Confirmed with Link: New York Rangers sign Viktor Stålberg (RW) - [1 year, $1.1M AAV]

[offdacrossbar]

The Rangers are deeper than last year. Lindberg, Stoll and Stalberg wouldn't look out of place on the 3rd line, but they could each conceivably be 13th or 14th forwards for us. The pre-season and first 20 games will be where AV figures out where to fit all the pieces to the puzzle.

the bottom 6 are much better imo.

remove glass and add stalberg and thats a win.

add lindberg over shepard and again, more talent and smarter with better wheels.

add stoll and we are way better. if he's the 4c on this team, he's one of the top 4c's in the league. period. is still believe he will be the 3c on this team.

the bottom forwards are going to be bigger, faster and more talented. no doubt. production wise, not sure.

expecting much scoring from the likes of stalberg, etem, lindberg, stol, jt millerl and even victor fast is asking for alot imo.

we need another shooter/scorer type and he won't be here until march at the earliest.

 

[TheTakedown]

the bottom 6 are much better imo.

remove glass and add stalberg and thats a win.

add lindberg over shepard and again, more talent and smarter with better wheels.

add stoll and we are way better. if he's the 4c on this team, he's one of the top 4c's in the league. period. is still believe he will be the 3c on this team.

the bottom forwards are going to be bigger, faster and more talented. no doubt. production wise, not sure.

expecting much scoring from the likes of stalberg, etem, lindberg, stol, jt millerl and even victor fast is asking for alot imo.

we need another shooter/scorer type and he won't be here until march at the earliest.

True, because Viktor Fasth is a goalie

But i agree with your point

 

[Inferno]

the rangers are essentially replacing..

MSL, Hagelin, Sheppard/Stempniak, and Glass for

Etem, Stalberg, Lindberg, and Stoll

In terms of actual production for the Rangers last year...
MSL: 21/31/52
Hagelin: 17/18/35
Stempniak/Sheppard: 11/9/20
Glass: 1/5/6
Total: 50/63/113

Let's extrapolate the guys we are getting based on 72 games played each (the average of the games played above.

Etem: 10/10/20
Stalberg: 14/15/29
Stoll: 13/22/35
Lindberg (using 50% of his AHL totals 9/13/21
Totals: 46/60/106

I'd say those projections are probably a little favorable...especially with Stoll. i guess its tough to count on improvements from so many players, especially with Rick Nash more than likely going to have a down year compared to his 40+ year last season. (counting on 40 from him probably isnt fair....30+ is likely more reasonable).

 

[Brooklyn Ranger]

Again, Etem and Miller have almost identical careers so far. People have faith in Miller because he's "our guy," but if that faith is based on his results at all, Etem deserves the same.

I don't entirely agree--Miller already knows the system and kept improving through the playoffs as well as developing chemistry with several of his teammates. I think that's a great motivator and Miller should come into camp and pre-season wanting to show everyone that he can continue to contribute and improve.

Etem, I just don't know enough about to be sure of anything--he's going to have to come in, learn the system and prove to the coaching staff that he's capable of contributing.

There's room in the lineup for both of them and I think that's what the organization expects. But, both of them are going have to prove to more than just me that they belong. Tell me only one of them will make it and I'll choose Miller. Why? Cause he's "our guy". At least until proven otherwise on the ice.

 

[haveandare]

I don't entirely agree--Miller already knows the system and kept improving through the playoffs as well as developing chemistry with several of his teammates. I think that's a great motivator and Miller should come into camp and pre-season wanting to show everyone that he can continue to contribute and improve.

Etem, I just don't know enough about to be sure of anything--he's going to have to come in, learn the system and prove to the coaching staff that he's capable of contributing.

There's room in the lineup for both of them and I think that's what the organization expects. But, both of them are going have to prove to more than just me that they belong. Tell me only one of them will make it and I'll choose Miller. Why? Cause he's "our guy". At least until proven otherwise on the ice.

I'm certain they'll both make it. They didn't move Hagelin for a guy they're not even sure will stick. Yes they wanted cap space and they apparently wanted Gropp, but they had multiple options and they took this one for a reason. They must have saw something in him that gave them a decent degree of confidence. Their pro scouting has earned that confidence from me personally.

If Miller is motivated by last years success, Etem should be similarly motivated by being moved from the hometown team that drafted him. I think he's too good to fall out of the league, but for some players, this is how it starts. I have little question that he'll have a fire under him. Another team falls out of interest in him and his future gets awfully murky.

Look at their NHL and AHL numbers. They're very nearly identical players. It's almost a little spooky how similar.

 

[Mac n Gs]

Apparently Stalberg and Henke have been working out together in Sweden over the past 7-8 summers (via SNYRangers). I wonder if Henke told management to make a push to sign him.

 

[Mikos87]

Apparently Stalberg and Henke have been working out together in Sweden over the past 7-8 summers (via SNYRangers). I wonder if Henke told management to make a push to sign him.

More than likely. It's also the reason why I expect Stalberg to be a regular, not because of him being buddies with Hank, but rather someone that will take Hank's learning about how this forward group doesn't crash the net and just do that.

IMO you're really looking at a player that will show up every game. He did that in CHI when they won the cup.

 

[Blackhawkswincup]

More than likely. It's also the reason why I expect Stalberg to be a regular, not because of him being buddies with Hank, but rather someone that will take Hank's learning about how this forward group doesn't crash the net and just do that.

IMO you're really looking at a player that will show up every game. He did that in CHI when they won the cup.

He was a complete ghost in playoffs for Hawks and whined to media about his lack of PP time. Also got benched for Carcillo at one point in cup run

Guy also plays no defense

Ranger fans shouldn't expect much from Stalberg going into season

 

[Filthy Dangles]

He was a complete ghost in playoffs for Hawks and whined to media about his lack of PP time

Also got benched for Carcillo at one point in cup run

Dat post count....damn

But yeah stalberg is just a 4th line speedster at this point. Surprised he ever was considered as a PP player in the first place

 

[Machinehead]

He was a complete ghost in playoffs for Hawks and whined to media about his lack of PP time. Also got benched for Carcillo at one point in cup run

Guy also plays no defense

Ranger fans shouldn't expect much from Stalberg going into season

He was 59.1% CF in the 2013 playoffs with a minuscule 39.06 CA/60. Both numbers got significantly worse for Chicago when he was off the ice.

If I played that well and got benched for Carcillo, I'd wine to the media too.

 

[ZiGOODejad]

If he can be our new Benny Pouliot I'm more then ok with that

 

[Machinehead]

If he can be our new Benny Pouliot I'm more then ok with that

He's very similar to Pouliot. Big, fast, monster on the boards, and good things just magically happen when he's on the ice for too long to ignore.

Like Pouliot, he has trouble endearing himself. I think that comes from the fact that people expect anybody big and fast to put up 100 points and beat Chuck Norris in a fight.

 

[Trxjw]

The only thing people have expected of Stalberg is to put forth a consistent effort on a nightly basis, which is something he's been unable to do for most of his career.

His usage in the 2013 playoffs is a testament to just how misleading metrics can be without any context.

 

[Machinehead]

The only thing people have expected of Stalberg is to put forth a consistent effort on a nightly basis, which is something he's been unable to do for most of his career.

They said that, verbatim, about Pouliot.

His usage in the 2013 playoffs is a testament to just how misleading metrics can be without any context.

A healthy Viktor Stalberg has never been below 52% CF% in any season, in any playoffs.

When you're a great possession player and repeatedly are a great possession player over multiple samples, you can't explain that away with usage.

 

[Trxjw]

They said that, verbatim, about Pouliot.

They've said the same thing about a lot of players, and very few of them were able to carve out a niche like Pouliot did. Plus Pouliot never set the bar as low as Stalberg did last season.

A healthy Viktor Stalberg has never been below 52% CF% in any season, in any playoffs.

When you're a great possession player and repeatedly are a great possession player over multiple samples, you can't explain that away with usage.

I'm not explaining his corsi with his usage, I'm stating that a positive corsi isn't a direct correlation with a guy playing great hockey.

 

[Machinehead]

They've said the same thing about a lot of players, and very few of them were able to carve out a niche like Pouliot did. Plus Pouliot never set the bar as low as Stalberg did last season.

But I've seen this guy play and if Pouliot were born in Sweden, they'd literally be the same guy. Stalberg will carve his niche. He already did with Chicago but they didn't have the cap.

Stalberg hasn't been healthy, that's why the bar is so low.

I'm not explaining his corsi with his usage, I'm stating that a positive corsi isn't a direct correlation with a guy playing great hockey.

Not necessarily.

But when the corsi is great over a very large sample, with varying teammates and varying usage, and every single teammate gets worse without that player, he's doing something right.

It isn't a case where I cherry-picked a nice run of positive corsi. Stalberg is an absolute possession monster in every measurable way over his entire career. It's too large a sample to ignore.

 

[Trxjw]

But I've seen this guy play and if Pouliot were born in Sweden, they'd literally be the same guy. Stalberg will carve his niche. He already did with Chicago but they didn't have the cap.

Stalberg hasn't been healthy, that's why the bar is so low.

I've seen him play as well and I definitely think that's a stretch to draw that comparison. I think his year with Chicago was an aberration, not Stalberg establishing a niche. I guess only time will tell though.

Not necessarily.

But when the corsi is great over a very large sample, with varying teammates and varying usage, and every single teammate gets worse without that player, he's doing something right.

It isn't a case where I cherry-picked a nice run of positive corsi. Stalberg is an absolute possession monster in every measurable way over his entire career. It's too large a sample to ignore.

You're missing the point. It's not a debate about whether or not he's a good possession player, it's simply evidence that good possession numbers don't tell the whole story about how effective a guy is on the ice. He was playing badly enough to be benched in favor of a rabid muskrat on ice skates during the most important games of the year. Positive possession doesn't always mean a guy is having a positive impact.

 

[Machinehead]

I've seen him play as well and I definitely think that's a stretch to draw that comparison. I think his year with Chicago was an aberration, not Stalberg establishing a niche. I guess only time will tell though.

Statistically, 13-14 with Nashville was the aberration.

Stalberg has always been a phenomenal possession player, not just that year.

You're missing the point. It's not a debate about whether or not he's a good possession player, it's simply evidence that good possession numbers don't tell the whole story about how effective a guy is on the ice. He was playing badly enough to be benched in favor of a rabid muskrat on ice skates during the most important games of the year. Positive possession doesn't always mean a guy is having a positive impact.

I get that but I believe that when a guy is a 60% possession player, and you bench him for a goon, that's a coaching mistake. Coaches aren't always right. If they were, they wouldn't get fired every 2-5 years.

 

[Raspewtin]

I've seen him play as well and I definitely think that's a stretch to draw that comparison. I think his year with Chicago was an aberration, not Stalberg establishing a niche. I guess only time will tell though.

You're missing the point. It's not a debate about whether or not he's a good possession player, it's simply evidence that good possession numbers don't tell the whole story about how effective a guy is on the ice. He was playing badly enough to be benched in favor of a rabid muskrat on ice skates during the most important games of the year. Positive possession doesn't always mean a guy is having a positive impact.

Ignoring the fact that "possession" and "what happens on the ice" are being discussed as if they're two separate entities yet again, Stalberg in his last two years as a Blackhawk and first year as a Predator had very strong points/60 rate too.

He's literally Pouliot without the name Benoit.

 

[Machinehead]

Instead of Captain Taco, he's Captain Gubböra.

 

[Trxjw]

Statistically, 13-14 with Nashville was the aberration.

Stalberg has always been a phenomenal possession player, not just that year.

Again, it's not just about his possession numbers. You can keep circling back to that all you want, but it doesn't disprove what I said.

I get that but I believe that when a guy is a 60% possession player, and you bench him for a goon, that's a coaching mistake. Coaches aren't always right. If they were, they wouldn't get fired every 2-5 years.

It wasn't just the benching, it was his overall usage. I happen to put some stock into the decisions of a guy who has had as much success as Quenneville. Is he always right? No, but I maintain that having a good corsi doesn't mean he was playing well.

 

[Machinehead]

I can't disprove what you said, but I don't agree with it.

Context matters to a great extent, but when a guy ALWAYS has a great corsi no matter what else is going on, it does mean he's playing well IMO.

 

[Trxjw]

Ignoring the fact that "possession" and "what happens on the ice" are being discussed as if they're two separate entities yet again, Stalberg in his last two years as a Blackhawk and first year as a Predator had very strong points/60 rate too.

He's literally Pouliot without the name Benoit.

They're not being discussed that way at all actually. They're being discussed as though "possession" is one of a large number of elements that fall under the title of "what happens on the ice."

 

[Trxjw]

I can't disprove what you said, but I don't agree with it.

Context matters to a great extent, but when a guy ALWAYS has a great corsi no matter what else is going on, it does mean he's playing well IMO.

Then we'll just agree to disagree.

 

[Filthy Dangles]

Despite his talent and draft position warranting a consistent 60-70+ point player, Benny has been a consistent 30 point player who is good defensively and possessively.

Stalberg hasn't really done anything besides that one 40 point season on Chicago.

Pouliot has better hands, better shot and is just a better offensive player in general quite clearly over Stalberg.

I feel like Stalbergs 20-40 season is as much an anomaly/fluke as Micahel Grabners 35 goal season. They are similar offensively. Elite skaters/speed with average hands/finishing ability, at best.

Really don't expect much from Stalberg besides a 20-25 point 4LW, but that's an upgrade over Glass.

Stalberg will never see the success BP found on that Zucca Brass line with the Rangers.