Pavel Buchnevich
Drury and Laviolette Must Go
Miller is still the biggest bozo in the league though. We agree on that.
This conversation starts and ends with the term....Also, I don't want to hear about JT not getting a shot from AV. **** AV and all, but JT played everywhere in the lineup at various points. He was a productive player, but he was streaky as hell and sometimes just floated around. And in the end, GORTON traded Miller. The team obviously knew they were going to fire AV--do you think they would have traded Miller had they believed his problems were a result of the coach they were going to fire? Come on. Miller is gone because the organization apparently grew tired of him. Forget about him.
Well you just crushed my hopes and dreams, and I wasn't high on Namestnikov to begin with. How I wish we kept Miller. Or at least traded him separately. He's a very talented hockey player.Namestnikov per 82 games for his career: 36.9 points
Miller per 82 games: 43.2 points
Just by their career averages, this is what they'd be classified as if we took last season's PPG averages. Miller's career average would've resulted in about 155th last season, which is a low end 5th forward. Namestnikov's career average would've resulted in about 193, which is a high end 7th forward.
155-5th
193-7th
But I think its important to consider that if you take Miller's PPG average the last two years combined where he's clearly playing improved hockey, of which only 19 games came with the Lightning's great forwards, his average is about 84th, which is a low end 3rd forward. Thats a first liner. Some will claim thats partly due to playing some games on Tampa, but if we take away his Tampa stats, he still comes in at 114th, which is about one forward slot higher. If this guy isn't a first liner, he's very close to it. If we consider Namestnikov's career not counting the games he played this season for Tampa, considering he played on a line with two elite NHL'ers, he comes in as about 251st, which is a 9th forward. And I think thats what the guy is.
84th
114th
251
Thats before we even consider other parts of their games. Miller is a much better defensive player. I don't care what the corsi stats say. I've watched both of them play enough to say that Namestnikov plays very soft and has a low hockey IQ. He can't play center either. Miller certainly has his defensive issues, and its fair that he had a falling out with management so they wanted to trade him. But he is not soft, he plays a lot more physical than Namestnikov, he can play center better than Namestnikov, and at least his defensive issues are coachable. His defensive issues are trying to do too much. When he doesn't do that, he can have some very effective defensive games, evident by his usage on the PK for two years now. Namestnikov is just a bad defensive player. You aren't coaching the soft and bad hockey IQ out of the guy. The best you can try to do is limit his defensive responsibility by putting him on the wing, and asking him to just be an outlet guy who carries the puck out of the zone.
I don't think its a stretch to say that Miller is a low end 1st liner, and Namestnikov is a low-end 3rd liner. If we want to quibble and say Miller is a good 2nd liner, and Namestnikov is an average 3rd liner, go ahead, but I don't think there's much more of a realistic case against what I'm saying than that. Miller is a considerable better hockey player. Its not even close.
Yes, I also believe Spooner will have more trade value, but there are some that don't think so. I think he is capable of putting up a line of at least 15-35-50 with good, not necessarily great, linemates. He is a hell of a playmaker and has good wheels.I think Spooner will have more trade value at the 19-20 trade deadline. I could definitely see him scoring like 40-45 points per season the next two seasons, which could net us maybe what we got for Holden. Long term, I don't think either are Rangers. Vesey in that category, as well.
Their spots will go to guys like Andersson, Chytil, Howden, Kravtsov.
This is how I would've gone about the forward spots for the next number of years.
19-20 forward lines:
KZB
Spooner-Chytil-Kravtsov
Andersson-Hayes-Howden
?-?-Fast
Hopefully we get an early pick in 2019, take one of the many good centers in that draft, and we could have something like this going into 20-21.
Kravtsov-high draft pick-Chytil
KZB
Andersson-Hayes-Howden
?-?-Fast
If that high draft pick turns into a real 1C, I think thats a cup-contending offense. Two big offensive lines, a shutdown defensive line, and then find two decent fourth liners to compliment Fast. That would be a well built defense. Only thing I think we are missing with the team we are building is a 1C and a 1D.
I don't totally dislike the deal, but I do kind of wonder why they went two years.
They could have just let him file for arbitration and seen where it went from there. At worst the team decides to go one year award and they go through the hearing and he ends up overpaid on that one year and still would be a RFA after that contract.
They must think he is a better player than I do, and even in that case should he turn out to be, this deal takes him right to UFA. So if he is better or good at that point he is going to be more expensive.
Maybe I am missing something but why did they pick him out of all the RFAs to sign right away?
No problems with the deal.
I think he's a significantly better player than he showed in his time here last spring.
Not on the level he showed on Tampa's first line mind you, but I think he could be a solid complimentary player on the wings.
Riley Nash the UFA just signed for 2.75 mil, he put up 40 points mostly on 3rd line. Namestnikov the RFA after putting up 40 points on Tampa's top line and then nosediving with the Rangers gets 4 mil. both former 1st rounders.
First, neither teams nor players generally want to go to arbitration.
Second, this contract makes sense to both sides and there obviously was an agreement of $$ based on similar contracts signed previously.
Third, both sides were on the same page pretty early and Gorton mantra seems to be “no time wasting for no good reason”, thus they put a quick check mark and move on to whatever the next thing is on his list (back to sitting on his hands, I heard ).
If he is average the signing kind of makes sense.
Why not just go with a one year, leave him a RFA, see what he does in that year and then either use that remaining 1 RFA year to lower his next cap hit, or if he is not so good just sign him for less next off-season.
I am not sure I see the upside to the term here other than it was not longer.
Personally I agree but there seems many here who don’t realize it (or just don’t recognize it).
Curious what this opinion is based upon. To me, he appears to be somewhere between a 40-60 point player. At 60, it's a great signing. At 40, it's treading water, at best.
Curious what this opinion is based upon. To me, he appears to be somewhere between a 40-60 point player. At 60, it's a great signing. At 40, it's treading water, at best.
Two years isn't that long, but I wouldn't have re-signed this guy. I would've rather traded him. I like Spooner better.
I think we clearly see with the contracts of Namestnikov and Miller how lopsided that part of the trade was. I guess the rational that favors us is that management might've never wanted to extend Miller, so getting something is better than nothing. But I don't think we would've gotten nothing. We could've traded him for picks/prospects, instead of a fringe 3rd line winger.
Namesntikov can not play center, he's not good defensively, he has a bad hockey IQ. I'm not worried about the 4M part. I think its an overpayment, but the cap-space for us doesn't matter this year, and if for some reason we were going to add to the cap next season, we could work around the issue. 1 year at 4M isn't going to stop us from signing Panarin or Karlsson.
Given this signing, Spooner and Vesey need to go. There's not enough room. Two of the three need to be traded, otherwise there won't be spots for Andersson and Chytil.
It's still an excellent signing at 40 since the term is so friendly.
I mean 2*$4 are not contract parameters of someone with arbitration rights scoring 60 points.It's still an excellent signing at 40 since the term is so friendly.
Bingo. There’s no reason to believe he’s going to be surprising good or bad in his period.
I think you're overanalyzing this, he's not in the Rangers longterm plans (hence the short deal) and getting him signed will let us trade him at a future trade deadline either in '19 or '20. He'll be a valuable asset in that sense. I just wish it was a bit $cap lower so that guys like Spooner and Hayes can be had for a bit less.In this case it seems to make sense the Rangers are willing to let him become a UFA at the earliest time he could as a trade off for the short term and relatively low AVV., nothing to dislike about that, more so without much gamble in the contract the possible reward is also pretty limited.
Not sure what you’re getting at. Names didn’t show his best (or even better sides of his game) to give a truer overall impression. Do you agree/disagree with this? I might be wrong but thought it is not a controversial idea since Names really has done absolutely nothing with the Rangers.
If he’s 40+ point player, defensively solid 3C, occasional option in top6 then that’s what he’s to me.