Speculation: Roster Building Thread Part I: Summer Wind

[ManUtdTobbe]

I have my doubts, he'd be fine depth and a solid addition to Hartford though so if he signs i'm happy.

 

[Trxjw]

Uncle Larry going after AV.

http://nypost.com/2017/07/05/shattenkirk-is-a-rangers-test-that-vigneault-keeps-bungling/

His articles read more and more like a HFBoards post every time I read them. "If McDonagh and Shattenkirk don't work together, then he has to keep them together until they do!"

 

[Yuck]

I keep reading we are deep/strong in wing -- and I agree on the NHL roster. But when you look at our prospect pool on the wing it's crap. With Nash likely to be off the roster next year, and our wingers being one year older, not only will our wings no longer be deep/strong, its going to start looking like a concern, especially if we go and trade one. The only way to be successful is to keep bringing in young talent -- thankfully we have Buch/Vesey and they should be ready for those minutes but after that our wing depth seems shockingly barren. The top to bottom scoring by committee has been what is making the Rangers a good team even though we don't have those superstars -- but without decent wing prospects in the pool that seems at risk. Meanwhile we picked up some decent top line center depth that in terms of prospects go, can probably play sooner rather than later. I don't think was by accident. Point is, I don't think Gorton is going to be making any long term/big splash center move that I see people discussing. I feel like he'll go the spare part/bargain bin model for this summer and see what we have while trying to pick up some more picks to restock the farm. This coming year isn't the "go for it" year unless someone really makes an offer JG simply can't refuse. I just have a feeling a lot of people will be disappointed.

 

[RGY]

I can only see Rangers going after Duchene if the price drops. I like Duchene more than RNH. RNH just doesnt impress me, doesnt seem like a guy you can win with.

But at the end of the day these guys are marginally better than Stepan statistically speaking. Stepan is by far better than them on the defensive side of the puck, can PK and PP, and is much more of a leader in a room than them. Which makes it all the more frustrating we dealt Stepan. Of course we didnt know Shattenkirk was going to sign for what he did.

 

[NYR Viper]

So the comparison, for comparison's sake of RNH vs Duchene:

Duchene
26 years old
2 years until UFA
LH
.73ppg over his career
Averaged 18:25 over his career
CF% over his career = 48.4%
oZS% over his career = 52.2%
$6m cap hit




RNH
24 years old
4 years until UFA
LH
.67 ppg over his career
Averaged 19:06 over his career
CF% over his career = 48.7%
oZS% over his career = 56.7%
$6m in cap hit



Based over their careers, pretty consistently, RNH has been the better shot suppressor while Duchene has been the better shot generator. This is based on ownthepuck charts. for those more well versed in this stuff, is that a big red flag because of RNH's oZS% and him not generating as many shots? I'm still new to these advanced stats and trying to decipher the meaning within.

The reason I bring this up is NOT because I think they are identical players. I think Duchene is the better player right now. My question is, at what price does it make sense to look at RNH vs Duchene?

for example:
Duchene I will call an (8) value player
RNH I will call a (7) value player

If you need to pay the value of a (9) value player for Duchene but only pay the value of a (6) value player for RNH would the Rangers be interested? At what point does it make sense is my question.

Figured it's a more worthwhile conversation then just regurgitating the same thing about Duchene all day...

 

[E-Train]

His articles read more and more like a HFBoards post every time I read them. "If McDonagh and Shattenkirk don't work together, then he has to keep them together until they do!"

I don't mind an article like this though. AV deserves it. I've seen enough of Staal & Holden getting key minutes to think otherwise.

 

[Gardner McKay]

So the comparison, for comparison's sake of RNH vs Duchene:

Duchene
26 years old
2 years until UFA
LH
.73ppg over his career
Averaged 18:25 over his career
CF% over his career = 48.4%
oZS% over his career = 52.2%
$6m cap hit




RNH
24 years old
4 years until UFA
LH
.67 ppg over his career
Averaged 19:06 over his career
CF% over his career = 48.7%
oZS% over his career = 56.7%
$6m in cap hit



Based over their careers, pretty consistently, RNH has been the better shot suppressor while Duchene has been the better shot generator. This is based on ownthepuck charts. for those more well versed in this stuff, is that a big red flag because of RNH's oZS% and him not generating as many shots? I'm still new to these advanced stats and trying to decipher the meaning within.

The reason I bring this up is NOT because I think they are identical players. I think Duchene is the better player right now. My question is, at what price does it make sense to look at RNH vs Duchene?

for example:
Duchene I will call an (8) value player
RNH I will call a (7) value player

If you need to pay the value of a (9) value player for Duchene but only pay the value of a (6) value player for RNH would the Rangers be interested? At what point does it make sense is my question.

Figured it's a more worthwhile conversation then just regurgitating the same thing about Duchene all day...

If we are going to acquire one of the two, it is RNH and there is no discussion to even be had on why.

But since this is a hockey forum, lets explore why RNH is the one

Sakic is a moron. Chiarelli, also a moron. Sakic is a moron in the sense that he overvalues his players. Chiarelli is a moron in the sense that he gives players away for nothing.

I could reasonably see Staal + Graves + 2nd for RNH. Chiarelli is that stupid. No other GM would touch Staal + 2nd for a 7th. Chiarelli would.

I can't reasonably see anything less than Skjei + for Duchene (even though I think Skjei for Duchene is more than fair and I still wouldn't do it).

Bottom line? I'm not advocating for the acquisition of RNH but I feel like if for some reason we had to choose between one of the two, RNH would be a better fit here and would cost A LOT LESS. It is highly unlikely either ends up as a Ranger and instead move Miller to C and use Holden + to get a winger.

 

[Gardner McKay]

What would Evander Kane cost? Move Miller to C and pop him on the wing?

 

[Fugazy]

If we are going to acquire one of the two, it is RNH and there is no discussion to even be had on why.

But since this is a hockey forum, lets explore why RNH is the one

Sakic is a moron. Chiarelli, also a moron. Sakic is a moron in the sense that he overvalues his players. Chiarelli is a moron in the sense that he gives players away for nothing.

I could reasonably see Staal + Graves + 2nd for RNH. Chiarelli is that stupid. No other GM would touch Staal + 2nd for a 7th. Chiarelli would.

I can't reasonably see anything less than Skjei + for Duchene (even though I think Skjei for Duchene is more than fair and I still wouldn't do it).

Bottom line? I'm not advocating for the acquisition of RNH but I feel like if for some reason we had to choose between one of the two, RNH would be a better fit here and would cost A LOT LESS. It is highly unlikely either ends up as a Ranger and instead move Miller to C and use Holden + to get a winger.

I wouldn't mind acquiring someone like RNH, but the salary cap hit would be too much. Oilers would have to eat some of that contract or take a bad contract in return. Come on Chiarelli, I know you want Staal

 

[JimmyG89]

I keep reading we are deep/strong in wing -- and I agree on the NHL roster. But when you look at our prospect pool on the wing it's crap. With Nash likely to be off the roster next year, and our wingers being one year older, not only will our wings no longer be deep/strong, its going to start looking like a concern, especially if we go and trade one. The only way to be successful is to keep bringing in young talent -- thankfully we have Buch/Vesey and they should be ready for those minutes but after that our wing depth seems shockingly barren. The top to bottom scoring by committee has been what is making the Rangers a good team even though we don't have those superstars -- but without decent wing prospects in the pool that seems at risk. Meanwhile we picked up some decent top line center depth that in terms of prospects go, can probably play sooner rather than later. I don't think was by accident. Point is, I don't think Gorton is going to be making any long term/big splash center move that I see people discussing. I feel like he'll go the spare part/bargain bin model for this summer and see what we have while trying to pick up some more picks to restock the farm. This coming year isn't the "go for it" year unless someone really makes an offer JG simply can't refuse. I just have a feeling a lot of people will be disappointed.

Better to draft centers and move to wing if needed. Look at Miller. Gives versatility. There is a possibility the Chytil is an NHL winger and not a center. His style appears to be that of a winger. We'll see. Miller and Hayes can always transition to wing if they have an excess of centers.

Easier to find a winger then a center.

 

[BBKers]

We need to sign Will Butcher. Any Butcher named Will that even notions on creating havoc that close to the 5 points is certain to be a legend in NYC. On a somewhat related note - I met Daniel Day Lewis a few years ago at a Halloween party in NYC. Cool guy.

 

[Ghost of jas]

Uncle Larry going after AV.

http://nypost.com/2017/07/05/shattenkirk-is-a-rangers-test-that-vigneault-keeps-bungling/

Two things of note, IMO -

1) JG saying it's a matter of when not if for Miller making the move to center.

2) Brooks bringing up a Staal buyout again. I maintain that Staal still being here is a bigger cap penalty than him being bought out.

 

[cd211]

Two things of note, IMO -

1) JG saying it's a matter of when not if for Miller making the move to center.

2) Brooks bringing up a Staal buyout again. I maintain that Staal still being here is a bigger cap penalty than him being bought out.

Yeah but $6m in dead cap for next 6-8yrs, ouch! Unless they know something we don't about the cap going up a lot

 

[E-Train]

Two things of note, IMO -

1) JG saying it's a matter of when not if for Miller making the move to center.

2) Brooks bringing up a Staal buyout again. I maintain that Staal still being here is a bigger cap penalty than him being bought out.

I agree. What a disaster those wonder twin contracts turned out to be. Just brutal.

 

[silverfish]

Uncle Larry going after AV.

http://nypost.com/2017/07/05/shattenkirk-is-a-rangers-test-that-vigneault-keeps-bungling/

Can we stop referring to cap savings as dead cap?

I guess not.

 

[Ghost of jas]

Yeah but $6m in dead cap for next 6-8yrs, ouch! Unless they know something we don't about the cap going up a lot

It's not the full 6-8 years. Even in the three big years, you are still saving $4 million which can be offset by having players like Bereglazov and other young Dmen still on ELCs.

 

[Mac n Gs]

Here's a name to think about: Adam Gaudette. Tore up Northeastern as a 20 year old, strong, fast two way center. He's Canuck's property, but I wonder what Benning would want for him. He's a year or two away from NHL time, but I love his game

 

[Ghost of jas]

Can we stop referring to cap savings as dead cap?

I guess not.

Exactly. Right now, Staal provides $5.7 million in dead cap space.

 

[Rangerfan4life90]

I can only see Rangers going after Duchene if the price drops. I like Duchene more than RNH. RNH just doesnt impress me, doesnt seem like a guy you can win with.

But at the end of the day these guys are marginally better than Stepan statistically speaking. Stepan is by far better than them on the defensive side of the puck, can PK and PP, and is much more of a leader in a room than them. Which makes it all the more frustrating we dealt Stepan. Of course we didnt know Shattenkirk was going to sign for what he did.

MacKinnon would be better than Stepan. If we can trade for anyone, I want it to be him.

But at this point, I have my eyes on John Tavares next offseason

 

[Gardner McKay]

Can we stop referring to cap savings as dead cap?

I guess not.

It is exactly that though. Dead capspace. Changing the wording doesn't magically change what it is.

 

[TheBloodyNine]

What would Evander Kane cost? Move Miller to C and pop him on the wing?

I can't imagine he would cost a crazy amount at this point

 

[silverfish]

It is exactly that though. Dead capspace. Changing the wording doesn't magically change what it is.

When you say 'dead cap', you're intentionally painting a pessimistic narrative. Buying out Staal over Girardi's buyout gives us four years of cap savings (ie. more cap than we'd have if we didn't buy them out), and four years of 'dead cap' (cap penalties).

 

[Irishguy42]

Can we stop referring to cap savings as dead cap?

I guess not.

It can be both.

It's dead cap space in the sense that it's free from the active roster, but we can't spend that "free" cap space on a different player. Hence, it's dead. It can't be changed to use for other things.

But it's also cap savings as it's a lower cap hit than what it was with the active player.

 

[Mac n Gs]

When you say 'dead cap', you're intentionally painting a pessimistic narrative. Buying out Staal over Girardi's buyout gives us four years of cap savings (ie. more cap than we'd have if we didn't buy them out), and four years of 'dead cap' (cap penalties).

But the math and the narratives

 

[silverfish]

It can be both.

It's dead cap space in the sense that it's free from the active roster, but we can't spend that "free" cap space on a different player.

But it's also cap savings as it's a lower cap hit than what it was with the active player.

Right. So, good journalism would imply that you show both sides of it. Brooks literally just goes: LOOK AT ALL THIS DEAD SPACE OMG SO DETRIMENTAL! While ignoring the 'savings' side of the picture.

Just show the whole story, not the narrative you want to show, ya know?

But, Brooks gonna Brooks.