Speculation: John Tavares to NYR as UFA: Realistic? How much would you be willing to offer?

[mas0764]

The following year it becomes tricky with Mcdonagh and Zucc UFAs tho...

And Buchnevich.

 

[Kaapo Cabana]

Rangers with just UFAs actually have 14M + coming off the books. They do have to re sign Skjei/Vesey and one of Hayes/Miller however, but it might be able to be done if he's willing to come here.

Not that I'm currently advocating it, but depending on the development of the glut of D we have right now, Skjei may also be expendable, and he would fetch a great return. Maybe we move Smith?

If (BIG IF) most or our D prospects pan out (Bear Gloves, ADA, Pionk, Graves, Day).

We will be in a position to pick and choose who we want to get rid of.

 

[Kaapo Cabana]

The following year it becomes tricky with Mcdonagh and Zucc UFAs tho...

Its tricky but its not a disqualifying factor.

who knows what the cap will do by then?

who knows how Andersson and maybe Chytil fit into the teams plans at that time?

Who knows what our D will look like?

Maybe by then Zucc and McD will be expendable?

The point is, a lot can happen in a short period of time, and I wouldn't balk on a Tavares contract because of a problem that we may or may not have in 2 years.

 

[Filthy Dangles]

added poll

 

[mas0764]

I can't answer the poll without knowing what else has happened. Did we find a taker for Staal? Did we trade McDonagh or Skjei or even Brendan Smith? Has Buchnevic developed into a 60 point player? Are Chytil and Andersson top 6 caliber players?

Unlikely as it is, if we do not have any other major moves between now and then, we simply do not have the space to give Tavares $10+ million and keep a competitive, balanced team. Our third and fourth lines would be horrible.

 

[LaffyTaffyNYR]

I can't answer the poll without knowing what else has happened. Did we find a taker for Staal? Did we trade McDonagh or Skjei or even Brendan Smith? Has Buchnevic developed into a 60 point player? Are Chytil and Andersson top 6 caliber players?

Unlikely as it is, if we do not have any other major moves between now and then, we simply do not have the space to give Tavares $10+ million and keep a competitive, balanced team. Our third and fourth lines would be horrible.

If we get Tavares. Our top 2 would be him and Zib.. Andersson or Chytil in that aspect would only need to be bottom 6 guys. its guys like Miller (well he's already a top 6 guy), Buchnevich and Vesey who would have to take the leap.

 

[Filthy Dangles]

If we get Tavares. Our top 2 would be him and Zib.. Andersson or Chytil in that aspect would only need to be bottom 6 guys. its guys like Miller (well he's already a top 6 guy), Buchnevich and Vesey who would have to take the leap.

JT
Zib
King Lias

Could just put AHL fodder on the flanks

NYC might as well have the parade on the Calendar as an annually recurring event.

 

[Pavel Buchnevich]

ADA may not be in the league in a year or two.

Beargloves hasn't played one NHL game.

But instead of Kirk (who came here at bottom dollar on half the length contract he was rumored to be seeking or deserved) and Smith who played all but lights out w Skjei, who might be the most important player on this team ATM, we should've handed the defense to them.

You speak about making the team better and how that's not good enough... the team needs to be Stanley Cup BETTER.

Well, the stoopid GM made the defense light years better than ur suggestion, along w the depth to survive injuries and allow for progress from the unknowns whom u wanted to hand over the keys to. IF those guys progress the way we all hope it opens up ALLLLLL kinda of options.

We can maneuver and fit Tavares if this pipe dream comes true.

We can't just sign him and "hope" the two wildcard defensemen u are inking into the Top-4 become SC caliber Top-4

I think you overestimate Shattenkirk and Smith. Shattenkirk is a #3D, Smith #4. This team couldn't beat Ottawa, even with Smith, those two offseason signings don't get us close to being a Stanley Cup contender. They are nobodies in the greater scheme of the NHL. They will not make any difference when the games become the best teams left. You are also making a really stupid argument about DeAngelo and Bereglazov. You are basically saying any "prospect" is a maybe. Buchnevich and Skjei were prospects a year ago, should we have just signed two veterans to play in their place? You gotta trust rookies on ELC's if you are going to have success in the league. Overpaying UFA's to build your team is not a successful strategy in this league. The only time you overpay UFA's should be when they are difference makers, like a Tavares.

You think I'm wrong? Okay, get back to me at the end of the season. Lets see if this offseason makes any difference towards where this team ranks in the league. I don't think it will. And then we know what'll happen. AV will get sacked, and Staal will also go. I'm not against those two things happening, I'm just saying that its completely missing the point to make these minor moves, and completely ignore the fact that the top end of our roster is not good enough. We don't have a Crosby, Malkin, Toews, Kopitar, any of those top caliber centers that have won a Cup in recent years. We need a player like that, which Tavares is. To spend the money on Shattenkirk and Smith instead is dumb strategy that will lead to about the same result as last year.

 

[haveandare]

I think you overestimate Shattenkirk and Smith. Shattenkirk is a #3D, Smith #4. This team couldn't beat Ottawa, even with Smith, those two offseason signings don't get us close to being a Stanley Cup contender. They are nobodies in the greater scheme of the NHL. They will not make any difference when the games become the best teams left. You are also making a really stupid argument about DeAngelo and Bereglazov. You are basically saying any "prospect" is a maybe. Buchnevich and Skjei were prospects a year ago, should we have just signed two veterans to play in their place? You gotta trust rookies on ELC's if you are going to have success in the league. Overpaying UFA's to build your team is not a successful strategy in this league. The only time you overpay UFA's should be when they are difference makers, like a Tavares.

You think I'm wrong? Okay, get back to me at the end of the season. Lets see if this offseason makes any difference towards where this team ranks in the league. I don't think it will. And then we know what'll happen. AV will get sacked, and Staal will also go. I'm not against those two things happening, I'm just saying that its completely missing the point to make these minor moves, and completely ignore the fact that the top end of our roster is not good enough. We don't have a Crosby, Malkin, Toews, Kopitar, any of those top caliber centers that have won a Cup in recent years. We need a player like that, which Tavares is. To spend the money on Shattenkirk and Smith instead is dumb strategy that will lead to about the same result as last year.

Shattenkirk was fourth in points by d-men last season... fourth. You are talking him down to an absolutely silly degree.

And the Isles had probably JT's best years on the cheap. What do they have to show for it? Less than nothing. It takes a lot more than a top tier guy like him to win, you need a competent team all around a lot more luck than most people are comfortable admitting.

 

[Pavel Buchnevich]

Shattenkirk was fourth in points by d-men last season... fourth. You are talking him down to an absolutely silly degree.

And the Isles had probably JT's best years on the cheap. What do they have to show for it? Less than nothing. It takes a lot more than a top tier guy like him to win, you need a competent team all around a lot more luck than most people are comfortable admitting.

No, I am talking realistically. He's a good player, but not a difference maker that wins you Stanley Cups. You mention points, but then fail to mention that he's not very good defensively. We heard all about Yandle's points, didn't mean anything towards winning the Cup. If Shattenkirk was a 1D, there's absolutely no way he would've been available for the money that he was available for. And we also saw how Nashville was overwhelmed with all their 1D's playing against two generation players and a bunch of nobodies. You need forward difference makers in the NHL. Every recent Cup team has them. Their best offensive player is not Mats Zuccarello.

The Isles have very little around Tavares. They've sucked in goal for years, defense is really just okay, offense besides Tavares isn't very good. We have a very good roster, if you consider the whole roster, but we've not had an offensive difference maker since Jagr. Our last PPG scorer was Jagr. We are lucky if our high point man hits like 65 points with this current roster.

 

[Do you want ants]

No, I am talking realistically. He's a good player, but not a difference maker that wins you Stanley Cups. You mention points, but then fail to mention that he's not very good defensively. We heard all about Yandle's points, didn't mean anything towards winning the Cup. If Shattenkirk was a 1D, there's absolutely no way he would've been available for the money that he was available for. And we also saw how Nashville was overwhelmed with all their 1D's playing against two generation players and a bunch of nobodies. You need forward difference makers in the NHL. Every recent Cup team has them. Their best offensive player is not Mats Zuccarello.

The Isles have very little around Tavares. They've sucked in goal for years, defense is really just okay, offense besides Tavares isn't very good. We have a very good roster, if you consider the whole roster, but we've not had an offensive difference maker since Jagr. Our last PPG scorer was Jagr. We are lucky if our high point man hits like 65 points with this current roster.

You still have yet to post anything proving that Shatty sucks on defense.

But for the sake of argument. Let's say we didn't resign smith or sign Shatty. What makes you think JT would take the dump truck filled with cash from us and not some other team? We'd have an arguably worse defense than the islanders he currently plays for. So what would entice him to jump ship?

 

[HatTrick Swayze]

Absolutely. He's a franchise player the same age as Kreider. Blank check IMO and I am pretty anti-UFA typically.

 

[haveandare]

No, I am talking realistically. He's a good player, but not a difference maker that wins you Stanley Cups. You mention points, but then fail to mention that he's not very good defensively. We heard all about Yandle's points, didn't mean anything towards winning the Cup. If Shattenkirk was a 1D, there's absolutely no way he would've been available for the money that he was available for. And we also saw how Nashville was overwhelmed with all their 1D's playing against two generation players and a bunch of nobodies. You need forward difference makers in the NHL. Every recent Cup team has them. Their best offensive player is not Mats Zuccarello.

The Isles have very little around Tavares. They've sucked in goal for years, defense is really just okay, offense besides Tavares isn't very good. We have a very good roster, if you consider the whole roster, but we've not had an offensive difference maker since Jagr. Our last PPG scorer was Jagr. We are lucky if our high point man hits like 65 points with this current roster.

No, you're talking fantastically. 4th in points is 4th in points, he's a two-way d-man who is supposed to drive the play and get pucks in the net, only 3 people did that better than him. And he's above average defensively as has been shown by many, many statistical breakdowns of his defensive performance. That is not an "irrelevant" player in the league at all. And he wasn't available for the money we got him for to any other teams, he wanted to come here and he made the team an offer that they couldn't say no to.

PIT has a bunch of nobodies aside from Crosby and Malkin? Weird, Kessel and Guentzel in particular looked pretty good to me. You don't "need" any one thing to win a cup, that assumes that all teams are built in a similar mould and the only variance is quality of fitting that mould. That's just not the case. Boston won without a generational forward, as did LA twice. People only shoehorn Kopitar into that label because it helps with arguments like this. When all is said and done absolutely nobody is going to consider Kopitar a generational forward or a "difference maker" on the level of Crosby and Malkin.

We'd have a lot less around Tavares too if we shelled out $10M for him. Lack of deals like that is why we can afford to have a very good roster all around.

 

[Riche16]

I think you overestimate Shattenkirk and Smith. Shattenkirk is a #3D, Smith #4. This team couldn't beat Ottawa, even with Smith, those two offseason signings don't get us close to being a Stanley Cup contender. They are nobodies in the greater scheme of the NHL. They will not make any difference when the games become the best teams left. You are also making a really stupid argument about DeAngelo and Bereglazov. You are basically saying any "prospect" is a maybe. Buchnevich and Skjei were prospects a year ago, should we have just signed two veterans to play in their place? You gotta trust rookies on ELC's if you are going to have success in the league. Overpaying UFA's to build your team is not a successful strategy in this league. The only time you overpay UFA's should be when they are difference makers, like a Tavares.

You think I'm wrong? Okay, get back to me at the end of the season. Lets see if this offseason makes any difference towards where this team ranks in the league. I don't think it will. And then we know what'll happen. AV will get sacked, and Staal will also go. I'm not against those two things happening, I'm just saying that its completely missing the point to make these minor moves, and completely ignore the fact that the top end of our roster is not good enough. We don't have a Crosby, Malkin, Toews, Kopitar, any of those top caliber centers that have won a Cup in recent years. We need a player like that, which Tavares is. To spend the money on Shattenkirk and Smith instead is dumb strategy that will lead to about the same result as last year.

How am I overestimating Kirk and Smith? I'm calling them what they are. A #2 and a #4. The last being something u yourself said.

The money we have them won't stop us signing JT IFFFFFFFFF it comes to that. And IFFFFFFF it does he will have a 1st ballot HOF goaltender who's very motivated to get his last shot(S) at the chalice, and damn good if not great defense who has a ton of youth AND depth and a spot on our 1st line with some wingers he will hopefully make better.

The offense is the issue and I agree we should go all out for JT

As far as what u inferred about how I feel about prospects I think ur missing my point entirely. I really HOPE Deangelo and Bear make so much noise that we have a real issue on our hands about what to do with them. I really do. Trades become infinitely easier if that's the case. You brought up Butch... was he ready last season? Doesn't seem like it. Certainly NOT physically. Has ADA sorted out his issues between the ears? Is Bear ready? I hope so but we won't know for a couple months.

I have no issue with Gorton, or how he has managed this team for the past two seasons (E Staal aside). You call him stupid.

I'm fine with getting back to you on all of this at seasons end. I'm not saying we win the Cup. But I like the direction we are headed now A HECK OF A LOT MORE tan I did a year ago at this time. I wonder where we will be by this time 2018.

 

[Pavel Buchnevich]

You still have yet to post anything proving that Shatty sucks on defense.

But for the sake of argument. Let's say we didn't resign smith or sign Shatty. What makes you think JT would take the dump truck filled with cash from us and not some other team? We'd have an arguably worse defense than the islanders he currently plays for. So what would entice him to jump ship?

I know this argument. The one where you point to a bunch of advanced stats that claim a guy who doesn't even PK on any of his teams is good defensively. I wish Shattenkirk was great defensively. If he was, he'd probably be even better than McDonagh, but he's not. He's not even good defensively. If he was like Marc Staal level offensively, he wouldn't be in the NHL. I don't know why so many take that so critically. He's a good player, but a player we didn't need, a player that actually sets us back because it just adds another contract to the team that is not going to be the difference between winning the Cup and not winning it. Re-signing Smith and signing Shattenkirk takes us out of contention to sign Tavares.

As I mentioned before, and maybe you should've read my posts carefully, its possible Tavares would go elsewhere, but the strategy from us would make sense. We can't control what Tavares does, but we can control trying to execute a strategy that will get us closer to being a Cup Contender. I don't think this GM is doing that, I think he's doing the opposite of that. And also, I don't know why you think our defense would be so bad by adding younger players. We have a good foundation with McDonagh as a 1D, and a developing top 4 young D in Skjei. Why couldn't DeAngelo, Bereglazov, Graves, Pionk who make absolutely nothing been used to supplement the foundation pieces with McDonagh and Skjei. Would that be such a bad D? You act like Shattenkirk and Smith are such great players, its a 3D and a 4D. Thats a second pair in the NHL. We couldn't have gotten a second pair out of the four players I named above?

 

[Inferno]

if somehow this was your lineup...

Kreider - Tavares - Buchnevich
Miller - Zibanejad - Zucc
Vesey - Lias Andersson - Chytil
Fasth - Boo - someone on an ELC

then some combo of.

MCD, Shatty, Skjei, Smith, ADA, Beargloves, Day, Pionk, cheap contract defenseman

with Henrik and Shesty as your backup (is he free the year after?)

thats a cup caliber team...thats a presidents trophy caliber team.

Speed, size, skill all over the damn lineup.

young...just friggin amazing.


its all ridiculous though..i just dont see any way on earth JT leaves the Isles to join the Rangers.....he doesnt strike me as that kinda guy...its like Jeter leaving the Yanks to go to the Sox/Mets

I just don't see it.

 

[Riche16]

I know this argument. The one where you point to a bunch of advanced stats that claim a guy who doesn't even PK on any of his teams is good defensively. I wish Shattenkirk was great defensively. If he was, he'd probably be even better than McDonagh, but he's not. He's not even good defensively. If he was like Marc Staal level offensively, he wouldn't be in the NHL. I don't know why so many take that so critically. He's a good player, but a player we didn't need, a player that actually sets us back because it just adds another contract to the team that is not going to be the difference between winning the Cup and not winning it. Re-signing Smith and signing Shattenkirk takes us out of contention to sign Tavares.

As I mentioned before, and maybe you should've read my posts carefully, its possible Tavares would go elsewhere, but the strategy from us would make sense. We can't control what Tavares does, but we can control trying to execute a strategy that will get us closer to being a Cup Contender. I don't think this GM is doing that, I think he's doing the opposite of that. And also, I don't know why you think our defense would be so bad by adding younger players. We have a good foundation with McDonagh as a 1D, and a developing top 4 young D in Skjei. Why couldn't DeAngelo, Bereglazov, Graves, Pionk who make absolutely nothing been used to supplement the foundation pieces with McDonagh and Skjei. Would that be such a bad D? You act like Shattenkirk and Smith are such great players, its a 3D and a 4D. Thats a second pair in the NHL. We couldn't have gotten a second pair out of the four players I named above?

Yes!

Also if Jordan couldn't dunk...

 

[Pavel Buchnevich]

PIT has a bunch of nobodies aside from Crosby and Malkin? Weird, Kessel and Guentzel in particular looked pretty good to me. You don't "need" any one thing to win a cup, that assumes that all teams are built in a similar mould and the only variance is quality of fitting that mould. That's just not the case. Boston won without a generational forward, as did LA twice. People only shoehorn Kopitar into that label because it helps with arguments like this. When all is said and done absolutely nobody is going to consider Kopitar a generational forward or a "difference maker" on the level of Crosby and Malkin.

We'd have a lot less around Tavares too if we shelled out $10M for him. Lack of deals like that is why we can afford to have a very good roster all around.

Boston is the one example in the last 9 years of three teams dominating the NHL, there's always an anomaly team that wins every once in a while to counter the best teams of the generation, and they had much better forwards than we had. Bergeron, Marchand, Lucic right around when they were starting to break out, they had Seguin, they had Recchi towards the end of his career, Savard helped get them there although he had the concussion. Regardless, even if you were to say that they are like our team without a difference maker forward, thats 1 out of 9 teams. The NHL has been dominated by three other teams in that stretch, so its not a free for all every year. I don't accept the idea that Kopitar isn't a difference maker forward. Maybe he's not going to score 100 points in a regular season, but he's one of the the best defensive forwards in the NHL, and he has the capability to score points when he needs to, as evidence by being 1PPG in the playoffs both years they won the Cup. We've had one PPG player in the playoffs since Jagr, and it was Brassard with 12 points in 12 games a few years back, so we aren't exactly talking about a forward carrying the team to a Stanley Cup.

As for the team that would be around Tavares, I don't think it would be so bad. As I mentioned in the post above, lets say we had some combination of DeAngelo, Bereglazov, Graves, Pionk in those Smith and Shattenkirk roles, and we had Nash coming off the books. I think we would have the money, and also still a pretty decent group of players around the core players of Tavares and McDonagh.

 

[haveandare]

I know this argument. The one where you point to a bunch of advanced stats that claim a guy who doesn't even PK on any of his teams is good defensively. I wish Shattenkirk was great defensively. If he was, he'd probably be even better than McDonagh, but he's not. He's not even good defensively. If he was like Marc Staal level offensively, he wouldn't be in the NHL. I don't know why so many take that so critically. He's a good player, but a player we didn't need, a player that actually sets us back because it just adds another contract to the team that is not going to be the difference between winning the Cup and not winning it. Re-signing Smith and signing Shattenkirk takes us out of contention to sign Tavares.

As I mentioned before, and maybe you should've read my posts carefully, its possible Tavares would go elsewhere, but the strategy from us would make sense. We can't control what Tavares does, but we can control trying to execute a strategy that will get us closer to being a Cup Contender. I don't think this GM is doing that, I think he's doing the opposite of that. And also, I don't know why you think our defense would be so bad by adding younger players. We have a good foundation with McDonagh as a 1D, and a developing top 4 young D in Skjei. Why couldn't DeAngelo, Bereglazov, Graves, Pionk who make absolutely nothing been used to supplement the foundation pieces with McDonagh and Skjei. Would that be such a bad D? You act like Shattenkirk and Smith are such great players, its a 3D and a 4D. Thats a second pair in the NHL. We couldn't have gotten a second pair out of the four players I named above?

People take it critically because there are hard numbers that show it to be wrong, and you counter them with things like "he didn't PK on other teams" or "I wish he was good definitely, I really do." Other people are proving he's good defensively by showing repeated patterns of performance from his recent past, and you're arguing that he's not good defensively essentially because you say so.

And we didn't need an RHD who can make a dependable outlet pass and help us keep possession? I'd argue we needed that more than anything else by a pretty wide margin.

Would a defense with McDonagh, Skjei and a mix of DeAngelo, on his third team, and guys who have played 0 NHL games combined really be that bad? Yes, probably. How is that even a question? If we got rid of half the top 6 and threw our Hartford guys and Anderson there, would the offensive be that bad? Yes, of course. You don't build a good defense or offense by leaning on a bunch of players who have never set foot on NHL ice and just assuming they'll be good enough because that would be really convenient for the cap.

 

[Ori]

Jeff Gorton would create cap space to sign JT - that would be an obvious move. What I think is not even relevant in such a situation, because he is a 1c generation talent who is only 28, and he is a gold mine for any NHL team who want to compete for a stanley cup and be a contender.
Personally, I would prefer that generation talent to be much younger compare to JT and drafted him if possible in the beginning of his career, but drafting a 1 center is so difficult in that particular position as well with such high end talents.

 

[Pavel Buchnevich]

How am I overestimating Kirk and Smith? I'm calling them what they are. A #2 and a #4. The last being something u yourself said.

The money we have them won't stop us signing JT IFFFFFFFFF it comes to that. And IFFFFFFF it does he will have a 1st ballot HOF goaltender who's very motivated to get his last shot(S) at the chalice, and damn good if not great defense who has a ton of youth AND depth and a spot on our 1st line with some wingers he will hopefully make better.

The offense is the issue and I agree we should go all out for JT

As far as what u inferred about how I feel about prospects I think ur missing my point entirely. I really HOPE Deangelo and Bear make so much noise that we have a real issue on our hands about what to do with them. I really do. Trades become infinitely easier if that's the case. You brought up Butch... was he ready last season? Doesn't seem like it. Certainly NOT physically. Has ADA sorted out his issues between the ears? Is Bear ready? I hope so but we won't know for a couple months.

I have no issue with Gorton, or how he has managed this team for the past two seasons (E Staal aside). You call him stupid.

I'm fine with getting back to you on all of this at seasons end. I'm not saying we win the Cup. But I like the direction we are headed now A HECK OF A LOT MORE tan I did a year ago at this time. I wonder where we will be by this time 2018.

I don't see the cap space for Tavares with the current team. Someone posted a potential team with Tavares, it lowballed all the RFA's, and had some forwards in the lineup like Lettieri and Nieves who might not ever be NHL'ers, they were only on that roster because they cost nothing. It also bought out Staal, but that also doesn't account for the cap in the years after the buyout when we'd have two significant dead cap space penalties to pay. How would you get the roster to work for the years following that? Maybe you can get it to work if you don't spend up to the cap ceiling, but are we a team that doesn't spend up to the ceiling?

As I mentioned, I liked some of the offseason, and didn't like other parts of it. I just don't see a coherent plan with what Gorton is doing. Its a little bit here, a little there, I wanted to see a team that tries to rebuild this year, develops some of the younger players, and then takes a shot at Tavares with an improved roster with some space to play with. Thats not what we got. This team might not be any worse this season, but I don't think we are getting closer to contending for the Cup. In fact, I think adding the contracts we did makes it more difficult in future seasons. We might've not become a Cup contender this season, but I thought we could be bad/average for a year, and then sign Tavares to become a contender. Not gonna happen now, given the cap space isn't there to sign Tavares.

 

[haveandare]

Boston is the one example in the last 9 years of three teams dominating the NHL, there's always an anomaly team that wins every once in a while to counter the best teams of the generation, and they had much better forwards than we had. Bergeron, Marchand, Lucic right around when they were starting to break out, they had Seguin, they had Recchi towards the end of his career, Savard helped get them there although he had the concussion. Regardless, even if you were to say that they are like our team without a difference maker forward, thats 1 out of 9 teams. The NHL has been dominated by three other teams in that stretch, so its not a free for all every year. I don't accept the idea that Kopitar isn't a difference maker forward. Maybe he's not going to score 100 points in a regular season, but he's one of the the best defensive forwards in the NHL, and he has the capability to score points when he needs to, as evidence by being 1PPG in the playoffs both years they won the Cup. We've had one PPG player in the playoffs since Jagr, and it was Brassard with 12 points in 12 games a few years back, so we aren't exactly talking about a forward carrying the team to a Stanley Cup.

As for the team that would be around Tavares, I don't think it would be so bad. As I mentioned in the post above, lets say we had some combination of DeAngelo, Bereglazov, Graves, Pionk in those Smith and Shattenkirk roles, and we had Nash coming off the books. I think we would have the money, and also still a pretty decent group of players around the core players of Tavares and McDonagh.

I think that defense would be really terrible in all honesty. McD and Brady, both very good players in their own ways, but McD doesn't put the points a definite top 1D needs to, and Brady hasn't proven who he is over the long stretch yet. After them, some combination of DeAngelo, with less than half an NHL season of experience, and a bunch of guys who have 0 games of NHL experience, and then presumably in the mix too, Staal and/or Holden. I think that would be a very bad defense. It'd be McD, a great but not superstar 1D, Brady who has only 1 season of very impressive play under his belt, then a mix of hopefuls or lumbering over the hill guys.

I think Tavares is a great player and it'd be good to get him if he goes to UFA at his age, but I just don't buy this idea that Shattenkirk and/or Smith were stupid moves that are going to hold this team back. Shattenkirk in particular is exactly what needed and he's on a beautiful deal that he himself offered. Smith, especially if the plan is to file out Staal and Holden, will provide a steady veteran on the backend that we'll need with all the newcomers and rookies.

 

[Pavel Buchnevich]

People take it critically because there are hard numbers that show it to be wrong, and you counter them with things like "he didn't PK on other teams" or "I wish he was good definitely, I really do." Other people are proving he's good defensively by showing repeated patterns of performance from his recent past, and you're arguing that he's not good defensively essentially because you say so.

And we didn't need an RHD who can make a dependable outlet pass and help us keep possession? I'd argue we needed that more than anything else by a pretty wide margin.

Would a defense with McDonagh, Skjei and a mix of DeAngelo, on his third team, and guys who have played 0 NHL games combined really be that bad? Yes, probably. How is that even a question? If we got rid of half the top 6 and threw our Hartford guys and Anderson there, would the offensive be that bad? Yes, of course. You don't build a good defense or offense by leaning on a bunch of players who have never set foot on NHL ice and just assuming they'll be good enough because that would be really convenient for the cap.

I'm not getting into the advanced stats debate. Waste of everyone's time. Lets not make this out to be some crazy opinion that you've never heard though, you very well know a lot of people don't think Shattenkirk's good defensively, and its not just some fans, its coaches, executives, etc. There's more than one way to make decisions. We traded for DeAngelo prior to signing Shattenkirk. Everyone around here talks about adding a young right shot OFD who doesn't cost a lot of the salary cap. They talked about Montour, Honka, Pokka, what happened to that strategy? I thought that was brilliantly done to get DeAngelo and I thought we needed a player like him, but it renders the move irrelevant when you sign Shattenkirk and re-sign Smith, as DeAngelo's likely not gonna be in the lineup this season now. I also think you are underestimating the defense. Somehow a team without Shattenkirk and Smith be so terrible defensively, yet we played without them for most of last season, and we still finished 12th in GAA with a goalie who couldn't stop anything. Since then, we've added some young players, and subtracted two veterans. To think we'd be as bad as you are stating would almost certainly be assuming no significant contributions from any of the young defensemen I named, and I don't agree with that perspective. I think we could've got significant contributions from DeAngelo, Bereglazov and Graves. You prefer Staal and Holden? Pionk after some time settling into pro hockey in Hartford could've helped also.

 

[Do you want ants]

I'm not getting into the advanced stats debate. Waste of everyone's time. Lets not make this out to be some crazy opinion that you've never heard though, you very well know a lot of people don't think Shattenkirk's good defensively, and its not just some fans, its coaches, executives, etc. There's more than one way to make decisions. We traded for DeAngelo prior to signing Shattenkirk. Everyone around here talks about adding a young right shot OFD who doesn't cost a lot of the salary cap. They talked about Montour, Honka, Pokka, what happened to that strategy? I thought that was brilliantly done to get DeAngelo and I thought we needed a player like him, but it renders the move irrelevant when you sign Shattenkirk and re-sign Smith, as DeAngelo's likely not gonna be in the lineup this season now. I also think you are underestimating the defense. Somehow a team without Shattenkirk and Smith be so terrible defensively, yet we played without them for most of last season, and we still finished 12th in GAA with a goalie who couldn't stop anything. Since then, we've added some young players, and subtracted two veterans. To think we'd be as bad as you are stating would almost certainly be assuming no significant contributions from any of the young defensemen I named, and I don't agree with that perspective. I think we could've got significant contributions from DeAngelo, Bereglazov and Graves. You prefer Staal and Holden? Pionk after some time settling into pro hockey in Hartford could've helped also.

So Shatty sucks BC you say he sucks. Got it. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

So JT is going to come to us BC he wants to win and we offer him the same amount of money. But you say our goalie is terrible. So your answer is to field 3-4 dman with a handleful of NHL games between them.

If you were JT would you rather have some combination of McD, Smith, Skjei and Shatty as your top 4 or McD, Skjei and 4-5 unproven kids?

 

[Pavel Buchnevich]

So Shatty sucks BC you say he sucks. Got it. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

So JT is going to come to us BC he wants to win and we offer him the same amount of money. But you say our goalie is terrible. So your answer is to field 3-4 dman with a handleful of NHL games between them.

If you were JT would you rather have some combination of McD, Smith, Skjei and Shatty as your top 4 or McD, Skjei and 4-5 unproven kids?

You are putting a lot of words in my mouth that I never said. I also don't think Tavares is going to decide which team he plays for based on the team's #3 and 4 defensemen, but maybe thats just my opinion.