season, he has a point in each of his team's first games.

Last season, in Columbus, he was on pace for 56.552 points. Ryan Callahan was on pace, last season, for 56.489.

The season before that, Dubinsky was switched to the wing (he is back at center in Columbus). He took 399 faceoffs, compared to the 875 he'd taken the year before. He didn't adjust to playing the wing that well (a popular misconception here) because his puck possession/carrying/distribution game didn't translate well to the wing. As he struggled, he didn't produce and Torts, being Torts, put him the doghouse, gave him less and less favorable linemates and heavily curtailed his PP time. He played 2:17 less at ES than Callahan and received 1:46 on the PP per game; Callahan received 3:42.

Prior to that season, as a center, Dubinsky's production had risen every single season of his career. He had also never been below 51% in the dot. In fact, the season right before Dubi was switched to the wing he'd had a 24 goal 54 point season, in which he took 875 faceoffs and went .525 in the dot. Clearly, it made sense to move him out of that position. Also, I've heard some people here say Dubinsky has never scored 20 goals in his career? He had back to back 20 goal seasons prior to the off-year that got him traded.

What's more, Dubinsky is 13 months younger than Ryan Callahan. He has played in 19 more games than Callahan and still has more points than him in his career. Last year, although he was injured and only played 29 games, he was on an identical pace, point-wise, as Callahan and also played identical SH minutes per game in Columbus. People love to say Dubinsky is a fringe 2nd liner/ideal third liner but he has outscored our "top line" captain to this point in their careers. Moreover, Callahan's career best season is 29 goals and 54 points. The season before, Dubinksy had 24 goals and 54 points. Last season, both were on pace for 56 points. Both are responsible two-way players with strong leadership qualities and physical games. Cally is a goal scorer, Dubi is a playmaker; both are 50+ point players. Cally is a winger, Dubi is a center (never below 50% in the dots). Cally wears a C, Dubi wears an A.

This board has downplayed and belittled the importance of Dubi since the trade, because he had one bad year. He still has more career points than Callahan, plays just as much time short handed, gets less time on the PP, and paces for identical points. He's a passionate, team guy and not even really overpaid, considering what guys got in free agency this summer. Those of us who feel it was a mistake to let him go, when he was such a core part of the team's identity are not glorifying the past and yearning for some fringe top six player. Dubinsky is no more a third liner than Ryan Callahan is.

 

[pld459666]

I personally think Dubi would be a nice addition on this rangers team. A gritty skilled top 6 forward.

 

[smoneil]

Dubinsky is no more a third liner than Ryan Callahan is.

Agreed, but I would add the most important thing that we miss about Dubi--He always brought out the best in Callahan. When they were on the same line, you NEVER saw Cally pulling no-look passes and trying to get overly fancy. They continually pushed each other because they played the same kind of game. Cally looked MUCH better against the Devils in the ECF than he did in the previous rounds, and it happened right when Dubi got back from injury and was put on his line. Those two had some of the best chemistry since the lockout ended (Straka/Nylander/Jagr is the only line that worked better. Stepan/Nash might get there, but they have a ways to go yet).

 

[Samuel Culper III]

Agreed, but I would add the most important thing that we miss about Dubi--He always brought out the best in Callahan. When they were on the same line, you NEVER saw Cally pulling no-look passes and trying to get overly fancy. They continually pushed each other because they played the same kind of game. Cally looked MUCH better against the Devils in the ECF than he did in the previous rounds, and it happened right when Dubi got back from injury and was put on his line. Those two had some of the best chemistry since the lockout ended (Straka/Nylander/Jagr is the only line that worked better. Stepan/Nash might get there, but they have a ways to go yet).

No question, they were like a homegrown dynamic duo of responsible, gritty, 50 point forwards. I would love for them to be wearing the C and A right now on this team. They were great TOGETHER.

 

[Rangers ftw]

Nash still haven't done **** for this team in the PO. He was a complete ghost and we can't afford to have 7.8m $ no show if we gonna make it all the way. Simple as that. I'd stil do the trade however, I miss Anisimov, a great depth player. Also miss Dubinskys fights with Richards.

 

[16 To Stanley*]

Everything you said here leads to the simple decision of organizational evaluation and the teams that do it well win on a continual basis...

Not saying that Kreider will be a stud or a bust, but the teams that can mark those decisions early and capitalize on then are the ones that are successful in the long run...

No, the teams that consistently do well are the ones that draft with success in the upper and lower rounds, not trade away fledgling first round picks. Look at Detroit, Boston, Chicago, etc. Those teams are built around guys that were picked by their team. Teams that trade away their young players end up like the Rangers of the dark ages.

Said it once, said it twice: Dubinsky, one of the most undervalued players in Ranger history

Said it once, said it twice: Dubinsky is one of the most overrated Rangers in history.

QUOTE=shinchanyo;72106629]I get your point but it makes no sense. He had a good PO. And? For all we know Anisimov would have had a brilliant PO's last year or this year if we still had him. Whether either guy ends up better will be completely independent of one single PO run.[/QUOTE]

You clearly don't get my point and i really can't make it any clearer, so let's just agree to disagree.

I got comments that were definitely antagonistic. Lots of exaggerated frustration and incredulity. "Jesus christ" and "so much hyperbole" Unfortunately people are not capable of disagreeing without adding some kind of shot or overreaction. Yours wasn't as bad

No worries, you just have to remember, everyone wants the team to succeed in their own twisted way. If someones offensive, just block em.

T

he massive error was not trading Anisimov for Nash. The error MAY be basically trading AA for CK in terms of who to put in that deal. Not saying it IS an error bc we have a lot of time to go to determine that but I have a bad feeling. I didn't think that saying something that indicated I have a bad feeling would ruffle so many feathers but I suspect people are just sensitive about CK and his development and so any criticism is amplified.

I still don't know that it was CK or AA. I think it was one of CK, JT, MDZ and then we flipped that into Erixon instead. I think AA was always part of the deal. Regardless, it's something we'll have to wait and see. I still think moving AA, regardless of what happens with CK was the right move.

I just intimated my disappointment in how CK has utterly stalled in his development, his low performance in the AHL and his past career where he could not win a high position until it was given by default while others in that program have grabbed 1st line roles as juniors. It also is a vote of confidence toward AA. He was still developing and was a player with a good overall game who repeatedly went on hot streaks where he produced at a first line rate and he always brought a solid D game at any line.

He's a very solid player, but putting up points over a series of games doesn't mean he produced like a first line player. It just means he had hot streaks. We can point to Boyle during his 20 goal season and say he produced like a second liner during that year, but producing and playing like one are completey different. AA is a solid solid player, but you have to give to get. I don't think there is one Rangers fan that isn't dissapointed with CK not maknig the team, but he's only 22, he has a LOT o things to learn. I think he'll be fine.

I honestly also think AA would have done wonderfully well with Nash. I think Nash would have been setting him up and getting him room to start using that great shot of his and he in turn would have been making up D wise for Nash.

Again, I don't think AA was a negotiable. I think he was always going. I'm pretty sure, if i recall correctly it wasn't CK or AA.

It wasn't just a single year of pro play that I watched and followed CK.
Potential is fine but you also have to look at how likely someone is to reach it. I have never thought CK would come close to reaching his potential. I think he'll reach a 35-50 point level but won't bring a power forward game or good D. I will be through the roof if he turns into a 30 goal defensively sound almost all star but I don't think he'll be much better overall than AA.

Based on this feeling I'd be an idiot if I still wanted to keep CK based solely on his potential (which I don't think he'll come close to reaching) compared to a player who I think is getting underrated a bit.

I hope AA doesn't have a breakout year. I'd prefer to be wrong b/c I don't want to think we blew a chance to have a very D sound, 60 point Centerman to keep a guy who just doesn't seem very smart/aware on the ice or engaged.

CK was a great college player. I don't really know where people are getting off saying he wasn't good. He didn't put up a crazy amount of points because his coach there stressed his defensive side of the game and wanted him out there against other teams to shut them down. He was pretty clearly the best player on those teams and showed it in the tournaments when he won MVP.

CK may never be a defensive stalwart, but a power forward....the guy hits like a truck.

Ask Seidenberg, who came out publicly after playing against him last year and said how hard Kreider hits. Problem is, he doesn't bring that every single shift. If you recall, Callahan was the same way (except less of a skillset imo). he came up and had glimpses where he played very well, but he wasn't doing it shift in shift out and it caused him to be sent pack to the AHL, twice, i believe, before he fully stuck with the team.

Kreider needs to learn to play every single shift like it's your last. Go hard after the puck, hit every player when you get the chance. He is extremely big, way bigger then cally, he's extremely fast and has a very good shot. He just has to learn to do it all consistently.

It's not a matter of IF he's capable, because we've seen him play at that level in the NHL, it's a matter of can he SUSTAIN that level of play.

 

[Holocene]

I'd like to debunk a few myths here myself.

Dubinksy is currently playing on the top line in Columbus. After a very hot pre-season, he has a point in each of his team's first games.

Last season, in Columbus, he was on pace for 56.552 points. Ryan Callahan was on pace, last season, for 56.489.

The season before that, Dubinsky was switched to the wing (he is back at center in Columbus). He took 399 faceoffs, compared to the 875 he'd taken the year before. He didn't adjust to playing the wing that well (a popular misconception here) because his puck possession/carrying/distribution game didn't translate well to the wing. As he struggled, he didn't produce and Torts, being Torts, put him the doghouse, gave him less and less favorable linemates and heavily curtailed his PP time. He played 2:17 less at ES than Callahan and received 1:46 on the PP per game; Callahan received 3:42.

Prior to that season, as a center, Dubinsky's production had risen every single season of his career. He had also never been below 51% in the dot. In fact, the season right before Dubi was switched to the wing he'd had a 24 goal 54 point season, in which he took 875 faceoffs and went .525 in the dot. Clearly, it made sense to move him out of that position. Also, I've heard some people here say Dubinsky has never scored 20 goals in his career? He had back to back 20 goal seasons prior to the off-year that got him traded.

What's more, Dubinsky is 13 months younger than Ryan Callahan. He has played in 19 more games than Callahan and still has more points than him in his career. Last year, although he was injured and only played 29 games, he was on an identical pace, point-wise, as Callahan and also played identical SH minutes per game in Columbus. People love to say Dubinsky is a fringe 2nd liner/ideal third liner but he has outscored our "top line" captain to this point in their careers. Moreover, Callahan's career best season is 29 goals and 54 points. The season before, Dubinksy had 24 goals and 54 points. Last season, both were on pace for 56 points. Both are responsible two-way players with strong leadership qualities and physical games. Cally is a goal scorer, Dubi is a playmaker; both are 50+ point players. Cally is a winger, Dubi is a center (never below 50% in the dots). Cally wears a C, Dubi wears an A.

This board has downplayed and belittled the importance of Dubi since the trade, because he had one bad year. He still has more career points than Callahan, plays just as much time short handed, gets less time on the PP, and paces for identical points. He's a passionate, team guy and not even really overpaid, considering what guys got in free agency this summer. Those of us who feel it was a mistake to let him go, when he was such a core part of the team's identity are not glorifying the past and yearning for some fringe top six player. Dubinsky is no more a third liner than Ryan Callahan is.

Great post. I never understood the Dubinsky hate, it's nice to see he's still appreciated by some of the fanbase.

 

[Tawnos]

It's true most 3rd liners who can't score don't make more than 4m.

Contract doesn't matter. Dubinsky's package of grit, defensive ability and offensive skill is hard to find. We're talking about a 40-50 point player who does everything. Name 20 other players like that in the league, and maybe I'll buy it that he's overrated. Until then, he's still undervalued by too many people who soured on him during one down year.

 

[PMantis24]

Great post. I never understood the Dubinsky hate, it's nice to see he's still appreciated by some of the fanbase.

I agree, never understood it either, great post PK Pilot.