PDA

View Full Version : The "Replacements"



Pete
07-09-2014, 07:54 PM
I've noticed that since we lost Dorsett, Richards, Boyle, Stralman and Pouliot (along with the recent chatter on the Off Season Thread (http://www.blueshirtsbrotherhood.com/showthread.php?13983-2014-NHL-Offseason-%97-Trades-Signings-Rumors-amp-Speculation/page57)), that much of our thinking has been along the lines of "How can they replace X player", such as Glass for Dorsett, Dan Boyle for Stralman. It's also been touched on that DBoyle would replace Richards PP production, while Miller may replace his ES production.

So, that all said...I think the latter thinking needs to be expanded on. For example, they simply aren't going to replace Pouliot with a Pouliot-type-player. It's too narrow a laser. Truth is, we're probably looking at a completely re-vamped set of lines if they want to keep playing a style that worked last year, and in-fact, some guys might have to switch sides. Namely Nash.

The players that I'd look to bring in at this point would probably be fits for the way AV wants to play, so that means a premium on skating ability and willingness to go to the net. I don't think handed-ness would matter. If a guy is a righty, so be it. But also, they might have to switch some things around to capitalize on some things we knew worked.

I'd look at playing Kreider with Brassard and Zuccarello. I'd also try and give MSL that righty shot he wants at center by playing him with Stepan and probably Hagelin. Miller would skate with Nash and another winger. Winnik was mentioned, as was Booth. I'd take a flyer on either player. Some other names out there:

David Moss (22 points)
Lee Stempniak (34 points)
TJ Galiardi (17 points)

Maybe Kristo gets a shot. Maybe Fast impresses.

Holes will also need to be filled on D. It might mean Klein picking up PK time with Staal rather than Boyle. It might mean all new D pairs, with McD and G no longer a pair. Either way, I think it's evident that we're going to see a brand-new team in 14-15.

I don't really want to get into a wishlist of players that already exists in the off-season thread, or have some crazy trade proposals, this thread is more to discuss philosphy on how they plan to bridge the gaps and fill holes. It doesn't mean we can't mention players, but I just don't want to dupe the Off-Season Thread.

RangersFan
07-09-2014, 08:07 PM
Good thread. I would make my lines like this

Hagelin-Stepan-St Louis
Kreider-Brassard-Zuccarello
Stempniak-Miller-Nash
Glass-Moore-Fast

I think Stempniak would be a great signing. Good 3rd liner and he is right handed.

I would also like Winnik but im not sure how he would fit if we add Stempniak but that lineup is balanced, it had size speed and skill and every line has threats. Give Nash lots of PP time and also let him PK

Cash or Czech?
07-09-2014, 08:08 PM
I mentioned this in the off-season thread and I kind of like the idea of Kreider with Brassard and Zuccarello. The latter two were much more consistent than Stepan and Nash and with a full year in the league plus playoffs, I think Kreider can build on last season with them plus provide a big complement in terms of size and speed.

I believe Stepan should be moved off of Nash's line as well. Nash does it all himself and it was evidenced that Stepan only really put up points when Nash was hot during the regular season. Stepan and St. Louis seemed to connect well on the PP in the playoffs IIRC and putting those two together with a big, physical winger that isn't Nash might be good for those two.

Miller needs to play with skilled players to be effective. Why not put him with our most skilled player, Nash? Have Hagelin on the other side to go get the puck from deep and provide another speed element on the line who can also score goals the dirty way as well as an occasional pretty one.

That just leaves a complement to Stepan and St. Louis. I believe we can definitely find one over the summer and come out with an arguably better team. The roster may not be better on paper, but the overall ability of our players can be that much greater IMO.

Phil in Absentia
07-09-2014, 08:34 PM
The thing about Winnik is that he's coming off a 30-point season, so you're probably looking to him as your Pouliot replacement, not necessarily your Boyle replacement. I actually think I mentioned him as a trade target a few times this past year, and I know I mentioned him once or twice as a UFA as well, but I'd have interest there for sure, especially because with the way the market is structured right now against most teams' cap crunches, players like that who might have cashed in under better circumstances (like a $71M+ salary cap), are now going to have to wait it out a year by signing one-year contracts to take a shot again next year.

I definitely brought up Booth a week ago or so as another Pouliot replacement option, and if I have a choice between he and Winnik, there is no real choice — it's Booth based on skating above all else. He'll give you absolutely everything Pouliot did on that same line with Brassard and Zuccarello, and that's an aggressive tone on the forecheck, good enough hands to hang and will actually add a kick to the line in terms of his speed, which is far and away his best attribute.

I know he's had a number of concussions, but he's actually the guy I want the most in free agency right now based on the fact that between the players being somewhat priced out and his injury history, you are again looking at a guy at a bargain bin price who will probably give you better than bargain bin results.

RangersFan
07-09-2014, 08:36 PM
The thing about Winnik is that he's coming off a 30-point season, so you're probably looking to him as your Pouliot replacement, not necessarily your Boyle replacement. I actually think I mentioned him as a trade target a few times this past year, and I know I mentioned him once or twice as a UFA as well, but I'd have interest there for sure, especially because with the way the market is structured right now against most teams' cap crunches, players like that who might have cashed in under better circumstances (like a $71M+ salary cap), are now going to have to wait it out a year by signing one-year contracts to take a shot again next year.

I definitely brought up Booth a week ago or so as another Pouliot replacement option, and if I have a choice between he and Winnik, there is no real choice — it's Booth based on skating above all else. He'll give you absolutely everything Pouliot did on that same line with Brassard and Zuccarello, and that's an aggressive tone on the forecheck, good enough hands to hang and will actually add a kick to the line in terms of his speed, which is far and away his best attribute.

I know he's had a number of concussions, but he's actually the guy I want the most in free agency right now based on the fact that between the players being somewhat priced out and his injury history, you are again looking at a guy at a bargain bin price who will probably give you better than bargain bin results.
Where do you stand on Stempniak?

Pete
07-09-2014, 08:38 PM
The thing about Winnik is that he's coming off a 30-point season, so you're probably looking to him as your Pouliot replacement, not necessarily your Boyle replacement. I actually think I mentioned him as a trade target a few times this past year, and I know I mentioned him once or twice as a UFA as well, but I'd have interest there for sure, especially because with the way the market is structured right now against most teams' cap crunches, players like that who might have cashed in under better circumstances (like a $71M+ salary cap), are now going to have to wait it out a year by signing one-year contracts to take a shot again next year.

I definitely brought up Booth a week ago or so as another Pouliot replacement option, and if I have a choice between he and Winnik, there is no real choice — it's Booth based on skating above all else. He'll give you absolutely everything Pouliot did on that same line with Brassard and Zuccarello, and that's an aggressive tone on the forecheck, good enough hands to hang and will actually add a kick to the line in terms of his speed, which is far and away his best attribute.

I know he's had a number of concussions, but he's actually the guy I want the most in free agency right now based on the fact that between the players being somewhat priced out and his injury history, you are again looking at a guy at a bargain bin price who will probably give you better than bargain bin results.

:rofl: Phil, did you even read the OP?

Phil in Absentia
07-09-2014, 08:40 PM
Compared to Booth, Winnik and others? He's worth discussing, but he'd be my fourth choice behind Booth, Winnik and Moss, in that order.

RangersFan
07-09-2014, 08:41 PM
Isnt Moss a RW? I like Booth too

Phil in Absentia
07-09-2014, 08:43 PM
:rofl: Phil, did you even read the OP?

Yes. When I say Pouliot replacement, I'm not talking about wing exclusivity. I'm talking about role — essentially any of the second/third-line inconsistent scoring wingers available in free agency right now.

Booth just so happens to be LW, which makes the transition easier considering he plays a lot like Pouliot, at probably twice the speed. It means not having to move Kreider off the Stepan/Nash duo, and is probably a more natural transition from player-to-player than Kreider would be, though I'd imagine Kreider would at least give you the same amount of offensive zone penalties. ;)

Phil in Absentia
07-09-2014, 08:44 PM
Isnt Moss a RW? I like Booth too

I have no idea, but that really doesn't matter. The team has two players right now, minimum, who have spent time playing the other side wing than they did last year (Nash and Zuccarello), so if bodies need to move to accommodate a player being brought in who doesn't share that flexibility, then so be it.

Pete
07-09-2014, 08:46 PM
Yes. When I say Pouliot replacement, I'm not talking about wing exclusivity. I'm talking about role — essentially any of the second/third-line inconsistent scoring wingers available in free agency right now.

Booth just so happens to be LW, which makes the transition easier considering he plays a lot like Pouliot, at probably twice the speed. It means not having to move Kreider off the Stepan/Nash duo, and is probably a more natural transition from player-to-player than Kreider would be, though I'd imagine Kreider would at least give you the same amount of offensive zone penalties. ;)

Yea, I think they are going to really look into adding guys who fit the AV mold and then worrying about where/how they slot in during camp and see how the season plays out.

For instance, Nash didn't PK in the beginning of the year, but he did later on, same as Dorsett. We might see some guys who didn't PK or get PP time before, get it now. We might see Miller on the PK and Hags on the PP. I think they're best off targeting guys who fit the AV mold. Good skaters with hockey sense and who aren't afraid to go to the net.

The more I think about Booth, the more I like the idea.

But more so, the lines are going to be completely different, IMO.

Phil in Absentia
07-09-2014, 08:50 PM
Yea, I think they are going to really look into adding guys who fit the AV mold and then worrying about where/how they slot in during camp and see how the season plays out.

For instance, Nash didn't PK in the beginning of the year, but he did later on, same as Dorsett. We might see some guys who didn't PK or get PP time before, get it now. We might see Miller on the PK and Hags on the PP. I think they're best off targeting guys who fit the AV mold. Good skaters with hockey sense and who aren't afraid to go to the net.

The more I think about Booth, the more I like the idea.

But more so, the lines are going to be completely different, IMO.

Yup, and let's be real here — in what world are the lines in October ever the same come January, February or June? Guys are going to move around, a lot, and that's not a coaching knock. It's just a natural product of the NHL through chemistry, hot and cold streaks, injuries, acquisitions, etc.

I'm far less concerned with what wing a guy plays right now as much as I am the very specific skill sets they have. It's why I want Booth so much right now. Say what you will about his concussion issues, and you'd be warranted to, but none have taken his speed from him, which is far and away his best tool (and one you can't teach anyone else who doesn't have it, like Penner). That alone endears him a lot to me based on what else is available in free agency right now, certainly more so than Stempniak, Moss or Winnik. Add to that that he's historically been a go-to-the-net player and it just makes a lot of sense so long as the price matches what the Rangers can actually afford.

I dunno if they go multi-year on him or not, but I'd imagine something in the $2M range per season would do just fine for now, no?

CreaseCrusader91
07-09-2014, 08:55 PM
Philosophically, they need to find someone who is the best fit for the system. Maybe it is a time to disregard stats on the surface. You look at not only what we lost, but how we lost in the Final. What were our strengths? Where did we pull equal and where were we outmatched? I think we need to look at this situation like a person searching for a house. At the end of the day, you need to live somewhere, and there are going to be things you need, things you want and things you settle for.

You need space, you may want the fire place and you may settle for a smaller basement that has a lower rent or price etc. So using this analogy, lets take a look at the Rangers as a house that needs some repairs.

Obviously we know that having speed was a plus. Having a speed game got us pretty far, so anyone we want to add should have wheels. Lets take that element and see if we can apply that elsewhere. We were outclassed down the middle. We couldn't win faceoffs, we couldn't match physically and we were pretty much neutered by the Kings. Is there someone out there? Not really, so can we then look elsewhere?

Pouliot is gone, but we still have Kreider. Maybe we slot him with Brassard and Zuccarello. His speed and size is better than Pouliot's and he offers more offensively. He will also draw more attention, and that creates space and more opportunity for some of our other guys.

OK, so now to slot in for Kreider. It was suggested that we find a shot for Marty St. Louis. Maybe then we can do that, and that will square away another line. It then leaves the team with some aforementioned duos already established.

Ideally I think the best course of action may be to reshuffle some of our existing talent into holes. We can then look for those players that have the values our system benefits, and as a result we stock up on talent suited for our style of play, instead of trying to carbon copy replace players. Ideally we shouldn't limit ourselves to this, because at the end of the day the roster didn't win the Stanley Cup, so maybe by moving some players around, we can open some spots for other improvement.

I don't want to rehash any other suggestions made, but my overreaching point is add to our strength.

TL/DR: Add speed, add size, and try and bulk up in areas we were successful with last season.

RangersFan
07-09-2014, 08:56 PM
I have no idea, but that really doesn't matter. The team has two players right now, minimum, who have spent time playing the other side wing than they did last year (Nash and Zuccarello), so if bodies need to move to accommodate a player being brought in who doesn't share that flexibility, then so be it.

I'm pretty sure he is a RW and it does matter. Why bring in an UFA to play him on his off wing? Zuccarello and Nash both played LW before, has Moss played LW before?

Pete
07-09-2014, 08:57 PM
Yup, and let's be real here — in what world are the lines in October ever the same come January, February or June? Guys are going to move around, a lot, and that's not a coaching knock. It's just a natural product of the NHL through chemistry, hot and cold streaks, injuries, acquisitions, etc.

I'm far less concerned with what wing a guy plays right now as much as I am the very specific skill sets they have. It's why I want Booth so much right now. Say what you will about his concussion issues, and you'd be warranted to, but none have taken his speed from him, which is far and away his best tool (and one you can't teach anyone else who doesn't have it, like Penner). That alone endears him a lot to me based on what else is available in free agency right now, certainly more so than Stempniak, Moss or Winnik. Add to that that he's historically been a go-to-the-net player and it just makes a lot of sense so long as the price matches what the Rangers can actually afford.

I dunno if they go multi-year on him or not, but I'd imagine something in the $2M range per season would do just fine for now, no?

I don't know. Probably gets it done. I wouldn't go more than 2 years on him. But yea, he's a versatile player who can play both wings and was a .52 P/G player for AV just 2 seasons ago. Played a lot of '13 and '13-'14 injured.

RangersFan
07-09-2014, 08:58 PM
I would give Booth 1 year at 1.25 mil

Phil in Absentia
07-09-2014, 09:06 PM
I don't know. Probably gets it done. I wouldn't go more than 2 years on him. But yea, he's a versatile player who can play both wings and was a .52 P/G player for AV just 2 seasons ago. Played a lot of '13 and '13-'14 injured.

Same. The familiarity in VAN is also what attracted me to him as a free agent as well. I mean, we already saw that with Glass, so that is clearly of value.

Internally, I think someone a lot of us might be sleeping on is Ryan Bourque. I can't find it now, but I just read a few days back some quotes coming out of the Rangers organization that were really high on him, talking about how he had NHL legs and might be ready for a shot at the show this year. Smaller player, for sure, but has great speed and versatility. Might be an internal option in camp along side Lindberg, Fast and Miller.

CreaseCrusader91
07-09-2014, 09:08 PM
I don't know. Probably gets it done. I wouldn't go more than 2 years on him. But yea, he's a versatile player who can play both wings and was a .52 P/G player for AV just 2 seasons ago. Played a lot of '13 and '13-'14 injured.

I think if we saw anything last year, it is that AV does a good job protecting players/sheltering. In this hypothetical situation, we are getting a guy on the cheap to almost be a specialist. I think there is more leeway to only deploy him in certain situations to keep him fresh, and in areas to succeed. Ideally we have some horses that can double shift in certain spots, so if we need to shelter Booth to keep him healthy and effective, AV is the guy we are confident in calling the shots.

DiJock94
07-09-2014, 09:12 PM
I'm thinking

Nash Stepan St. Louis
Kreider Brassard Zuccarello
Hagelin Miller Fast
Glass Moore Mueller(Chris)

McDonagh Girardi
Staal Boyle
Moore Klein

RangersFan
07-09-2014, 09:13 PM
I'm thinking

Nash Stepan St. Louis
Kreider Brassard Zuccarello
Hagelin Miller Fast
Glass Moore Mueller(Chris)

McDonagh Girardi
Staal Boyle
Moore Klein

I wouldnt stack the top line. I would spread it out and try to have 3 lines with a scorer on it

Pete
07-09-2014, 09:21 PM
I think if we saw anything last year, it is that AV does a good job protecting players/sheltering. In this hypothetical situation, we are getting a guy on the cheap to almost be a specialist. I think there is more leeway to only deploy him in certain situations to keep him fresh, and in areas to succeed. Ideally we have some horses that can double shift in certain spots, so if we need to shelter Booth to keep him healthy and effective, AV is the guy we are confident in calling the shots.

I agree with you. He's very good at putting players in a position to succeed. I don't think he's scared to experiment until he finds something that works, and I think he knows the lines are going to be totally different than last year.

CreaseCrusader91
07-09-2014, 09:29 PM
I agree with you. He's very good at putting players in a position to succeed. I don't think he's scared to experiment until he finds something that works, and I think he knows the lines are going to be totally different than last year.

Yup, and I think we all most of us had a reason to be gun shy about constant line changes and etc under JT, and that rolled over a bit when the waters were choppy. Last year Vigneault really won me over, and I am very confident to see what decisions he makes. He made the SCF in year one and the team didn't adjust truly until DEC/JAN. I am very optimistic when I think of how he can tinker for success this year.

RangersFan
07-09-2014, 09:32 PM
Yup, and I think we all most of us had a reason to be gun shy about constant line changes and etc under JT, and that rolled over a bit when the waters were choppy. Last year Vigneault really won me over, and I am very confident to see what decisions he makes. He made the SCF in year one and the team didn't adjust truly until DEC/JAN. I am very optimistic when I think of how he can tinker for success this year.

A big part of it is being able to play 4 lines and 3 defensive lines. Torts would play 3 lines and 4 dmen sometimes

Pete
07-09-2014, 09:37 PM
A big part of it is being able to play 4 lines and 3 defensive lines. Torts would play 3 lines and 4 dmen sometimes

Well, to be fair, that's all he had.

http://i.imgur.com/9ajA7.jpg

Respecttheblue
07-09-2014, 09:42 PM
I like the thought behind this thread.

it's been kinda bothering me and I'm glad the OP put a finger on it, philosophically. There is no "replacing" folk per se, and probably very little payoff in trying to find "nearest replicas of player X" ... seems like asking for a step back.

Instead, I'm trying to think in terms of evolving the team by addressing attributes and weaknesses those players had: building on the team's strengths and capitalizing on the possibility that we have for addition by subtraction ...

For instance, "OK, what did we not like about Richards, and how can we address what we thought were weaknesses at that time?"

If we can't get a 60 point player, maybe we can address the weaknesses Richards had, with players who can still pass, but who add attributes like more speed where appropriate, more hustle and better back-checking, players who are tenacious on a play in the offensive zone and who don't throw wing-and-a-prayer pickoff passes to no one in particular. Players who are more alert in their own defensive zone.

Ditto Pouliot, though I have few or no criticisms of Pouls for the role he filled, and really liked him on this team, we all know that the bad penalties were a bugaboo ... so lets address that 2013-14 weakness with a player who also brings smarts, maybe more consistency.

I like the idea mentioned earlier of rethinking lines, moving Kreider around to add size and offensive punch to Zuccarello's line, but I might move Steps there, too, since Kreids and Steps guys have a history since Team USA junior. Maybe put Brassard with Nash + a player to be determined?

However I'd still say, overall the team was a little too small on aggregate last year, and we lost size and seemed a little worn down by LA, so other attributes we might still need to address is the willingness to taking the body here and there, to take a hit to make a play, to push back. Stamina and smarts to avoid getting pinned in one's own zone, and so on.

RangersFan
07-09-2014, 09:43 PM
Well, to be fair, that's all he had.

http://i.imgur.com/9ajA7.jpg

True. And i remember that game, Gaborik scored while i was half asleep

ThirtyONE
07-09-2014, 10:09 PM
I like Winnik but I don't think he's a fit here. I'm a little surprised how we've lost 5 players and signed one "replacement" at this point. I don't think you can assume Miller will replace Richards after what he did this season (an unimpressive 6 points), we can hope but I don't think it's realistic.

Maybe Kreider breaks out. I'd assume Stepan will have a better season. Hags too. But Nash scored a pathetic 39 points and only got worse as the season went along. So we have a lot of points to make up somewhere.

Pete
07-09-2014, 10:13 PM
I like Winnik but I don't think he's a fit here. I'm a little surprised how we've lost 5 players and signed one "replacement" at this point. I don't think you can assume Miller will replace Richards after what he did this season (an unimpressive 6 points), we can hope but I don't think it's realistic.

Maybe Kreider breaks out. I'd assume Stepan will have a better season. Hags too. But Nash scored a pathetic 39 points and only got worse as the season went along. So we have a lot of points to make up somewhere.

He was on a 33 goal pace (65 games), that'spretty much what you have to expect from him. The assists are never going to be there consistently, he isn't a playmaker.

ThirtyONE
07-09-2014, 10:29 PM
He was on a 33 goal pace (65 games), that'spretty much what you have to expect from him. The assists are never going to be there consistently, he isn't a playmaker.

The lockout shortened season he was on an 81pt average then took a shit in the playoffs. This year he scored 39 points and did even worse in the playoffs. If 1 and 1/2 seasons is enough time to make an assessment of where his stats are headed, and it may not be enough time but that's what we have to go off of, we're in trouble with Nash. I think there are a lot of points that need to be made up somewhere along the way. Hopefully someone steps up.

Cash or Czech?
07-09-2014, 11:27 PM
I'm pretty sure he is a RW and it does matter. Why bring in an UFA to play him on his off wing? Zuccarello and Nash both played LW before, has Moss played LW before?

:palm: so put Zucc on the left and move Moss onto the right. Rocket science.

RangersFan
07-09-2014, 11:48 PM
:palm: so put Zucc on the left and move Moss onto the right. Rocket science.

I prefer Zucc on the RW, he just scored 59 points there

Cash or Czech?
07-10-2014, 12:08 AM
I don't think it matters tbh. When offensive lines are producing and getting creative, they rarely stick to their positions. It's more for defensive coverage than anything.

CreaseCrusader91
07-10-2014, 12:16 AM
I don't think it matters tbh. When offensive lines are producing and getting creative, they rarely stick to their positions. It's more for defensive coverage than anything.
Right. Its not like all his offense came from right side and center and left were his kryptonite.

Valriera
07-10-2014, 08:01 AM
I have loved David Booth since I saw him play his first few games with FLA. Solid player and if he can be had for less than 1.7ish I think that's a great pickup.

momentum
07-10-2014, 08:48 AM
My vote goes for Winnik because of the similarity of his name to Katheryn Winnick playing LAGERTHA on Vikings

http://whoandwhom.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Katheryn-Winnick-profile-2.jpg

AmericanJesus
07-10-2014, 09:06 AM
My vote goes for Winnik because of the similarity of his name to Katheryn Winnick playing LAGERTHA on Vikings

http://whoandwhom.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Katheryn-Winnick-profile-2.jpg

Can't really argue with this logic.

AmericanJesus
07-10-2014, 09:24 AM
I might look at Tom Pyatt for a fourth line/13th forward role who can provide some versatility and should come cheap. Also, what about a flyer on Jordan Schroeder as a low risk, high reward type player? Not sure on AV's take on him. Maybe playing with MZA and MSL would help the small, but skilled forward and we could finally have a true smurf line. For defensive depth on the left, what about Keaton Ellerby? He reminds me a little bit of where Stralman was when we plucked him up.

Morphinity
07-10-2014, 09:27 AM
I might look at Tom Pyatt for a fourth line/13th forward role who can provide some versatility and should come cheap. Also, what about a flyer on Jordan Schroeder as a low risk, high reward type player? Not sure on AV's take on him. Maybe playing with MZA and MSL would help the small, but skilled forward and we could finally have a true smurf line. For defensive depth on the left, what about Keaton Ellerby? He reminds me a little bit of where Stralman was when we plucked him up.

You mean Ryan Gosling?

http://thepinkpuck.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/29158.jpg

http://img2.timeinc.net/people/i/2010/database/100531/ryan-gosling-300.jpg

AmericanJesus
07-10-2014, 09:33 AM
You mean Ryan Gosling?

http://thepinkpuck.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/29158.jpg

http://img2.timeinc.net/people/i/2010/database/100531/ryan-gosling-300.jpg

It doesn't hurt that he's dreamy. I'm sure you can spend time gazing into his eyes.

Morphinity
07-10-2014, 09:35 AM
It doesn't hurt that he's dreamy. I'm sure you can spend time gazing into his eyes.

I'd fucking melt if we brought back Taylor <3

Phil in Absentia
07-10-2014, 09:54 AM
I might look at Tom Pyatt for a fourth line/13th forward role who can provide some versatility and should come cheap. Also, what about a flyer on Jordan Schroeder as a low risk, high reward type player? Not sure on AV's take on him. Maybe playing with MZA and MSL would help the small, but skilled forward and we could finally have a true smurf line. For defensive depth on the left, what about Keaton Ellerby? He reminds me a little bit of where Stralman was when we plucked him up.

I'd stay away from anyone named Pyatt, and honestly, Schroeder too. I think there's a reason the Canucks walked away from him. His NHL game has really fallen from grace from what I've read.

Ellerby has some intrigue, but for what Pyatt or Schroeder might give you, I'm not sure why we waste a contract on a player like either of them with Ryan Bourque, Oscar Lindberg and J.T. Miller all under contract already, ya know?

AmericanJesus
07-10-2014, 10:10 AM
I'd fucking melt if we brought back Taylor <3

Oh shit, what if we signed....both?

AmericanJesus
07-10-2014, 10:13 AM
I'd stay away from anyone named Pyatt, and honestly, Schroeder too. I think there's a reason the Canucks walked away from him. His NHL game has really fallen from grace from what I've read.

Ellerby has some intrigue, but for what Pyatt or Schroeder might give you, I'm not sure why we waste a contract on a player like either of them with Ryan Bourque, Oscar Lindberg and J.T. Miller all under contract already, ya know?

My concern for some of the in-house names you mention is two fold. Playing time and waivers. Taking a flyer on a guy on his last look at an NHL spot and having them fail isn't as big a deal as having it happen to one of your own guys. And having a guy like Lindberg as a 13th forward hurts his development over playing every day in Hartford. And I'd have to check on waiver eligibility of some of these guys. We still have four forward slots to fill, presumably. 3rd line center, 3rd line LW fourth line RW and 13th forward.

Phil in Absentia
07-10-2014, 10:19 AM
My concern for some of the in-house names you mention is two fold. Playing time and waivers. Taking a flyer on a guy on his last look at an NHL spot and having them fail isn't as big a deal as having it happen to one of your own guys. And having a guy like Lindberg as a 13th forward hurts his development over playing every day in Hartford. And I'd have to check on waiver eligibility of some of these guys. We still have four forward slots to fill, presumably. 3rd line center, 3rd line LW fourth line RW and 13th forward.

Sure, and that's fair. I wouldn't want to put any of them into that kind of position either. You basically are talking about picking up a couple extra Justin Falk-type players, then?

We have a 7th D covered in Hunwick and/or Kotska, so really it's just a 13th forward we should be looking at. We did pick up Chris Mueller, so maybe him?

I have Miller penciled into the line-up already by default, with Bourque and Lindberg both having outside shots at making the team as a fourth-line wing.

momentum
07-10-2014, 12:27 PM
I'd fucking melt if we brought back Taylor <3

Let's make a dreamy eye line!!

momentum
07-10-2014, 12:32 PM
Sure, and that's fair. I wouldn't want to put any of them into that kind of position either. You basically are talking about picking up a couple extra Justin Falk-type players, then?

We have a 7th D covered in Hunwick and/or Kotska, so really it's just a 13th forward we should be looking at. We did pick up Chris Mueller, so maybe him?

I have Miller penciled into the line-up already by default, with Bourque and Lindberg both having outside shots at making the team as a fourth-line wing.

Yeah If it was up to me I'd be starting with Miller as 3rd line center position and Lindberg at fourth line. Extra forward should def be an vet or experience player having a hard time breaking the lineup or something, not a developing prospect.

Phil in Absentia
07-10-2014, 12:33 PM
Yeah If it was up to me I'd be starting with Miller as 3rd line center position and Lindberg at fourth line. Extra forward should def be an vet or experience player having a hard time breaking the lineup or something, not a developing prospect.

I'd have Moore at fourth, with Lindberg or whatever other rookie on his wing, though you could probably have Moore as that wing instead if Lindberg, or whatever rookie proves to be a better center option.

This all, of course, being things that will be determined in camp.

AmericanJesus
07-10-2014, 03:10 PM
Phil, did you have on Moss your list?

:tweet: Andy Strickland ‏@andystrickland - David Moss signs two-year deal to play in Switzerland....has 1 week out clause to sign with #NHL club. Played last season with #coyotes

Phil in Absentia
07-10-2014, 03:28 PM
Late on it. Right now it's Booth by miles, followed somewhat closely by Winnik, Moss and Stempniak, in that order.

Which means, in reality, it's Booth or I'd much rather just give Fast or any of our other mildly offensively talented young forwards a shot at making the team full-time out of camp.

RichieNextel305
07-10-2014, 03:58 PM
I know the concussions are a major issue, but I am a little shocked Booth is still available. I'd love for us to grab him. We need another Top-9 winger, and on a cheap contract for 1 year, I'd roll the dice he can stay healthy and score 15-20 goals.

RangersFan
07-10-2014, 04:14 PM
Give me Booth. He also played for AV

The Dude
07-10-2014, 07:54 PM
I keep Kreider with Nash. I think they can feed off of each other. Kreider can play the speed game or crash the net which opens up the ice for Nash to take the puck into the middle of the ice. I think Miller could be an ideal center for that combo. He seems to play best when he uses his speed. Maybe some grit develops with that combo.

I would take the risk of signing Ribeiro. Put him on a line centering STEPAN and MSL. I want to move Stepan to LW. He is a terrific scorer when he goes to the front of the net on the left side. Hes a great passer of course and has a god knack of leading passes on a break. His face off skills are not as good as this team needs it to be. Hes too hot and cold as a top 6 center for my taste. Maybe the wing can even him out. Part time wing even, as he can center a pk unit.

That moves Hagelin to the left side of Brassard and Zook. Line is smallish but a nice balance of skills. I think Hagelin (who btw was awesome in the playoffs, I must admit) if he goes balls out can open up the ice for these guys. Using his speed to attack the net or around the net with momentum, can free up Brassard to shoot on the fly, and have Zooks go at the net for gargage goals and what not.

No matter what I really want this team to find itself going to the middle of the ice with the puck. No more perimeter tick tack toe passing (where I feel Richards was a detriment to this team and the flow of the games). Go to the net with the puck. Drive inside, not outside. THAT is a must in my opinion.

RangersFan
07-10-2014, 08:14 PM
I keep Kreider with Nash. I think they can feed off of each other. Kreider can play the speed game or crash the net which opens up the ice for Nash to take the puck into the middle of the ice. I think Miller could be an ideal center for that combo. He seems to play best when he uses his speed. Maybe some grit develops with that combo.

I would take the risk of signing Ribeiro. Put him on a line centering STEPAN and MSL. I want to move Stepan to LW. He is a terrific scorer when he goes to the front of the net on the left side. Hes a great passer of course and has a god knack of leading passes on a break. His face off skills are not as good as this team needs it to be. Hes too hot and cold as a top 6 center for my taste. Maybe the wing can even him out. Part time wing even, as he can center a pk unit.

That moves Hagelin to the left side of Brassard and Zook. Line is smallish but a nice balance of skills. I think Hagelin (who btw was awesome in the playoffs, I must admit) if he goes balls out can open up the ice for these guys. Using his speed to attack the net or around the net with momentum, can free up Brassard to shoot on the fly, and have Zooks go at the net for gargage goals and what not.

No matter what I really want this team to find itself going to the middle of the ice with the puck. No more perimeter tick tack toe passing (where I feel Richards was a detriment to this team and the flow of the games). Go to the net with the puck. Drive inside, not outside. THAT is a must in my opinion.

Hagelin, Brass and Zucc together would be too soft imo, Gotta have a big body on each line, too much skill wouldnt work. The tic tac toe passing is our game now, we dont really grind it out and get dirty anymore so yeah.

Stepan at LW is interesting but i prefer him at center. Maybe play him at LW on the PP.

RichieNextel305
07-10-2014, 09:40 PM
I wouldn't hate maybe seeing Nash given a whirl on that line with Brassard and Zuccarello. But, the idea of Kreider there is more intriguing IMO. Speed, shot, gets into corners quick, hits. I think it'd be good.

Pete
07-10-2014, 10:05 PM
Kreider has been with Nash all year/playoffs and it didn't work. It's not just going to magically happen.

The Dude
07-10-2014, 10:35 PM
Kreider has been with Nash all year/playoffs and it didn't work. It's not just going to magically happen.

Meh. It worked for Kreider early on, and that line did generate a lot of chances in the playoffs..... And it is a different center with a different skill set. Maybe putting the quicker, rush orientated Miller changes up the dynamic of the line? Maybe they get more fast odd man rushes as opossed to the dumping and chasing that they wound up doing most of the time together last season?

RangersFan
07-10-2014, 10:49 PM
I would split Nash and Kreider up

momentum
07-11-2014, 08:37 AM
personally I think Kreider should be Poliouts replacement. He would fit the bill perfectly with skill and size and willingness to go to the net.

DiJock94
07-11-2014, 08:39 AM
personally I think Kreider should be Poliouts replacement. He would fit the bill perfectly with skill and size and willingness to go to the net.

Ditto

RichieNextel305
07-11-2014, 05:22 PM
Yup, I'm totally on board with Kreider going down to that line. Splits him and Nash up. And those 2 are really our X-Factors going into the year. I'm not worried about St. Louis, who is our other big weapon on the wing. The guy is a point scoring machine who will put up solid numbers even in his old age. Injuries aside, he will likely end the season leading this team in points IMO.

Nash, at the worst, will pour in 25 goals. The only issue will be consistency. Because if 15 of those goals come in 15 games and he only has 10 over the other 67, it's a problem. He needs to be much more consistent. And if he is, I see no reason why 30 goals is out of reach.

Same goes for Kreider. I fully believe he is ready to take that next step toward stardom next year. He has all of the tools with his speed, size, shot and strength. He could be a dominant force. He just needs to keep his head on shoulders and not stupid penalties. I see no reason why, with a full season now under his belt, Kreider can't come back and come atleast close to hitting 30 goals. I really don't see a reason why he can't.

RangersFan
07-11-2014, 06:38 PM
Yup, I'm totally on board with Kreider going down to that line. Splits him and Nash up. And those 2 are really our X-Factors going into the year. I'm not worried about St. Louis, who is our other big weapon on the wing. The guy is a point scoring machine who will put up solid numbers even in his old age. Injuries aside, he will likely end the season leading this team in points IMO.

Nash, at the worst, will pour in 25 goals. The only issue will be consistency. Because if 15 of those goals come in 15 games and he only has 10 over the other 67, it's a problem. He needs to be much more consistent. And if he is, I see no reason why 30 goals is out of reach.

Same goes for Kreider. I fully believe he is ready to take that next step toward stardom next year. He has all of the tools with his speed, size, shot and strength. He could be a dominant force. He just needs to keep his head on shoulders and not stupid penalties. I see no reason why, with a full season now under his belt, Kreider can't come back and come atleast close to hitting 30 goals. I really don't see a reason why he can't.


Nash has been a 30+ goal scorer almost every season in the NHL, what do you mean consistency will be an issue?

RichieNextel305
07-11-2014, 07:49 PM
I'm talking consistency through a season.

Last year, of his 26 goals, 12 game in..what? 20 games? That hot streak catapulted his total. He needs to be more consistent over 82 games. The hot streaks are nice when they're there, but when they're not, it's torture to watch a $7.8 Million dollar forward go 10-13 games without sniffing a goal.

Thats where I mean consistency. The totals at the end will be there. But his scoring needs to be more spread out. It can't be 2 stretches of 10 games each where he drops 10 goals, and then in the remaining 60+ games he has 10 goals.

momentum
07-11-2014, 08:56 PM
I'm talking consistency through a season.

Last year, of his 26 goals, 12 game in..what? 20 games? That hot streak catapulted his total. He needs to be more consistent over 82 games. The hot streaks are nice when they're there, but when they're not, it's torture to watch a $7.8 Million dollar forward go 10-13 games without sniffing a goal.

Thats where I mean consistency. The totals at the end will be there. But his scoring needs to be more spread out. It can't be 2 stretches of 10 games each where he drops 10 goals, and then in the remaining 60+ games he has 10 goals.

Well if it wins us games it doesn't actually matter how streaky he is, if he score 15 in 15 games and then 0 in 15 games and we win 12 of those 30 games it's just as much worth as if he scored 15 in 30 games scoring one every other game and we won 12 of those. What matters is the type of goals he scores, if it's game winners or goals that really matter rather than empty netters or goals scored when we're up 4 goals in a game and would win anyway.
If you have a guy who can take over games and almost win them singlehandedly scoring like a machine it doesn't matter if he's streaky. we will simply win and lose games in streaks instead of winning every other game and losing every other game.
Nash has been a lock for pretty much 30 goals or so in his career and I'd consider anything less than 30 in a full season a failure for him, personally I think he has the talent to be a 40 goal scorer though and it would be nice if he could step up to that level that he has flirted with a few times in his career.

RangersFan
07-11-2014, 11:30 PM
I'm talking consistency through a season.

Last year, of his 26 goals, 12 game in..what? 20 games? That hot streak catapulted his total. He needs to be more consistent over 82 games. The hot streaks are nice when they're there, but when they're not, it's torture to watch a $7.8 Million dollar forward go 10-13 games without sniffing a goal.

Thats where I mean consistency. The totals at the end will be there. But his scoring needs to be more spread out. It can't be 2 stretches of 10 games each where he drops 10 goals, and then in the remaining 60+ games he has 10 goals.

But it happens to every scorer in the NHL, what forward scores a goal every other game? Not including guys like Stamkos, Crosby, etc. Not sure why people keep worrying about his salary but ok. Scorers have slumps, it happens. If Nash scores 38 goals playing 82 games, it is still 38 goals no matter what, unless you wanna get into the stat game. Not even Gaborik scored every other game, he was streaky too

RangersFan
07-11-2014, 11:32 PM
Well if it wins us games it doesn't actually matter how streaky he is, if he score 15 in 15 games and then 0 in 15 games and we win 12 of those 30 games it's just as much worth as if he scored 15 in 30 games scoring one every other game and we won 12 of those. What matters is the type of goals he scores, if it's game winners or goals that really matter rather than empty netters or goals scored when we're up 4 goals in a game and would win anyway.
If you have a guy who can take over games and almost win them singlehandedly scoring like a machine it doesn't matter if he's streaky. we will simply win and lose games in streaks instead of winning every other game and losing every other game.
Nash has been a lock for pretty much 30 goals or so in his career and I'd consider anything less than 30 in a full season a failure for him, personally I think he has the talent to be a 40 goal scorer though and it would be nice if he could step up to that level that he has flirted with a few times in his career.


He didnt flirt with 40, he actually scored 40 twice. 03-04 was a rocket richard year for him. Unless thats what you meant and if so sorry for misunderstanding

Pete
07-12-2014, 08:30 AM
You have 2 players, both score 40 goals...

The first player scores 4 goals a game in 10 games but has 10-15 game stretches where he does absolutely nothing.

The other player never has a multi goal game but scores every other game, like clockwork.

Who would you rather have?

I know my answer.

RichieNextel305
07-12-2014, 09:45 AM
But it happens to every scorer in the NHL, what forward scores a goal every other game? Not including guys like Stamkos, Crosby, etc. Not sure why people keep worrying about his salary but ok. Scorers have slumps, it happens. If Nash scores 38 goals playing 82 games, it is still 38 goals no matter what, unless you wanna get into the stat game. Not even Gaborik scored every other game, he was streaky too

I get it happens to every scorer. But, there is streaky and then there is Nash. When he is hot, he is lava-like hot. When he is cold, offensively, he is invisible. There were far too many nights where he was a non-factor last year. He needs to be more consistent.

Scoring 15 goals in 15 games is nice. But scoring 0 goals in the next 20 doesn't do a whole lot. He needs to be more consistent.

RichieNextel305
07-12-2014, 09:46 AM
You have 2 players, both score 40 goals...

The first player scores 4 goals a game in 10 games but has 10-15 game stretches where he does absolutely nothing.

The other player never has a multi goal game but scores every other game, like clockwork.

Who would you rather have?

I know my answer.

I said it when we got Nash that, even with the glitz and glam of having a new toy, he was walking into a situation where Gaborik was still the teams best goal scorer. And it still rings true today. Gaborik is just a better offensive player. How anyone can debate that is beyond me.

RangersFan
07-12-2014, 09:48 AM
You have 2 players, both score 40 goals...

The first player scores 4 goals a game in 10 games but has 10-15 game stretches where he does absolutely nothing.

The other player never has a multi goal game but scores every other game, like clockwork.

Who would you rather have?

I know my answer.

Who scores every other game?

Pete
07-12-2014, 10:00 AM
Who scores every other game?

:rolleyes:

It's obviously meant to illustrate a point.

momentum
07-12-2014, 11:34 AM
You have 2 players, both score 40 goals...

The first player scores 4 goals a game in 10 games but has 10-15 game stretches where he does absolutely nothing.

The other player never has a multi goal game but scores every other game, like clockwork.

Who would you rather have?

I know my answer.

Ok but no one is THAT streaky, a more realistic scenario is: you have a 20 game stretch where one player scores maybe 1-2 goals a game for a 10 game stretch and then comes up relatively empty handed the next 10 games vs one player who pots a goal every other game for those 20 games.....i don't really think it matter in this more realistic scenario...one thing that could be a bonus for the streaky player though who scores in droves and then go empty is that you are very likely to win games where he scores 2 goals or more alone compared to the guy who just pots one here and there but more regularly...where one goal might not make enough difference all the time.
In the end I don't think it matter much unless there are EXTREME streaks and EXTREME down periods. A 30 goal scorer is a 30 goal scorer and I bet the value (wins for the team) to the team is about equal in the end regardless of in what regularity the goals come. Like I said the typ of goals matters more...if you have a guy with a knack of always scoring empty netters or who only scores when the team is in the lead...well that is a bigger problem.

Pete
07-12-2014, 11:35 AM
Ok but no one is THAT streaky, a more realistic scenario is: you have a 20 game stretch where one player scores maybe 1-2 goals a game for a 10 game stretch and then comes up relatively empty handed the next 10 games vs one player who pots a goal every other game for those 20 games.....i don't really think it matter in this more realistic scenario...one thing that could be a bonus for the streaky player though who scores in droves and then go empty is that you are very likely to win games where he scores 2 goals or more alone compared to the guy who just pots one here and there but more regularly...where one goal might not make enough difference all the time.
In the end I don't think it matter much unless there are EXTREME streaks and EXTREME down periods. A 30 goal scorer is a 30 goal scorer and I bet the value (wins for the team) to the team is about equal in the end regardless of in what regularity the goals come. Like I said the typ of goals matters more...if you have a guy with a knack of always scoring empty netters or who only scores when the team is in the lead...well that is a bigger problem.

Didn't he go 50 games without a power play goal?

momentum
07-12-2014, 11:37 AM
Didn't he go 50 games without a power play goal?

I see no off/on streakiness in this, I only see that he then sucks on the power play which is a problem in itself. and scoring 3 goals in 25 playoff games is atrocious.

Pete
07-12-2014, 11:48 AM
I see no off/on streakiness in this, I only see that he then sucks on the power play which is a problem in itself. and scoring 3 goals in 25 playoff games is atrocious.

I just don't really see how his play after the Olympics can be defended, honestly.

momentum
07-12-2014, 11:55 AM
I just don't really see how his play after the Olympics can be defended, honestly.

Who's defending it?

Pete
07-12-2014, 12:03 PM
Who's defending it?

Well, a few people are. Yourself included. I see a lot of your posts going like this "Yes, Nash wasn't great, but <reason why it's cool that he wasn't good>".

Just because your first sentence acknowledged the bad play doesn't mean a lot when you're following it by by defending it.

RangersFan
07-12-2014, 12:29 PM
:rolleyes:

It's obviously meant to illustrate a point.


so Nash is the first guy who scores 4 goals in 10 games then disappears 15 games and you want to replace him with the guy who scores every orher game but you dont know who it is? Who is a better scorer than Nash on our team?

Pete
07-12-2014, 12:38 PM
so Nash is the first guy who scores 4 goals in 10 games then disappears 15 games and you want to replace him with the guy who scores every orher game but you dont know who it is? Who is a better scorer than Nash on our team?

Again, it was a hypothetical example, too prove a point. The fact that you're asking for names does toy don't grasp that point.

RangersFan
07-12-2014, 12:39 PM
Again, it was a hypothetical example, too prove a point. The fact that you're asking for names does toy don't grasp that point.

You didnt a point

Pete
07-12-2014, 12:40 PM
You didnt a point

Wha?

RangersFan
07-12-2014, 12:42 PM
Wha?

You edited my post? I said prove, unless i forgot

Pete
07-12-2014, 12:42 PM
No, I did make a point. Other people seem to have gotten it.

Mentosman42
07-12-2014, 05:42 PM
so Nash is the first guy who scores 4 goals in 10 games then disappears 15 games and you want to replace him with the guy who scores every orher game but you dont know who it is? Who is a better scorer than Nash on our team?

:doh:

momentum
07-12-2014, 07:21 PM
Well, a few people are. Yourself included. I see a lot of your posts going like this "Yes, Nash wasn't great, but <reason why it's cool that he wasn't good>".

Just because your first sentence acknowledged the bad play doesn't mean a lot when you're following it by by defending it.

No you misunderstand me, I think Nash was horrible in the playoffs and had a basically pretty crappy season last year, even I, probably one of his bigger fans around here called him out these playoffs and even I would consider a trade if I thought we could get equal value back. When I was discussing streaky vs "consistant" players I wasn't really referring to Nash but was talking in a more general term about how I think a streaky player (not necessarily Nash) could be as valuable as a consistent player provided they scored the same amount in the end and the same type of goals.

Let me make this clear: Nash was HORRIBLE imo in these playoffs, 3 goals for him in 25 games is a JOKE. Also his season last year was very lackluster and he better come out flying this next year or I too would look to move him for anything that could help our team when it matters. IF he's not good THIS year I feel he truly has gone from being streaky a bit up and down to being CONSISTENTLY bad for several years and not worth holding on to at that point.

Right now though I feel it's our best bet to hold on to him and hope he get a lot of therapy or figure out by himself what he needs to change to become effective.

Pete
07-12-2014, 08:23 PM
No you misunderstand me, I think Nash was horrible in the playoffs and had a basically pretty crappy season last year, even I, probably one of his bigger fans around here called him out these playoffs and even I would consider a trade if I thought we could get equal value back. When I was discussing streaky vs "consistant" players I wasn't really referring to Nash but was talking in a more general term about how I think a streaky player (not necessarily Nash) could be as valuable as a consistent player provided they scored the same amount in the end and the same type of goals.

Let me make this clear: Nash was HORRIBLE imo in these playoffs, 3 goals for him in 25 games is a JOKE. Also his season last year was very lackluster and he better come out flying this next year or I too would look to move him for anything that could help our team when it matters. IF he's not good THIS year I feel he truly has gone from being streaky a bit up and down to being CONSISTENTLY bad for several years and not worth holding on to at that point.

Right now though I feel it's our best bet to hold on to him and hope he get a lot of therapy or figure out by himself what he needs to change to become effective.

Got it. See where you're coming from now.