But McDonagh's reputation around the league still seems to be strong. Also, whereas there's a large supply of wingers available, he is far and away the best defenseman available and if the Rangers cover half the salary, could be had at $2.9MM next season. It could be a strong return that sets that the team up very well
Hope that wording is alright with you
Realized that last line sounds like a smart ass comment
no offense taken, and i wasnt picking on you, just used it as one example. We all think the world of McD for what he's done here, he wears the C, all that... but that's in the past. Other teams probably look at his recent injury history, some slippage in performance level, and his lack of offensive game.
We can say he'd be better with a real D-pairing all we like - and we're right - but no one's going to pay us full price for what is not proven. That's on AV, who is a fucking clown.
And I'm not sure McDonaugh's value today is better than Yandle's 4 years ago. Back then Yandle, 27-28 at the time, was a 45-60 point player, an ironman as far as TOI and consecutive games played, and a positive Corsi player on horrendous teams. People didnt even know he was available, but was thought to be one of the better D's on the market.
Signed with Florida @ 6.4mm per year when the salary cap was 71mm - equates to McDonaugh signing at 7.2mm/year this year at the projected 80mm cap. Sounds reasonable.
I know they are vastly different player types, but thats the kind of benchmark return i'm thinking about in my head which is basically two late first round picks for him.
RE: Duclair was ranked 17th in the 2015 THN Future Watch.
McDonagh is more valuable than Yandle. Not matching the Yandle trade would be a disappointment.
Should be noted that THN list was:
1) made after the AZ trade
2) he was not on their prospect list at all in 2014
3) he was a late third round pick originally
Canadiens are keeping up their end of the bargain.
FWIW, I read McDonagh will have more value post-season before the draft than at the deadline.
I see the point in that somewhat, but feel like deadline desperation might be > pre-draft roster building.
I've never understood that argument for a guy with 1.25 years left. Maybe a young guy with RFA rights, etc.
I asked a couple beat writers about it and they explained it as:
1. the market for McDonagh and players like him is limited today to contenders.
2. the return you'd want for someone like McDonagh should include young players ready to contribute, but with contenders those players may be counted on down the stretch and the team is not ready to part with them to add McDonagh
3. Salary/contract and this is clearly a distant 3rd, but once buyers and sellers are clearer toward the deadline, you have to deal with NMC's/NTC's (McDonagh has one I believe) and make sure teams match up and then find one willing to take on salary or be willing to keep it yourself. This exists post-season too, but without the same deadline pressure to work through issues and really could lessen the value of the player.
Thanks, pj. I think the non-contender argument would be more valid this past off-season, but I think you have to be a contender to pay up for McDonagh with only a season left.
Thanks, pj. I think the non-contender argument would be more valid this past off-season, but I think you have to be a contender to pay up for McDonagh with only a season left.
Maybe, but you can always trade for him with the plans to extend him like MTL did with Drouin. Drouin was an RFA, but it was a risk to acquire him without the contract and instead of a bridge deal, the habs signed him long-term (as much as I hated that trade it would have been a disaster if they only had Drouin for two seasons).
the pool of contenders in May/June is far greater than the pool of contenders in February. Practically every team believes they can win in the upcoming season.
Thanks, pj. I think the non-contender argument would be more valid this past off-season, but I think you have to be a contender to pay up for McDonagh with only a season left.
Maybe, but you can always trade for him with the plans to extend him like MTL did with Drouin. Drouin was an RFA, but it was a risk to acquire him without the contract and instead of a bridge deal, the habs signed him long-term (as much as I hated that trade it would have been a disaster if they only had Drouin for two seasons).
the pool of contenders in May/June is far greater than the pool of contenders in February. Practically every team believes they can win in the upcoming season.
Obviously depends if we want a few draft picks (will get higher return now)... or specific young players in return (would get a better return this summer).
Personally I'd rather deal these guys now so we end up with higher lottery odds. And I of course fully expect one of these guys - McD, Nash, Grabs, Zucc, whowever - to hoist a Cup in June and score 12-15 goals in the process. That's how life goes as a fucking Rangers fan.
50th goal of the season last night. Um where the hell is he?
He also scored #51 last night.
I thought I read he just signed a ELC a few days ago.
He's tiny though, he's like 5' 8" so think Desharnais sized.
doesn't mean he can't be good in the NHL, but I'm personally not a huge fan of smaller players, they need to be elite in at least one area to succeed: speed, stick handling, shooting, toughness, and even then it's no guarantee.
is one of the worst players Ive ever seen. I think Tanner Glass is better
Now I recognize hes a great player to have when youre trying to tank. But I think the front office brought him in thinking he could help, and that worries me.
I fear we are stuck in no mans land - I appreciate the recent tanking but it's going to take some extreme suck to move off this 10th position. I think we can pass Florida - but anyone else is going to take some luck. Chicago Montreal and Edmonton seem to have all embraced the tank too (how the fuck is Chiarelli still employed - he could not have possibly done a worse job. Not possible)
hasn't embraced the tank, they're just not very good defensively. In watching most of their games, they almost always outshoot their opponent and out skate them. Just can't score and they give up easy high quality chances. MTL has the 4th worst PDO in the league.
I'm kind of hoping they decide to shelve Shea Weber for the season, though I'm pretty sure they won't do that.
He comes back they could put together a stretch of good play if they can't shed some players at the deadline, they were thin on D coming in to the season, like razor thin, so even with Price playing as bad as he is, a lot of it is on their D - magnified without Weber.
The good news for the Rangers tanking is their PDO is average, so while teams like MTL, EDM, and BUF with awful PDO's may expect some correction, the Rangers are right where they should be.
MTL has a 7.4% shooting % that's ridiculous, Rangers at 9.2% which is almost average.
We have no idea regarding the quality of the shots being taken
as discussed here so often, shots isnt the greatest statistic. We do know the Rangers have more team speed than MTL, and that manifests itself into higher quality chances.
Both teams suck anyway, end of day. Pretty unbelievable that the best 3 teams in the Atlantic postseason last year - OTT, NYR, MTL - are all battling for Dahlin, or at least a top 5 pick, 9 months later.
Rangers have to go something like 5-17-2 to pick in the top 5. Just too many bad or unmotivated teams out there. Vets on bad teams start making up injuries about now too.
Right now MTL has the 4th lowest shooting % in the past 11 NHL seasons. That's significant.
I know people hate the phrase puck luck.
I know I do, because I believe to an extent puck luck is created by effort, discipline, positioning, etc. but I do believe stats like shooting % will eventually regress to the norm.
So my point was MTL has some improvement in store and the Rangers don't.
Yes, neither team is a contender this year, but for the Rangers tanking prospects this is a good thing, not a bad one.
if the Rangers can dish Nash off to Nashville (sounds like a headline that writes itself), I'd look to somehow pry away Tolvanen.
He's small-ish, but putting on a clinic in the Olympics at 18 years old.
I like him.
Nashville is reportedly going "all in" this year as they sense their team is a cup contender with a window.
They check all the proverbial boxes (though Brett disagrees on one), strong goalie, strength up the middle (I think they have 5 players can be legit centers) and strong D.
I'm not a big fan of Rinnie, but I don't think he's awful.
if shots dont matter as a stat... why would shooting % matter?
You are saying if a team takes 40 shots instead of 30.. who care, because the quality of those 40 could be low.
That would manifest itself in a low shooting %. Yet, now you say the shooting % is a telling stat. To me, over a large sample size, its just a lagging indicator of the quality shots you are taking.
Regardless - there are only 22-25 games left for everybody.... not enough body of work to assume anything normalizes. You are talking about a ~2% difference anyway, which is two goals spread over every 3 games.
too. I'm somewhat surprised Chiarelli has a job, but you need to consider they were a game 7 loss away from the WCF last year, a year before people expected them to contend.
Even though it was probably in spite of not because Chiarelli, hard to fire a GM in that scenario.
if shots dont matter as a stat... why would shooting % matter?
You are saying if a team takes 40 shots instead of 30.. who care, because the quality of those 40 could be low.
That would manifest itself in a low shooting %. Yet, now you say the shooting % is a telling stat. To me, over a large sample size, its just a lagging indicator of the quality shots you are taking.
Regardless - there are only 22-25 games left for everybody.... not enough body of work to assume anything normalizes. You are talking about a ~2% difference anyway, which is two goals spread over every 3 games.
shooting % matters because over time players/teams average around 10% shooting percent. this is something that's been tracked forever. It peaked in the mid-80's around 14% with the small goalie pads, curved sticks and influx of european players (and the Gretzky era), but has settled around 10% the past 20 years.
so if a team has 40 shots or 20 shots, that 10% should be where teams wind up for their shooting %, or close to it. Obviously quality scoring chances plays a part, but that shooting % is the norm teams usually regress to.
When a team is at 15% most people realize that's not sustainable, just like if a team is at 7.4% (like MTL) that should also be unsustainable.
are a very telling stat for you. Not sure why you originally said otherwise. More shots, more goals since all players and teams will eventually score at 10% (I dont think that point is true, but i'll go with it)
are a very telling stat for you. Not sure why you originally said otherwise. More shots, more goals since all players and teams will eventually score at 10% (I dont think that point is true, but i'll go with it)
On a game to game basis sure shots are relevant, but shooting % is more meaningful in evaluating a teams prospects going forward.
that was my point.
if a team has a billion shots, with 10% shooting percent the billion shots is irrelevant, I can feeling they're scoring at an appropriate level and would not draw any conclusions about a change in their results.
If they have a billion shots and a 17% shooting percentage I can say that's not sustainable, they won't continue to score at that pace,
If they have a billion shots and a 5% shooting percentage I can feel like that's not sustainable, they won't run into a hot goalie every night and eventually those shots will fall.
maybe not perfect and it doesn't work out exactly that way, but historically the numbers bear that out I believe.
I think it's rare to sustain massive deltas from the norm, especially so at a team level.
Pierre LeBrun notes that right now the Rangers have the top defensemen on the market but if they wait until June to trade McDonagh, other defensemen such as Drew Doughty, Erik Karlsson or Oliver Ekman-Larsson could join the trade market and possibly limit their return. (The Athletic)
He notes that the return for McDonagh is likely to be something similar to what the Rangers paid for Keith Yandle and that Boston and Tampa Bay have the assets that could interest the Rangers. (The Athletic)
Didn't really think about the trade market potentially being loaded with better defensemen than McDonagh at the draft. I feel like we're gonna fuck this one up.
I'm hearing NYR would want Bruins' rookie Jake DeBrusk included in any deal for Ryan McDonagh. Ironic, since former Oiler GM Sather traded for Jake's dad Louie when he sent Mark Messier to NYR in 1991.
Hope that wording is alright with you
Wish we'd just get going with these trades already, tired of speculating.
We can say he'd be better with a real D-pairing all we like - and we're right - but no one's going to pay us full price for what is not proven. That's on AV, who is a fucking clown.
And I'm not sure McDonaugh's value today is better than Yandle's 4 years ago. Back then Yandle, 27-28 at the time, was a 45-60 point player, an ironman as far as TOI and consecutive games played, and a positive Corsi player on horrendous teams. People didnt even know he was available, but was thought to be one of the better D's on the market.
Signed with Florida @ 6.4mm per year when the salary cap was 71mm - equates to McDonaugh signing at 7.2mm/year this year at the projected 80mm cap. Sounds reasonable.
I know they are vastly different player types, but thats the kind of benchmark return i'm thinking about in my head which is basically two late first round picks for him.
Should be noted that THN list was:
1) made after the AZ trade
2) he was not on their prospect list at all in 2014
3) he was a late third round pick originally
Duclair was worth more than a late 1st at that point in time.
THN - ( New Window )
Watched the Tampa/Toronto game the other night and Tampa had Girardi on the ice with the empty net down a goal. They need a defenseman.
FWIW, I read McDonagh will have more value post-season before the draft than at the deadline.
I see the point in that somewhat, but feel like deadline desperation might be > pre-draft roster building.
FWIW, I read McDonagh will have more value post-season before the draft than at the deadline.
I see the point in that somewhat, but feel like deadline desperation might be > pre-draft roster building.
I've never understood that argument for a guy with 1.25 years left. Maybe a young guy with RFA rights, etc.
Quote:
Canadiens are keeping up their end of the bargain.
FWIW, I read McDonagh will have more value post-season before the draft than at the deadline.
I see the point in that somewhat, but feel like deadline desperation might be > pre-draft roster building.
I've never understood that argument for a guy with 1.25 years left. Maybe a young guy with RFA rights, etc.
I asked a couple beat writers about it and they explained it as:
1. the market for McDonagh and players like him is limited today to contenders.
2. the return you'd want for someone like McDonagh should include young players ready to contribute, but with contenders those players may be counted on down the stretch and the team is not ready to part with them to add McDonagh
3. Salary/contract and this is clearly a distant 3rd, but once buyers and sellers are clearer toward the deadline, you have to deal with NMC's/NTC's (McDonagh has one I believe) and make sure teams match up and then find one willing to take on salary or be willing to keep it yourself. This exists post-season too, but without the same deadline pressure to work through issues and really could lessen the value of the player.
LOL, yeah - it would be very typical.
Maybe, but you can always trade for him with the plans to extend him like MTL did with Drouin. Drouin was an RFA, but it was a risk to acquire him without the contract and instead of a bridge deal, the habs signed him long-term (as much as I hated that trade it would have been a disaster if they only had Drouin for two seasons).
the pool of contenders in May/June is far greater than the pool of contenders in February. Practically every team believes they can win in the upcoming season.
Quote:
Thanks, pj. I think the non-contender argument would be more valid this past off-season, but I think you have to be a contender to pay up for McDonagh with only a season left.
Maybe, but you can always trade for him with the plans to extend him like MTL did with Drouin. Drouin was an RFA, but it was a risk to acquire him without the contract and instead of a bridge deal, the habs signed him long-term (as much as I hated that trade it would have been a disaster if they only had Drouin for two seasons).
the pool of contenders in May/June is far greater than the pool of contenders in February. Practically every team believes they can win in the upcoming season.
Obviously depends if we want a few draft picks (will get higher return now)... or specific young players in return (would get a better return this summer).
Personally I'd rather deal these guys now so we end up with higher lottery odds. And I of course fully expect one of these guys - McD, Nash, Grabs, Zucc, whowever - to hoist a Cup in June and score 12-15 goals in the process. That's how life goes as a fucking Rangers fan.
He also scored #51 last night.
Quote:
50th goal of the season last night. Um where the hell is he?
He also scored #51 last night.
I thought I read he just signed a ELC a few days ago.
He's tiny though, he's like 5' 8" so think Desharnais sized.
doesn't mean he can't be good in the NHL, but I'm personally not a huge fan of smaller players, they need to be elite in at least one area to succeed: speed, stick handling, shooting, toughness, and even then it's no guarantee.
Now I recognize hes a great player to have when youre trying to tank. But I think the front office brought him in thinking he could help, and that worries me.
Funny stuff.
Thankfully it's in our best interest to just keep losing at this point. But it's quite amazing.
Funny stuff.
Thankfully it's in our best interest to just keep losing at this point. But it's quite amazing.
Losing consistently to the Isles should be a fixable offense.
Quote:
Welp, looks like whether we're tanking, not tanking, somewhere in between.. we can't seem to figure out Jaro fucking Halak or the Isles.
Funny stuff.
Thankfully it's in our best interest to just keep losing at this point. But it's quite amazing.
Losing consistently to the Isles should be a fixable offense.
Well, AV can't seem to figure it out. I believe that's 10 of the last 11 we've now lost to this team.
I'm kind of hoping they decide to shelve Shea Weber for the season, though I'm pretty sure they won't do that.
He comes back they could put together a stretch of good play if they can't shed some players at the deadline, they were thin on D coming in to the season, like razor thin, so even with Price playing as bad as he is, a lot of it is on their D - magnified without Weber.
The good news for the Rangers tanking is their PDO is average, so while teams like MTL, EDM, and BUF with awful PDO's may expect some correction, the Rangers are right where they should be.
MTL has a 7.4% shooting % that's ridiculous, Rangers at 9.2% which is almost average.
Both teams suck anyway, end of day. Pretty unbelievable that the best 3 teams in the Atlantic postseason last year - OTT, NYR, MTL - are all battling for Dahlin, or at least a top 5 pick, 9 months later.
Rangers have to go something like 5-17-2 to pick in the top 5. Just too many bad or unmotivated teams out there. Vets on bad teams start making up injuries about now too.
Right now MTL has the 4th lowest shooting % in the past 11 NHL seasons. That's significant.
I know people hate the phrase puck luck.
I know I do, because I believe to an extent puck luck is created by effort, discipline, positioning, etc. but I do believe stats like shooting % will eventually regress to the norm.
So my point was MTL has some improvement in store and the Rangers don't.
Yes, neither team is a contender this year, but for the Rangers tanking prospects this is a good thing, not a bad one.
He's small-ish, but putting on a clinic in the Olympics at 18 years old.
I like him.
Nashville is reportedly going "all in" this year as they sense their team is a cup contender with a window.
They check all the proverbial boxes (though Brett disagrees on one), strong goalie, strength up the middle (I think they have 5 players can be legit centers) and strong D.
Agreed with MAB, Chiarelli sucks. Destroyed that team.
You are saying if a team takes 40 shots instead of 30.. who care, because the quality of those 40 could be low.
That would manifest itself in a low shooting %. Yet, now you say the shooting % is a telling stat. To me, over a large sample size, its just a lagging indicator of the quality shots you are taking.
Regardless - there are only 22-25 games left for everybody.... not enough body of work to assume anything normalizes. You are talking about a ~2% difference anyway, which is two goals spread over every 3 games.
Even though it was probably in spite of not because Chiarelli, hard to fire a GM in that scenario.
I do think he's let go after the season.
You are saying if a team takes 40 shots instead of 30.. who care, because the quality of those 40 could be low.
That would manifest itself in a low shooting %. Yet, now you say the shooting % is a telling stat. To me, over a large sample size, its just a lagging indicator of the quality shots you are taking.
Regardless - there are only 22-25 games left for everybody.... not enough body of work to assume anything normalizes. You are talking about a ~2% difference anyway, which is two goals spread over every 3 games.
shooting % matters because over time players/teams average around 10% shooting percent. this is something that's been tracked forever. It peaked in the mid-80's around 14% with the small goalie pads, curved sticks and influx of european players (and the Gretzky era), but has settled around 10% the past 20 years.
so if a team has 40 shots or 20 shots, that 10% should be where teams wind up for their shooting %, or close to it. Obviously quality scoring chances plays a part, but that shooting % is the norm teams usually regress to.
When a team is at 15% most people realize that's not sustainable, just like if a team is at 7.4% (like MTL) that should also be unsustainable.
Both trades were knowingly awful at the time.
And I agree with you on Nash and Nashville. I'm concerned their pieces are too good for a rental, though.
On a game to game basis sure shots are relevant, but shooting % is more meaningful in evaluating a teams prospects going forward.
that was my point.
if a team has a billion shots, with 10% shooting percent the billion shots is irrelevant, I can feeling they're scoring at an appropriate level and would not draw any conclusions about a change in their results.
If they have a billion shots and a 17% shooting percentage I can say that's not sustainable, they won't continue to score at that pace,
If they have a billion shots and a 5% shooting percentage I can feel like that's not sustainable, they won't run into a hot goalie every night and eventually those shots will fall.
maybe not perfect and it doesn't work out exactly that way, but historically the numbers bear that out I believe.
I think it's rare to sustain massive deltas from the norm, especially so at a team level.
It is what PDO is all about (well half of it).
He notes that the return for McDonagh is likely to be something similar to what the Rangers paid for Keith Yandle and that Boston and Tampa Bay have the assets that could interest the Rangers. (The Athletic)
Didn't really think about the trade market potentially being loaded with better defensemen than McDonagh at the draft. I feel like we're gonna fuck this one up.
I'm hearing NYR would want Bruins' rookie Jake DeBrusk included in any deal for Ryan McDonagh. Ironic, since former Oiler GM Sather traded for Jake's dad Louie when he sent Mark Messier to NYR in 1991.
Another kid of a goon who turned out to be an actual player. Wonder if Link Gaetz has a son.
At this point i dont see much reason to dress Nash or Grabner. Why risk getting them hurt?
Hopefully someone overpays for McDonaugh, but Boston is not stupid (anymore - Chiarelli has left)
Brutal does not begin to describe how Lundqvist looked. I guess AV didn't want to yank him an 8th time this year though
This miserable season has finally broken Hank I guess