Speculation: Roster Building Thread LVII: On to Arbitration & the 2nd Buyout Window

[GoAwayPanarin]

Yeah, objective data is not the only valid form of evaluation. It’s only half of a truly solid evaluation of a player. But at least I’ll accept it as one valid form of evaluation, though Corsi is a particularly poor tool for the topic of evaluating defensemen.

Like I’ve already said, you can’t provide the example for people to follow if you aren’t there to provide that example. A person can provide a good example in practice all they want, but if the guys you’re doing it for don’t see you do it during the actual games, it won’t have any effect. If the hallmark of a mature and professional player is their consistency in execution and effort from game to game, you absolutely cannot provide that example if you aren’t playing game to game. It really does need to be instilled on a game to game basis.

So if you disagree with that, tell me how it would work to have it not be instilled on a game to game basis. How do players internalize the lessons without it? Tell me how that would work.

Every developing team, in any example sports or not, needs this from as many people as it can get to set these examples, until they get top graded out by the better performers who are at the same level when it comes to these things. That’s why I believe it’s mandatory mechanism. Having these kind of people as peer leaders is crucial for transitioning a team from the forming phase, through storming and into norming.

Granted, it’s not black and white. It’s a balance. You can top grade out a good intangible person with someone who isn’t as good, but better at objective performance. Making those determinations are the job of the top-down leader, in this case the coach, but it’s entirely a subjective decision.

Alright then, what is this "other half" of analysis that you're talking about that isn't just intangible "stuff and things" pulled out of thing air. Him being a great human and leader or what ever may all be true, but that doesn't mean that he can handle bottom pairing minutes. What happens on the ice happens on the ice, you can be an asshole to the nth degree and be a phenomenal player (See: Marchand.)

Corsi isn't the only statistic that has him heavily in the red btw. He's more or less in the red across the board.

As for this?

A person can provide a good example in practice all they want, but if the guys you’re doing it for don’t see you do it during the actual games, it won’t have any effect. If the hallmark of a mature and professional player is their consistency in execution and effort from game to game, you absolutely cannot provide that example if you aren’t playing game to game. It really does need to be instilled on a game to game basis.

What the hell are you even talking about?

Do you really think these guys are looking to Staal's effort and consistency in execution while they're playing? Firstly, the consistency in execution is a huge red mark against Staal, hes as inefficient a player as we have on the roster. I mean if you're trying to teach players what NOT to do, then yeah sure use his actual play as an example of that, but we shouldn't be trying to teach lessons based off of Staal repeatedly f***ing up during games that matter.

As for the game to game effort, there are other players on this team who actually don't suck and are NHL level players who can be leaned on. It doesn't have to be Staal and quite frankly, it really shouldn't be Staal.

It would be one thing if we didn't have better options but we do. This type of thinking is what eventually led to AV's downfall as a coach here in NY. Some argue that it was the quality of the roster that did him in (and there is a hint of truth to that) but if we're being honest with ourselves, that downfall came the second he started forcing Tanner Glass into a cup contending roster.

If the goal were to be bad again, then sure let Staal soak all the minutes he wants. If the objective is to actually start to take steps forward, the best players should play.

That would exclude Marc Staal.

 

[GoAwayPanarin]

Yes, if you want to break it down to the root of what I'm saying... what I'm doing is explaining how the whole thing with leadership and intangible actually works, though. I get the feeling quite often that people who pooh-pooh these things don't really understand the topic.

But we talk about this with Staal right now in terms of buying him out, rather than Smith or Shattenkirk. All three of these guys have no place on the long-term future of the team. All three are bottom-pairing D at best. So you have to look at what they provide in the short-term. What is the most important thing short-term for the Rangers? Their youth developing. Of their 3 different things they provide (Staal-intangibles, Smith-versatility, Shattenkirk-PP specialty), which would have the biggest impact on their youth developing? Easy, the guy with the intangibles. So he's the guy you don't buy out. And the guy with the prohibitive 2nd year of the buyout is the other guy you don't buy out.

And no, there aren't players who have the same intangible ability as Staal available for exponentially less every off-season. How many guys being signed for cheap are letter-wearing caliber? Pretty much none. Also, it's not as effective when it's a mercenary.

This isn't true.

What are the reasons for the buy out? Are we trying to clear space and keep space clear? If so, then Staal has the cleanest buy out of the 3 while also being the weakest player.

In terms of clearing space, buying out Smith would probably be the worst move as he can be buried to create additional space.

And no one is Pooh Poohing leadership and intangibles, only the thought that its okay for "stuff and things" to take precedence over actual ability. I can tell you right now, who ever gets paired with Staal will develop much better with a competent partner who doesn't cause them to be hemmed in their own zone for 70% of the game.

 

[Tawnos]

Alright then, what is this "other half" of analysis that you're talking about that isn't just intangible "stuff and things" pulled out of thing air. Him being a great human and leader or what ever may all be true, but that doesn't mean that he can handle bottom pairing minutes. What happens on the ice happens on the ice, you can be an ******* to the nth degree and be a phenomenal player (See: Marchand.)

Corsi isn't the only statistic that has him heavily in the red btw. He's more or less in the red across the board.

As for this?



What the hell are you even talking about?

Do you really think these guys are looking to Staal's effort and consistency in execution while they're playing? Firstly, the consistency in execution is a huge red mark against Staal, hes as inefficient a player as we have on the roster. I mean if you're trying to teach players what NOT to do, then yeah sure use his actual play as an example of that, but we shouldn't be trying to teach lessons based off of Staal repeatedly ****ing up during games that matter.

As for the game to game effort, there are other players on this team who actually don't suck and are NHL level players who can be leaned on. It doesn't have to be Staal and quite frankly, it really shouldn't be Staal.

It would be one thing if we didn't have better options but we do. This type of thinking is what eventually led to AV's downfall as a coach here in NY. Some argue that it was the quality of the roster that did him in (and there is a hint of truth to that) but if we're being honest with ourselves, that downfall came the second he started forcing Tanner Glass into a cup contending roster.

If the goal were to be bad again, then sure let Staal soak all the minutes he wants. If the objective is to actually start to take steps forward, the best players should play.

That would exclude Marc Staal.

Staal is actually a really good positional player. He's still pretty good with his stick (not as good as he used to be... that skill was once elite level). He reads plays well. I could go on about this kind of stuff, but these things are all subjective eye test analyses.

I thought I already mentioned that "execution" isn't the same thing as "playing well."

And yes, I do think the guys on the bench are paying close attention to what happens on the ice. They might not be actively saying to themselves "look at Staal and how consistent he is"... it's something that's more passive than that.

AVs stubbornness to change the team's style based on their roster is what led to his downfall. It's laughable to think that it was Tanner Glass. That point of view SCREAMS confirmation bias.

I don't know that we do have better options yet. Maybe we do. And maybe two (because it'd have to be two) of those options are enough better on the ice to outweigh the other things Staal provides. But until that time comes, Staal is best option to hold onto of the 3 buyout options.

 

[DutchShamrock]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't this the general consensus about Girardi as well? Just because he may be useless here doesn't mean he can't do the job on another team.

Or you know, NHL teams, coaches and GMs know more than messageboard posters and these "worst players" aren't as bad or inept as the consensus believes.

 

[Filthy Dangles]

Yes, if you want to break it down to the root of what I'm saying... what I'm doing is explaining how the whole thing with leadership and intangible actually works, though. I get the feeling quite often that people who pooh-pooh these things don't really understand the topic.

But we talk about this with Staal right now in terms of buying him out, rather than Smith or Shattenkirk. All three of these guys have no place on the long-term future of the team. All three are bottom-pairing D at best. So you have to look at what they provide in the short-term. What is the most important thing short-term for the Rangers? Their youth developing. Of their 3 different things they provide (Staal-intangibles, Smith-versatility, Shattenkirk-PP specialty), which would have the biggest impact on their youth developing? Easy, the guy with the intangibles. So he's the guy you don't buy out. And the guy with the prohibitive 2nd year of the buyout is the other guy you don't buy out.

And no, there aren't players who have the same intangible ability as Staal available for exponentially less every off-season. How many guys being signed for cheap are letter-wearing caliber? Pretty much none. Also, it's not as effective when it's a mercenary.

Seems to be a lot of them.

Browse - CapFriendly - NHL Salary Caps

Staal hasn't grown with any of the young players, so I don't see why signing someone else would make that big of a difference. The value in cap space gained would be much greater than the value lost from Staal's intangibles to one of those other veterans'

 

[Trxjw]

People said EXACTLY the same thing about Girardi.

Surely you don't mean "not even an AHLer" Dan Girardi, right?

 

[Tawnos]

This isn't true.

What are the reasons for the buy out? Are we trying to clear space and keep space clear? If so, then Staal has the cleanest buy out of the 3 while also being the weakest player.

In terms of clearing space, buying out Smith would probably be the worst move as he can be buried to create additional space.

And no one is Pooh Poohing leadership and intangibles, only the thought that its okay for "stuff and things" to take precedence over actual ability. I can tell you right now, who ever gets paired with Staal will develop much better with a competent partner who doesn't cause them to be hemmed in their own zone for 70% of the game.

This isn't the thought I'm arguing for either though. It's about how you balance these things when deciding on roster moves and lineups.

Smith's buyout this year, which is the most important year, saves $2m more than burying him.

 

[Deleted member 23124]

Or you know, NHL teams, coaches and GMs know more than messageboard posters and these "worst players" aren't as bad or inept as the consensus believes.

Indeed....no one was happier to see Roszival out of New York than me...yet he goes to Chicago, averages at least 15 minutes a game and wins a cup or two....(still doesn't change my opinion of him -- but I never watched him in Chicago....he must have done something right).

 

[Tawnos]

Seems to be a lot of them.

Browse - CapFriendly - NHL Salary Caps

Staal hasn't grown with any of the young players, so I don't see why signing someone else would make that big of a difference. The value in cap space gained would be much greater than the value lost from Staal's intangibles to one of those other veterans'

Which of those guys is signing for $1m or less?

An internal option for this role is always better than an external one.

 

[brians1128]

So I just want to take this a different route as this thread is sideways since the Panarin signing. I know theres a lot of discussion of the effects of Panarin and signing our RFA's. IMO you have the expansion draft coming up, you have to control costs on the backend that we hope is fixed in 2 years, and in my opinion I wouldnt give TDA a contract longer then 2-3 years. We are gonna lose a top 4 defenseman most likely in the expansion draft. Ideally the Rangers need to build an effective top 4, given that eventually Miller, Rykov, Robertson will be coming to the left side. The right side has Trouba as 1RD and I think you need TDA and Fox to battle it out for whos the 2RD with eventually Lundkvist, Keane, others possibly competing for the 3RD spot on an ELC. I honestly think 1 of TDA or Fox wont be here in 2-3 years.

 

[ETTER DE]

Staal is actually a really good positional player. He's still pretty good with his stick (not as good as he used to be... that skill was once elite level). He reads plays well. I could go on about this kind of stuff, but these things are all subjective eye test analyses.

I thought I already mentioned that "execution" isn't the same thing as "playing well."

And yes, I do think the guys on the bench are paying close attention to what happens on the ice. They might not be actively saying to themselves "look at Staal and how consistent he is"... it's something that's more passive than that.

AVs stubbornness to change the team's style based on their roster is what led to his downfall. It's laughable to think that it was Tanner Glass. That point of view SCREAMS confirmation bias.

I don't know that we do have better options yet. Maybe we do. And maybe two (because it'd have to be two) of those options are enough better on the ice to outweigh the other things Staal provides. But until that time comes, Staal is best option to hold onto of the 3 buyout options.

Just what Nicklas Lidstrom said about Staal a couple of months ago when he was an expert commentator on Viasat on a Rangers game. He praised his positioning and also how to use the stick. When to have one hand on the stick and when to have two. When to keep it on the ice etc. The game is to fast for me to notice all this, and even more so watching on TV. I guess that goes for many on this board.

 

[Tawnos]

So I just want to take this a different route as this thread is sideways since the Panarin signing. I know theres a lot of discussion of the effects of Panarin and signing our RFA's. IMO you have the expansion draft coming up, you have to control costs on the backend that we hope is fixed in 2 years, and in my opinion I wouldnt give TDA a contract longer then 2-3 years. We are gonna lose a top 4 defenseman most likely in the expansion draft. Ideally the Rangers need to build an effective top 4, given that eventually Miller, Rykov, Robertson will be coming to the left side. The right side has Trouba as 1RD and I think you need TDA and Fox to battle it out for whos the 2RD with eventually Lundkvist, Keane, others possibly competing for the 3RD spot on an ELC. I honestly think 1 of TDA or Fox wont be here in 2-3 years.

Just as a thing... Fox isn't going to be eligible to be taken in the expansion draft.

 

[SA16]

One thing I would ask is if Marc Staal is such a great leader why was he passed over for captain twice by players with less experience than him and then not named captain either of the last two years where they saw fit to name nobody the captain.

 

[brians1128]

Just as a thing... Fox isn't going to be eligible to be taken in the expansion draft.

Yes, to clarify Im aware of that I'm just thinking from the context we dont have a ridiculously expensive 3rd pairing given the depth in the organization