would get Fowler straight up. I disagree that Fowler is on track to be a Yandle. Yandle was a 59 point player at the same age.
IMO it is rough projecting a high 20s/low-mid 30s defenseman to make the leap to 40-60 points. There's sort of a natural barrier where Fowler is (and has been outside of his rookie season). See enough ice time (Fowler's 23 mins) and most Ds will put up something in the 20s. E.g. Staal was a 27 and 29 point player before his concussion and eye injury. Girardi hovered in the mid 20s forever. McDonagh is not terribly offensive and yet has 110 points in 3 seasons.
And then the next year Yandle was a 43-point player. And Yandle was never a 59-point player again in his career, so I wouldn't hold that season up as representative of Yandle.
That's like saying Fowler was a 40-point player at 19, Yandle wasn't so Fowler is better. Pure stat based assessments aren't what I'd use to gauge hockey player's values.
Fowler over an 82 game season will have very similar results as Yandle. They're very similar players.
And I doubt either Miller or Hayes could get Fowler straight up.
The Ducks talked about a trade with other teams and are looking for a top line forward back. Neither Miller or Hayes are that. But...the Ducks have a deep, young defense and last year were offensively challenged so maybe they would but I doubt it.
I think a Fowler/Vatanen for JT Miller and a prospect is realistic
Yandle at 24 was the best player on a 99 point team. Fowler is just a member of the cast there.
Also, you cant ignore Fowler's rookie season completely, but that was six years ago. He hasnt repeated that. He hasnt hit 10 goals or 40 points since. And he was -25 that year. Yes that's a loaded stat, but usually you see -25 on bad teams, not 99 point teams. The only guys close to him were a -15 and -18 from a 35 year old and a 37 year old. He had a +32 on his team.
He's got talent do doubt, but from results and watching him, I dont think he's valued like a young Yandle. Maybe a potential Yandle but not a likely Yandle let alone Yandle+. Also, and this is a terrible piece of evidence, but I just looked for Ducks previews, and 4 the first 5 (ESPN, Sportsnet, Hockey Writers, THN) dont even mention him. The NHL.com one notes him in groups (part the D corps anchored by Bieksa, one of guys who Carlyle helped develop when he was there bf) and to nominate him as the player on the hot seat.
You're obviously entitled to your opinion, but I think you value Fowler more than the consensus does. Link - ( New Window )
to get a youngish PMD RD given the glaring need there. I'd consider
One interesting thing in considering who can be traded is whether there is a tacit understanding that Hayes (and Vesey) chose to be here and that you dont sign him and trade him. How long would that understanding last. And is Miller committed to being here long term? Remember, Cally was traded because he wasnt taking a discount.
Yeah, and now they need to re-sign Lindholm. They're winless and they're up against the cap. We're not going to do them any favors....or at least we shouldn't.
Yandle at 24 was the best player on a 99 point team. Fowler is just a member of the cast there.
Also, you cant ignore Fowler's rookie season completely, but that was six years ago. He hasnt repeated that. He hasnt hit 10 goals or 40 points since. And he was -25 that year. Yes that's a loaded stat, but usually you see -25 on bad teams, not 99 point teams. The only guys close to him were a -15 and -18 from a 35 year old and a 37 year old. He had a +32 on his team.
He's got talent do doubt, but from results and watching him, I dont think he's valued like a young Yandle. Maybe a potential Yandle but not a likely Yandle let alone Yandle+. Also, and this is a terrible piece of evidence, but I just looked for Ducks previews, and 4 the first 5 (ESPN, Sportsnet, Hockey Writers, THN) dont even mention him. The NHL.com one notes him in groups (part the D corps anchored by Bieksa, one of guys who Carlyle helped develop when he was there bf) and to nominate him as the player on the hot seat.
You're obviously entitled to your opinion, but I think you value Fowler more than the consensus does. Link - ( New Window )
Definitely possible, but I believe people here value Hayes (and maybe Miller) more than the consensus, but we'll find out because of the Ducks defenseman I think Fowler is the most tradeable and the one they'd be willing to trade.
I'll point out that Keith Jones called him an emerging star in the league last night though. 22 goals as a 22 year old in a cruiser PF body who is a relentless forechecker is pretty valuable. His profile is one where he could easily get to 50+ points this year or next (43 last year) and could push over 60 depending on how he is used. That's a lot for a 2-way forward with size who doesnt get the easier (but not gimme) PP points.
makes his season debut tonight, I hated the signing but the Big Cubano (Montoya) has been a star in net.
Canadiens have a lot of speed/skill depth, but no grit (besides Gallagher and Shaw) they could get pushed around by bigger physical teams like the Capitals and the Rangers.
Rangers have one forward (and one player) on the roster under 6'. Zuccarello.
Canadiens have 6.
Capitals have zero forward and one player (Orlov) under 6', though I question Oshie.
And it's not that size = physicality you can look at guys like Hayes to see it doesn't, but size breeds a different style of play - look at Jagr, you just cannot get him off the puck. he sticks his ass out, extends his arms with the puck on his stick, and he's immovable.
anyway, Caps and Rangers just stand out to me as two teams that have size, speed, physicality and good goalies you need to measure your team.
The deal will conclude with Miller one season shy of unrestricted free agency.
Rangers continue to play a dangerous game not getting these guys done long term and giving bridge contracts instead. It may make sense to move Nash and lock up a bunch of guys for 5 or six years. Hayes, Miller, Zibanejad, Skjei -- you could probably use the Nash money to make bridge deals into long term deals for them, with some money left over. Link - ( New Window )
was absolutely haunted by the SCF loss to a more physical Kings team.
So tired of hearing this.. they lost 3 games in OT, two of which had very questionable calls go the Kings way to even get there. Except for game 3, that was a very close series
scores were close and the Kings got plenty of breaks go their way
NYR was outshot 43-27, 44-38, 41-19, and 51-30 in four of the games, and outshot LA 32-15 in a losing effort in game 3. I do think it was a winnable series - strictly because of how good Lundqvist was - but the skaters were badly outplayed IMO.
I think Deej's point was that the Rangers took the wrong lessons from that loss and tried to build a more physical roster. Although I think only Glass was the sole example of that - I thought their mistake was caring about the PP so much afterwards (signing Boyle, trading for Yandle).
was absolutely haunted by the SCF loss to a more physical Kings team.
So tired of hearing this.. they lost 3 games in OT, two of which had very questionable calls go the Kings way to even get there. Except for game 3, that was a very close series
Your point does not contradict what Im saying. I.e. the fact that the Kings were more physical is not an argument that the games were not close. It's simply a recognition of how the teams matched up.
Although I think only Glass was the sole example of that - I thought their mistake was caring about the PP so much afterwards (signing Boyle, trading for Yandle).
You may be right. But we've gotten a lot bigger. We have only 1 > 6'0 skater (Zucc), and of our 4 6'0 skaters only Stepan is really core while Fast, Pirri, and Clendening are the roster periphery. The SCF squad had shrimps Zucc (Zucc btw has gotten much stronger) and MSL, and then not tall guys like Richards, Hags, Dom Moore, and Dorsett and Diaz on the periphery. And just more generally, the hulks werent the main attraction. Whereas now the forward corps is really infused with size.
RE: RE: RE: Rangers roster build for several years
was absolutely haunted by the SCF loss to a more physical Kings team.
So tired of hearing this.. they lost 3 games in OT, two of which had very questionable calls go the Kings way to even get there. Except for game 3, that was a very close series
Your point does not contradict what Im saying. I.e. the fact that the Kings were more physical is not an argument that the games were not close. It's simply a recognition of how the teams matched up.
Entirely read your initial post incorrectly. Thought you meant the roster that got to the Finals.
out of 10, the next most valuable Ranger is a 6 - maybe even a 4 or 5 - in comparison. Anyone willing to trade Kreider isn't a Rangers fan but is just interested in fantasy leagues - where players are interchangeable and it doesn't matter who is on your team so long as they win. Not me. I'd rather lose with MY homegrown stars than win with a bunch of strangers. If you want to root fir strangers, then just root for whatever team is the hottest team of the year since WHO the players are apparently doesn't matter.
Me? The idea of a team means more then collecting a bunch of strangers. It's why 1994 doesn't mean as much to me as 1986 does. I love Messier but he wasn't LT Simms Bavaro Banks and so forth. Those guys were Giants. 1994 were a bunch of imports on ice.
I'll be much happier losing with Kreider and other home grown guys than importing other team's stars. It's not worth winning if the only way to do it is with other team's players. No thanks. I'll root for MY team's home grown players.
Travis Yost ✔ @travisyost
Mika's first four games in NYR, his line is generating 90 shots per 60-minutes. That is outrageous. Kreider too.
10:32 PM - 20 Oct 2016
Travis Yost ✔ @travisyost
Only a few players have ever broken the 70 per-60 barrier over a full season, for context. Ovechkin/Thornton are tops tops at like 72.
10:37 PM - 20 Oct 2016
I think he'll be a RFA with 2 seasons left to UFA.
Not much money slated to come off the books, and it would really behoove them to screw the bridge and get term. Not to mention that investment improving the defense is likely to be a high priority.
I think he'll be a RFA with 2 seasons left to UFA.
Not much money slated to come off the books, and it would really behoove them to screw the bridge and get term. Not to mention that investment improving the defense is likely to be a high priority.
It's why I suggest they may want to move on from Nash. It depends on how he does this year. It's actually easier to move on if he has a great season since he'll return a lot in a trade.
I like Nash a lot (wish he was a little less soft at times). But his cap money could be used to lock up a lot of the future core at team friendly prices.
Nash is a very good player whose reputation is dragged down
by his early expectations and his contract. He was the #1 pick in the draft, so people expected him to be a superstar scoring winger. He's not that. He's also paid accordingly, which means he's overpaid. He's huge, but doesn't play an overly physical style, which tends to annoy people as we've seen with perceptions of Hayes. He's 32 and his best years are behind him. At this point he's a probable 20-25 goal guy (if he stays healthy). He still plays a well-rounded, versatile game. I just wish it were for less money.
was his 2014-15 campaign a fluke? Was his 2015-16 campaign a product of his injuries? Hard to believe a career 12.7% shooter becomes and 8.2% shooter without something hampering him; could just be a fluke. Move his shooting % to his career mark and prorate his stats to 80 games and Nash would be a 30 goal guy in 2015-16.
Nash is actually no longer paid like a super-duper star. His 7.8 million cap hit is a meaningful tier below the top 5 guys, who range between 10.5 and 9.5 million); still he is 15th in the league. I think he has had a good career for a #1 overall pick. Not a Crosby/AO mega star. But it is tough for any wing to be a mega star. Obviously not a bust, but he's been better than even the next tier up (Lecavalier, Jovo types) and the best player out of his draft (#1 is probably Keith, and then #3 is Steen or Semin).
I do find is finesse game frustrating.
If Nash were a UFA tomorrow and got a two/three year deal,
I'd imagine he'd get around $5.5-6M per. Maybe even more considering what Backes got.
Those types of deals (where a player crosses the 30 year mark) always sort of have the overpayment in the final years embedded in them - Nash's was an eight year deal.
He's second in 5v5 G/60 for guys with >500 minutes and 13th overall in 5v5 goals (despite significantly lesser minutes than some of the guys above him) since joining the Rangers. I think the Rangers got their money's worth from a regular season perspective. But his disappearance in 2014 was probably Cup costing.
So I am looking to get a new one between now and then.
I keep debating myself about whether to pull the trigger on something now (a lot of the model year end deals seem pretty good) or to wait for the holiday programs.
I know the Jets said they want a young, #1, cost controlled defenseman in return, but that bar is probably too high. No one else has a reason to trade that guy, who is it anyway? Colton Parayko? Aaron Ekblad? No one is trading those guys for Trouba.
The Rangers have a glut of forward and need D, maybe they combine some players and make this work.
Not a whole lot of ways to get a 22 year old top 4 blueliner.
but at the high end of the salary range, I dont make excuses for guys who dont get power play points.
Yeah, that's fair (I think Nash slips a few spots when you factor in all situations). I don't think Nash's failures in 2013 and 2014 should obfuscate the good he's done here. I think he had good post-seasons the past two years, overshadowed by being shut out twice at home (a team wide effort) against Tampa and the disastrous series against the Pens last year.
He may have played soft, but that's still terrible luck. It was the lowest on the team among guys that actually scored a goal, just edging out Staal's 3.7 on 27 shots.
His career playoff s% over 65 games is a ridiculous 5.5%. That's a defenseman's %. Hell, Dom Moore's is 9.6.
IMO it is rough projecting a high 20s/low-mid 30s defenseman to make the leap to 40-60 points. There's sort of a natural barrier where Fowler is (and has been outside of his rookie season). See enough ice time (Fowler's 23 mins) and most Ds will put up something in the 20s. E.g. Staal was a 27 and 29 point player before his concussion and eye injury. Girardi hovered in the mid 20s forever. McDonagh is not terribly offensive and yet has 110 points in 3 seasons.
And then the next year Yandle was a 43-point player. And Yandle was never a 59-point player again in his career, so I wouldn't hold that season up as representative of Yandle.
That's like saying Fowler was a 40-point player at 19, Yandle wasn't so Fowler is better. Pure stat based assessments aren't what I'd use to gauge hockey player's values.
Fowler over an 82 game season will have very similar results as Yandle. They're very similar players.
And I doubt either Miller or Hayes could get Fowler straight up.
The Ducks talked about a trade with other teams and are looking for a top line forward back. Neither Miller or Hayes are that. But...the Ducks have a deep, young defense and last year were offensively challenged so maybe they would but I doubt it.
Yandle at 24 was the best player on a 99 point team. Fowler is just a member of the cast there.
Also, you cant ignore Fowler's rookie season completely, but that was six years ago. He hasnt repeated that. He hasnt hit 10 goals or 40 points since. And he was -25 that year. Yes that's a loaded stat, but usually you see -25 on bad teams, not 99 point teams. The only guys close to him were a -15 and -18 from a 35 year old and a 37 year old. He had a +32 on his team.
He's got talent do doubt, but from results and watching him, I dont think he's valued like a young Yandle. Maybe a potential Yandle but not a likely Yandle let alone Yandle+. Also, and this is a terrible piece of evidence, but I just looked for Ducks previews, and 4 the first 5 (ESPN, Sportsnet, Hockey Writers, THN) dont even mention him. The NHL.com one notes him in groups (part the D corps anchored by Bieksa, one of guys who Carlyle helped develop when he was there bf) and to nominate him as the player on the hot seat.
You're obviously entitled to your opinion, but I think you value Fowler more than the consensus does.
Link - ( New Window )
One interesting thing in considering who can be traded is whether there is a tacit understanding that Hayes (and Vesey) chose to be here and that you dont sign him and trade him. How long would that understanding last. And is Miller committed to being here long term? Remember, Cally was traded because he wasnt taking a discount.
Link - ( New Window )
Yeah, and now they need to re-sign Lindholm. They're winless and they're up against the cap. We're not going to do them any favors....or at least we shouldn't.
Yandle at 24 was the best player on a 99 point team. Fowler is just a member of the cast there.
Also, you cant ignore Fowler's rookie season completely, but that was six years ago. He hasnt repeated that. He hasnt hit 10 goals or 40 points since. And he was -25 that year. Yes that's a loaded stat, but usually you see -25 on bad teams, not 99 point teams. The only guys close to him were a -15 and -18 from a 35 year old and a 37 year old. He had a +32 on his team.
He's got talent do doubt, but from results and watching him, I dont think he's valued like a young Yandle. Maybe a potential Yandle but not a likely Yandle let alone Yandle+. Also, and this is a terrible piece of evidence, but I just looked for Ducks previews, and 4 the first 5 (ESPN, Sportsnet, Hockey Writers, THN) dont even mention him. The NHL.com one notes him in groups (part the D corps anchored by Bieksa, one of guys who Carlyle helped develop when he was there bf) and to nominate him as the player on the hot seat.
You're obviously entitled to your opinion, but I think you value Fowler more than the consensus does. Link - ( New Window )
Definitely possible, but I believe people here value Hayes (and maybe Miller) more than the consensus, but we'll find out because of the Ducks defenseman I think Fowler is the most tradeable and the one they'd be willing to trade.
He's a RFA, I believe. Under team control
I think Fowler probably has more value than Miller in a trade, especially if both are UFA's after next year. I'm just not sure I'd do it if I'm NYR.
I don't think Miller has the first line potential Hayes does.
UFAs in 2018: Raanta, Klein, Holden, Grabner, Nash
UFAs in 2019: Zuccarello, McDonagh
Canadiens have a lot of speed/skill depth, but no grit (besides Gallagher and Shaw) they could get pushed around by bigger physical teams like the Capitals and the Rangers.
Rangers have one forward (and one player) on the roster under 6'. Zuccarello.
Canadiens have 6.
Capitals have zero forward and one player (Orlov) under 6', though I question Oshie.
And it's not that size = physicality you can look at guys like Hayes to see it doesn't, but size breeds a different style of play - look at Jagr, you just cannot get him off the puck. he sticks his ass out, extends his arms with the puck on his stick, and he's immovable.
anyway, Caps and Rangers just stand out to me as two teams that have size, speed, physicality and good goalies you need to measure your team.
Rangers continue to play a dangerous game not getting these guys done long term and giving bridge contracts instead. It may make sense to move Nash and lock up a bunch of guys for 5 or six years. Hayes, Miller, Zibanejad, Skjei -- you could probably use the Nash money to make bridge deals into long term deals for them, with some money left over.
Link - ( New Window )
Link - ( New Window )
So tired of hearing this.. they lost 3 games in OT, two of which had very questionable calls go the Kings way to even get there. Except for game 3, that was a very close series
I think Deej's point was that the Rangers took the wrong lessons from that loss and tried to build a more physical roster. Although I think only Glass was the sole example of that - I thought their mistake was caring about the PP so much afterwards (signing Boyle, trading for Yandle).
Quote:
was absolutely haunted by the SCF loss to a more physical Kings team.
So tired of hearing this.. they lost 3 games in OT, two of which had very questionable calls go the Kings way to even get there. Except for game 3, that was a very close series
Your point does not contradict what Im saying. I.e. the fact that the Kings were more physical is not an argument that the games were not close. It's simply a recognition of how the teams matched up.
You may be right. But we've gotten a lot bigger. We have only 1 > 6'0 skater (Zucc), and of our 4 6'0 skaters only Stepan is really core while Fast, Pirri, and Clendening are the roster periphery. The SCF squad had shrimps Zucc (Zucc btw has gotten much stronger) and MSL, and then not tall guys like Richards, Hags, Dom Moore, and Dorsett and Diaz on the periphery. And just more generally, the hulks werent the main attraction. Whereas now the forward corps is really infused with size.
Quote:
In comment 13182798 Deej said:
Quote:
was absolutely haunted by the SCF loss to a more physical Kings team.
So tired of hearing this.. they lost 3 games in OT, two of which had very questionable calls go the Kings way to even get there. Except for game 3, that was a very close series
Your point does not contradict what Im saying. I.e. the fact that the Kings were more physical is not an argument that the games were not close. It's simply a recognition of how the teams matched up.
Entirely read your initial post incorrectly. Thought you meant the roster that got to the Finals.
Me? The idea of a team means more then collecting a bunch of strangers. It's why 1994 doesn't mean as much to me as 1986 does. I love Messier but he wasn't LT Simms Bavaro Banks and so forth. Those guys were Giants. 1994 were a bunch of imports on ice.
I'll be much happier losing with Kreider and other home grown guys than importing other team's stars. It's not worth winning if the only way to do it is with other team's players. No thanks. I'll root for MY team's home grown players.
Mika's first four games in NYR, his line is generating 90 shots per 60-minutes. That is outrageous. Kreider too.
10:32 PM - 20 Oct 2016
Travis Yost ✔ @travisyost
Only a few players have ever broken the 70 per-60 barrier over a full season, for context. Ovechkin/Thornton are tops tops at like 72.
10:37 PM - 20 Oct 2016
I think he'll be a RFA with 2 seasons left to UFA.
Not much money slated to come off the books, and it would really behoove them to screw the bridge and get term. Not to mention that investment improving the defense is likely to be a high priority.
I think he'll be a RFA with 2 seasons left to UFA.
Not much money slated to come off the books, and it would really behoove them to screw the bridge and get term. Not to mention that investment improving the defense is likely to be a high priority.
It's why I suggest they may want to move on from Nash. It depends on how he does this year. It's actually easier to move on if he has a great season since he'll return a lot in a trade.
I like Nash a lot (wish he was a little less soft at times). But his cap money could be used to lock up a lot of the future core at team friendly prices.
Nash is actually no longer paid like a super-duper star. His 7.8 million cap hit is a meaningful tier below the top 5 guys, who range between 10.5 and 9.5 million); still he is 15th in the league. I think he has had a good career for a #1 overall pick. Not a Crosby/AO mega star. But it is tough for any wing to be a mega star. Obviously not a bust, but he's been better than even the next tier up (Lecavalier, Jovo types) and the best player out of his draft (#1 is probably Keith, and then #3 is Steen or Semin).
I do find is finesse game frustrating.
Those types of deals (where a player crosses the 30 year mark) always sort of have the overpayment in the final years embedded in them - Nash's was an eight year deal.
He's second in 5v5 G/60 for guys with >500 minutes and 13th overall in 5v5 goals (despite significantly lesser minutes than some of the guys above him) since joining the Rangers. I think the Rangers got their money's worth from a regular season perspective. But his disappearance in 2014 was probably Cup costing.
We have to reserve that pre-expansion draft buyout window for the Warrior!
No doubt in my mind they could easily trade him by retaining less money than the dead cap hit from a buyout.
His value isn't sky-high, but that contract is not a net negative by any means.
I keep debating myself about whether to pull the trigger on something now (a lot of the model year end deals seem pretty good) or to wait for the holiday programs.
Any thoughts on that?
I know the Jets said they want a young, #1, cost controlled defenseman in return, but that bar is probably too high. No one else has a reason to trade that guy, who is it anyway? Colton Parayko? Aaron Ekblad? No one is trading those guys for Trouba.
The Rangers have a glut of forward and need D, maybe they combine some players and make this work.
Not a whole lot of ways to get a 22 year old top 4 blueliner.
Yeah, that's fair (I think Nash slips a few spots when you factor in all situations). I don't think Nash's failures in 2013 and 2014 should obfuscate the good he's done here. I think he had good post-seasons the past two years, overshadowed by being shut out twice at home (a team wide effort) against Tampa and the disastrous series against the Pens last year.
Then again, I've never seen such bad puck luck in a postseason either. Holy Merry fucking Christmas by a guy who hasnt played a NHL since.
too soon?
I know some say he was still tentative from the concussion earlier that year, but he was awful.
His career playoff s% over 65 games is a ridiculous 5.5%. That's a defenseman's %. Hell, Dom Moore's is 9.6.
Come again? "Fowler" sure is a strange was of pronouncing "Lindholm and Vatanen"...
Come again? "Fowler" sure is a strange was of pronouncing "Lindholm and Vatanen"...
Wow. Kreider is one of the hottest players in the NHL right now. I wouldn't trade Kreider's goatee for Fowler.