PDA

View Full Version : [PuckDaddy] The Rangers' Decision-Making Questioned by Ryan Lambert



Pete
07-30-2014, 05:13 PM
Pretty strange to see Glen Sather's decision on Derick Brassard over the weekend.

The market these days is one of growth and so his getting $5 million isn't in and of itself shocking. He's a decent driver of possession and put up 45 points last season. In today's NHL, that's maybe worth about $5 million. In theory. If it can be sustained.

And so the fact that the Rangers seemed willing to enter into a one-year deal with Brassard as of last week was wholly reasonable. He has never been a legitimate No. 2 center before, and auditioning him, even if it's for $4.95 million — the award Brassard sought in arbitration — or less, at that kind of money seemed like a no-brainer. That the arbitrator would have almost certainly come down at a more affordable number for the 2014-15 season would have been a bonus.

What doesn't make a lot of sense is giving him more than that dollar figure not only for next season, but the four following that. Curious.

Again, Brassard has never been a No. 2 center on an ostensibly good team before. He's never faced the tougher competition that Brad Richards did last season. It's not nearly as hard to succeed when you're not being asked to put in the hardest minutes. Stands to reason. So that one season that Brassard just put up was probably worth $5 million, given the market. But what guarantee do the Rangers have that he's worth that going forward? His scoring rates have dropped in each of the last four seasons — it was ninth on the team last year, behind Richards and Ryan Callahan — and that should be a considerable cause for concern.

The obvious argument is that if Brassard improves in the No. 2 role from what he did as the No. 3, then $5 million might end up being a bargain. He turns 27 in September, though, and that doesn't exactly portend an increase in output.

But even beyond the fact that they're committing $25 million to a No. 3 center who had a borderline-No. 2 center output last season — all while letting actual good players on the team go in free agency — there's also the fact that the Rangers are committing an awful lot of money to what is shaping up to be a not-very-good team, and one that's going to be right up against the cap. They have $1.33 million left to spend, and only John Moore to re-sign. He'll come in below that number, but not by much more than that.

In terms of what they're paying guys, the Rangers are pretty top-heavy. Six guys are making more than $4.5 million each, and those guys include Dan Boyle (bad contract), Dan Girardi (awful contract) and Brassard (potentially bad contract). Rick Nash, Marty St. Louis, Ryan McDonagh? You pay those guys what they want. But the rest of this roster is makeshift. It's easy to have faith in Alain Vigneault because he's an excellent coach, but most of this roster doesn't look like it has any business being in the “best teams in the East” conversation.

No one, by the way, was happier with that Brassard contract than Derek Stepan. He is much better than Brassard, and when he saw his teammate pull $5 million for no readily apparent reason, he had to know he was about to pull in the neighborhood of $7 million plus. That doesn't yet create a cap crunch for the Rangers next season, probably, but it's further fuel for the potential fire if things go sideways for this team any time soon.

The Rangers just put a whole lot of eggs into what could already be a declining basket. That's definitely good news for the rest of the division.
http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nhl-puck-daddy/puck-daddy-power-rankings--the-ovechkin-problem--eric-staal--james-reimer-203437924.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

---

Let me preface this with — Lambert is a douchec*nt. But...There is a base logic here worth discussing. And I'll finish by saying I'd rather scoop my left eye out with a spork than pay Derek Stepan $7+ million.

Phil in Absentia
07-30-2014, 05:44 PM
We've been over this time and time again. CIRCUMSTANCES, Lambert. That's how players make what they make. CIRCUMSTANCES. As in, oh, I dunno, the concept of Unrestricted Free Agency looming? Derick Brassard was a 26-year old player in signing this contract, a year away from UFA status. So yes, not only does that allow the market to determine his contract value at $5M, but justifies it, even if he remains a 45/50 point center. That's the cost of business in the open market. I don't care if you don't like it. As a writer, you of all people should understand it, because every single time you take players in this league and compare them side-by-side, ignoring such an important distinction as age and contractual status, you do your readers a great injustice in failing to explain HOW those markets work, and HOW they determine values. That, or you are just lazy.

Stepan is simply not the same scenario, and the only way he'll be in that same scenario is when he turns 26 and has that same threat looming over the team he's playing for. In order for that to happen, he'd need to sign another two-year contract, or go to arbitration on his next contract, so he could put himself in the same situation Brassard was in, in potentially facing an unrestricted market at the age of 27. That said, the Rangers are more than likely buying UFA years from Stepan come next season regardless, because there's just no realistic scenario whereby they're going to bridge him again, and we've already discussed where he's likely to land ($6M~ per season), but the bottom line is that the contract situations for both of these players simply do not line up in a vacuum, so we cannot discuss and compare them as if that is the case. This style of debate needs to fucking stop, because whether or not you like the system DOES NOT MATTER. How you arrive at each new contract, however, absolutely does.

I don't question the Rangers' decision making here at all. There was no choice in the matter. There is no alternative. You aren't getting another 45-50 point center (at 27~) on the UFA market for less than $5M per season, there was no internal option knocking for an opportunity to climb the line-up ladder, and you aren't going to trade for one for that matter either. The team has no assets, as they've been borrowing from Peter to pay Paul in gunning for a championship. They've got, in all likelihood, one more shot at it. At that point, it could be Firesale City, USA for all we know. Cross that bridge when you get to it, because there's no going back at this point.

Pete
07-30-2014, 06:02 PM
We've been over this time and time again. CIRCUMSTANCES, Lambert. That's how players make what they make. CIRCUMSTANCES. As in, oh, I dunno, the concept of Unrestricted Free Agency looming? Derick Brassard was a 26-year old player in signing this contract, a year away from UFA status. So yes, not only does that allow the market to determine his contract value at $5M, but justifies it, even if he remains a 45/50 point center. That's the cost of business in the open market. I don't care if you don't like it. As a writer, you of all people should understand it, because every single time you take players in this league and compare them side-by-side, ignoring such an important distinction as age and contractual status, you do your readers a great injustice in failing to explain HOW those markets work, and HOW they determine values. That, or you are just lazy.

Stepan is simply not the same scenario, and the only way he'll be in that same scenario is when he turns 26 and has that same threat looming over the team he's playing for. In order for that to happen, he'd need to sign another two-year contract, or go to arbitration on his next contract, so he could put himself in the same situation Brassard was in, in potentially facing an unrestricted market at the age of 27. That said, the Rangers are more than likely buying UFA years from Stepan come next season regardless, because there's just no realistic scenario whereby they're going to bridge him again, and we've already discussed where he's likely to land ($6M~ per season), but the bottom line is that the contract situations for both of these players simply do not line up in a vacuum, so we cannot discuss and compare them as if that is the case. This style of debate needs to fucking stop, because whether or not you like the system DOES NOT MATTER. How you arrive at each new contract, however, absolutely does.

I don't question the Rangers' decision making here at all. There was no choice in the matter. There is no alternative. You aren't getting another 45-50 point center (at 27~) on the UFA market for less than $5M per season, there was no internal option knocking for an opportunity to climb the line-up ladder, and you aren't going to trade for one for that matter either. The team has no assets, as they've been borrowing from Peter to pay Paul in gunning for a championship. They've got, in all likelihood, one more shot at it. At that point, it could be Firesale City, USA for all we know. Cross that bridge when you get to it, because there's no going back at this point.First and foremost, I don't mind the Brassard contract. So let's establish that.

I think you're ignoring the context of his write-up.

What he's saying, and it could be argued...there is base-logic there, is that it's a curious decision to sign this player to this contract given who was allowed to leave via free agency, and who we have under contract.

He's not really lambasting Sather. He's saying it's another curious decision in a long line of curious decisions, and that the team looks a lot weaker for it. It can't really say I disagree.

Phil in Absentia
07-30-2014, 06:38 PM
The team doesn't look weaker having signed this player to this contract. They look weaker because they're in a shooting competition with one bullet left in the chamber of a gun they bought by pawning their house.

Brassard got a fair market extension with UFA breathing down the neck of the Rangers front office. What alternative did they have? Sign him for a year and face the same situation they did this last summer where he'd almost undoubtedly walk for more money to a team who could actually afford to pay him $5.5M+?

Pete
07-30-2014, 06:46 PM
You're ignoring the entire article and making it about Brassard. It's about Brassard in the context of this team, as a whole.

DiJock94
07-30-2014, 06:58 PM
He may be a dick but he brings up solid points.

Phil in Absentia
07-30-2014, 07:42 PM
You're ignoring the entire article and making it about Brassard. It's about Brassard in the context of this team, as a whole.

I'm not. I'm addressing both of his points at once. The first, and lesser, being the actual Brassard contract, and the second, and greater, being it being a microcosm of the greater problem facing the team. That was the point of the shooting competition analogy.

The Brassard deal had to happen because the Rangers, frankly, had no choice. Why? Because they've sold off all of their moderately priced talent (Anisimov), and have subsequently moved so many of their draft picks that their cupboards are all but bare on top of it.

We've actually talked about this in person before — essentially, they've got one more shot. This season. If it doesn't work, they won't just need to, but might be forced to sell off a number of pieces just to be able to sit at the table again in the near future. The house only lets you borrow so much before you have to pay.

AmericanJesus
07-30-2014, 09:30 PM
The problem with this article is that it's talking about the future after this year and the coming year as if it is the same thing. It's also implying that the end of last season and the beginning of this season are comparable, which they are not.

You can't talk about the players that walked and then imply that you would have signed Brassard for 1 year at $5M but not $5MX5 in order to mitigate that. Regardless of which of those two choices you make, this coming year's team looks exactly the same because the cap space for this coming season is the same. The same players would have walked anyway, the only difference would potentially be the season after next. That's a discussion to have, but then, that is a solitary discussion which doesn't relate to the rest of the article, except a loose tie in with Stepan's potential ask after next year.

As to the team not being as good as last year's team, we'll have to wait and see. To compare them fairly, you'd have to compare them at the end of free agency from last year to the same point this year. I'd answer that this team is better.

IN: St. Louis, D. Boyle, Kreider*, Klein, Stempniak, Lombardi, Glass, Talbot*
OUT: Callahan, Richards, Pouliot, Stralman, Boyle, Del Zotto, Dorsett, Pyatt, Biron

*I include Kreider and Talbot because they still had to earn spots on the team in camp and I don't include Miller, Fast, Lindberg, etc because we don't know if any of them make the team out of camp or further into the year.

We also have another year of experience for McDonagh, MZA, Stepan, Kreider, Hagelin and Moore not to mention the invaluable experience a playoff run like that gives to everyone. On the flip side, you could argue that Girardi, Hank and Nash are another year older, which could lead to some decline. Finally, the team has a training camp with AV where they're not just learning the basics, they're adding to what they learned last season. They're also not going to have such a horrendous training camp and opening schedule on the road.

G1000
07-30-2014, 10:53 PM
I think there's a lot of prognosticating and a lot of blowhardiness in the Lambert reasoning.

First off - is our roster really that much weaker than last year? That's the crux of the argument - that we're committing to a player who really isn't so great and that it's constricting our ability to build around that.

We've got Stepan, Brassard, Lombardi and Moore down the middle. Lombardi is a boom or bust guy - and really the only wildcard here. We know what Stepan, Brass and Moore are, and if Lombardi is the pre-injury Lombardi, we're pretty set there.We've got Nash, Kreider, Zucc and MSL as our top 6 wingers. Color me impressed. Nash has to be an upgrade over Pouliot for the Brass-Zucc pairing, and Kreider-Stepan-MSL should work just fine as well.

It's the bottom 6 wings we're concerned with right now. Hagelin's a rockstar there - as a third liner he's an overachiever. Stempniak should fit in well opposite him - heck, we're asking him to replace Benoit "5 million a year" Pouliot. So really, it's the fourth line wings we're unsure of. I seriously do not think that Brassard's contract or presence hampers our ability to run an effective fourth line.

Arguing Dan Boyle as a bad contract is a tough sell on me too. It's bad because it's a +35 - but that's about it. He'd have easily gotten more elsewhere, he probably could have gotten more term elsewhere, and he'd probably have had less success elsewhere. McD, Staal and Girardi are about as sure a thing as you can write up, and Klein and Moore are steady enough to be third pairing guys (and if not, we've got guys in Hartford who can step up)

I'm just not really seeing Lambert's logic here. Who got so much better in the offseason that the Rangers are suddenly "falling fast" with the moves they made?

Pete
07-30-2014, 11:50 PM
...To compare them fairly, you'd have to compare them at the end of free agency from last year to the same point this year...

Uh...Why? Since when do you not compare the team that ended last year with the team that starts this year?

AmericanJesus
07-31-2014, 07:51 AM
Uh...Why? Since when do you not compare the team that ended last year with the team that starts this year?

Contending team's almost always have bloated and unsustainable rosters at the end of the season because of the flexibility prorated cap space provides at the trade deadline. They don't have that same flexibility at the start of the next season. They do again, if they plan accordingly, at the next trade deadline.

Pete
07-31-2014, 08:31 AM
Contending team's almost always have bloated and unsustainable rosters at the end of the season because of the flexibility prorated cap space provides at the trade deadline. They don't have that same flexibility at the start of the next season. They do again, if they plan accordingly, at the next trade deadline.

That's some "creative" logic if I ever saw it.

Simply put, this current team is not as good on paper as the team that went to the finals.

LA kept their team mostly intact for 2 championships. Chicago also had mostly the same team after their lockout Cup. Boston moved Seguin because they wanted to, not because they had to.

Either way, you would never compare last October's team to this October's team because last October's team isn't relevant. That team wouldn't have went to the finals. Moot.

AmericanJesus
07-31-2014, 08:52 AM
That's some "creative" logic if I ever saw it.

Simply put, this current team is not as good on paper as the team that went to the finals.

LA kept their team mostly intact for 2 championships. Chicago also had mostly the same team after their lockout Cup. Boston moved Seguin because they wanted to, not because they had to.

Either way, you would never compare last October's team to this October's team because last October's team isn't relevant. That team wouldn't have went to the finals. Moot.

Yet the result of in season transitions did have that team go to the finals. So if you said in October that the Rangers would never compete that year for the Stanley Cup you would have been wrong. As to bringing up LA, where does LA go last year with out Gaborik, who wasn't on their team in October? Not to a Championship. They were near the bottom of the league in goal scoring in the regular season. Adding Gaborik pushed them up a full goal per game in the post season. So they most certainly did not keep the same team they had the year before. Teams that are successful year after year have a core they carry with them and figure out successful ways to replace those that move out along the way. The Rangers have the entire season to figure out who they've added that works, who fails and how to replace them, either from within or without.

So I don't really care about "on paper". "On paper" rarely works out. Some guys faulter, other guys surprisingly succeed. Winning or losing is about how you manage those two realities that "on paper" doesn't predict.

Pete
07-31-2014, 09:35 AM
Yet the result of in season transitions did have that team go to the finals. So if you said in October that the Rangers would never compete that year for the Stanley Cup you would have been wrong. As to bringing up LA, where does LA go last year with out Gaborik, who wasn't on their team in October? Not to a Championship. They were near the bottom of the league in goal scoring in the regular season. Adding Gaborik pushed them up a full goal per game in the post season. So they most certainly did not keep the same team they had the year before. Teams that are successful year after year have a core they carry with them and figure out successful ways to replace those that move out along the way. The Rangers have the entire season to figure out who they've added that works, who fails and how to replace them, either from within or without.

So I don't really care about "on paper". "On paper" rarely works out. Some guys faulter, other guys surprisingly succeed. Winning or losing is about how you manage those two realities that "on paper" doesn't predict.

Didn't LA have 18 or so players who played on both Cup teams? Didn't they largely retain their current team?

What about Chicago? Boston?

Will there be moves madein season? Probably. We don't know what those moves will be, and we don't know if they'll work. So in reality, all there is to talk about is what the team is right now.

You might not care about on paper, but in August that's all there is to discuss. If you don't care about on paper, don't have this discussion. We get the same thing every year.

There is nothing inaccurate about saying this current roster does not look as good as the roster that and the last season. I'm not clear what the issue is.

Phil in Absentia
07-31-2014, 09:47 AM
LA drafted that team. So did Chicago. It's why they were both able to retain so much of their "core". All this is is another variation of the Rangers do not draft well/draft poorly line.

Telling people they don't have to discuss it is fine, but it also, in the same breath, doesn't need to be brought up every other week. The facts speak for themselves, and things are probably going to get worse in the next five years considering the amount of draft picks they've traded away the last three seasons.

DiJock94
07-31-2014, 10:07 AM
Stempniak was a good replacement for Pouliot, Boyle should be an upgrade over Stralman, Fast on the fourth line is definitely not worse than dorsett. only things Sather swung and missed on was Tanner fuckin Glass and replacing Richards. but there should also be marked improvement from players like Kreider Stepan Miller Fast JMoore and maybe Hagelin so for the short view he did ok fielding a competitive team.

Pete
07-31-2014, 10:21 AM
LA drafted that team. So did Chicago. It's why they were both able to retain so much of their "core". All this is is another variation of the Rangers do not draft well/draft poorly line. I dint see what that has to do with the discussion.



Telling people they don't have to discuss it is fine, but it also, in the same breath, doesn't need to be brought up every other week. The facts speak for themselves, and things are probably going to get worse in the next five years considering the amount of draft picks they've traded away the last three seasons.
Again, what do you want me to tell you...It's August. If you have better topics to discuss than what the team looks like on paper, open a thread. :-)

Slobberknocker
07-31-2014, 10:21 AM
great thread. We needed to sign Brass, period. We've all seen the Center market this year. I think Brass was poorly developed in Columbus so I'm not sure I'm buying the argument that he cant be a no. 2 center. I think his game is still developing and I'd like to see him shoot a bit more this year.

on the Steps argument i'll worry about that when we get there. But put me down with Pete as I dont see Steps as a 7mln dollar a year guy unless his production goes way up this year.

the lack of talent in the system is a concern to me as well, as is the trading of draft picks, which is why i look into trading staal for some prospects at some point this year. I'm o.k. with bringing connor up and feel comfortable we have a bit of blueline depth in the system.

i don't see the boyle signing as terrible, as long as he stays healthy.

one thing i dont see anyone's thoughts on and that is how are we going to be on face offs? did any of the guys we brought in have knack for that? Losing Big Game Boyle hurts in that regard.

AmericanJesus
07-31-2014, 11:29 AM
Didn't LA have 18 or so players who played on both Cup teams? Didn't they largely retain their current team?

What about Chicago? Boston?

Will there be moves madein season? Probably. We don't know what those moves will be, and we don't know if they'll work. So in reality, all there is to talk about is what the team is right now.

You might not care about on paper, but in August that's all there is to discuss. If you don't care about on paper, don't have this discussion. We get the same thing every year.

There is nothing inaccurate about saying this current roster does not look as good as the roster that and the last season. I'm not clear what the issue is.

Chicago did have turnover after their first cup win. They were able to retool around their core and win again in short order. LA had a little turnover, most notably Penner and Scuderi. They too were able to replace those players cheaper and of course, caught lightning in a bottle with Gaborik. Had Gaborik not clicked perfectly, I doubt they'd have won the second cup. They might not have made it out of the first round. Whether Gaborik can sustain that, we'll see.

That said, you posted an article in the OP and asked for discussion on it's premises. That's what I did. The article basically said the Rangers won't be able to repeat their success because of the players that were let go along with the new contracts signed. I rejected that notion because I don't feel comparing a team from June to a potential team for the next season in July has any value. The reasons I don't think it does, as I have stated, is because with change comes opportunity for other players. Those other players may succeed or they may fail. There is also development of current players. And regression. Then, if you're trying to determine if a team can compete for a cup, that doesn't happen in October, it begins in May, after a trade deadline. Contending teams often improve their rosters for a playoff run with "rentals" who may not be there the following year.

You can talk about "the team on paper" if you want. I don't think that's what the article was trying to do. The article was trying to predict the actuality of the upcoming season.

Pete
07-31-2014, 12:02 PM
Chicago did have turnover after their first cup win. They were able to retool around their core and win again in short order. LA had a little turnover, most notably Penner and Scuderi. They too were able to replace those players cheaper and of course, caught lightning in a bottle with Gaborik. Had Gaborik not clicked perfectly, I doubt they'd have won the second cup. They might not have made it out of the first round. Whether Gaborik can sustain that, we'll see.

That said, you posted an article in the OP and asked for discussion on it's premises. That's what I did. The article basically said the Rangers won't be able to repeat their success because of the players that were let go along with the new contracts signed. I rejected that notion because I don't feel comparing a team from June to a potential team for the next season in July has any value. The reasons I don't think it does, as I have stated, is because with change comes opportunity for other players. Those other players may succeed or they may fail. There is also development of current players. And regression. Then, if you're trying to determine if a team can compete for a cup, that doesn't happen in October, it begins in May, after a trade deadline. Contending teams often improve their rosters for a playoff run with "rentals" who may not be there the following year.

You can talk about "the team on paper" if you want. I don't think that's what the article was trying to do. The article was trying to predict the actuality of the upcoming season.

Specifically what I bolded...

The Rangers are committing an awful lot of money to what is shaping up to be a not-very-good team...

...most of this roster doesn't look like it has any business being in the “best teams in the East” conversation.

He's clearly stating that the team in in flux ("shaping up") and he's qualifying it saying the team "doesn't look" like it has any business being talked about as the best in the East...And it doesn't look that way right now.

I think you're trying to have an argument that you want to have and not really basing it on what was written in the article.

Phil in Absentia
07-31-2014, 12:11 PM
OK, so we agree, the team on paper doesn't look as good as the team on paper looked in the playoffs/Final last season. OK, well they have an entire season and a trade deadline to remedy that.

That's why the games are played. It's why champions aren't crowned, even if they're anointed by writers, in October, let alone August.

Pete
07-31-2014, 12:13 PM
OK, so we agree, the team on paper doesn't look as good as the team on paper looked in the playoffs/Final last season. OK, well they have an entire season and a trade deadline to remedy that.

That's why the games are played. It's why champions aren't crowned, even if they're anointed by writers, in October, let alone August.

Obviously, but as I keep saying, it's August. So what else is there to discuss other than how the team looks on paper?

Phil in Absentia
07-31-2014, 12:28 PM
Obviously, but as I keep saying, it's August. So what else is there to discuss other than how the team looks on paper?

I mean, I dunno? I know what you are saying, but I just don't really care for this type of negativity before the season even starts.

"They're not as good!" OK, well that's a rather bleak "discussion" to have. Even if we agree, what's the point? Just to point out how negative things might be? I'd rather have a discussion on what could produce the best results to start the year, even if it's not as good as what produced the best results at the end of last season, ya know? Maybe they're not as good as they were at the end of last season, but why does that mean they can't be by the end of this season? Last years' team didn't look great on paper in October either, and by the end of the year they had MSL, Carcillo, Díaz and Klein in place of Callahan and Del Zotto.

So instead of "Ugh, we have Dan Boyle instead of Anton Strålman! We're so bad!", why can't we have a better discussion on how the Rangers' defense may need to re-think it's approach not having as strong of a grouping in their own end this season? Instead of "Tanner Glass sucks", it should be "Glass isn't that great of a possession player, so the fourth line will really be relying on a strong campaign from Moore and whoever ends up on the other flank", etc.

Slobberknocker
07-31-2014, 12:32 PM
do we really look so bad on paper right now? i care to view this as glass half full. sure we lost some key cogs but i think we can make up the scoring with who we brought in and who develops more this year. i dont think we took that bad a hit on the blue line either. yes strals was a good player but its not like we lost ray bourque back there.

most importantly we still have Hank and one hell of a back up in Cam.

plus who else really improved here? ill give u columbus but do who else. devils look no better, isles? flyers? caps? Habs?

Phil in Absentia
07-31-2014, 12:39 PM
do we really look so bad on paper right now? i care to view this as glass half full. sure we lost some key cogs but i think we can make up the scoring with who we brought in and who develops more this year. i dont think we took that bad a hit on the blue line either. yes strals was a good player but its not like we lost ray bourque back there.

most importantly we still have Hank and one hell of a back up in Cam.

plus who else really improved here? ill give u columbus but do who else. devils look no better, isles? flyers? caps? Habs?

In the East? Tampa, I'd say. Not sure many other teams, if any.

AmericanJesus
07-31-2014, 12:44 PM
Specifically what I bolded...

The Rangers are committing an awful lot of money to what is shaping up to be a not-very-good team...

...most of this roster doesn't look like it has any business being in the “best teams in the East” conversation.

He's clearly stating that the team in in flux ("shaping up") and he's qualifying it saying the team "doesn't look" like it has any business being talked about as the best in the East...And it doesn't look that way right now.

I think you're trying to have an argument that you want to have and not really basing it on what was written in the article.

Ok, so he's a poor writer afraid to take a stance. This is the exact thing I don't like about Brooks. He qualifies his writing all the time. It's an easy out and a way to not have to have an actual opinion. So if the Rangers dominate the East with much the same lineup as they have now, then win a cup, this dick bag can go back and say, "well, on paper...".

AmericanJesus
07-31-2014, 12:45 PM
In the East? Tampa, I'd say. Not sure many other teams, if any.

Right. And we've seen teams on paper like Tampa, that have had a lot of turnover, struggle.

Phil in Absentia
07-31-2014, 12:50 PM
Right. And we've seen teams on paper like Tampa, that have had a lot of turnover, struggle.

I mean, Tampa to me still isn't that scary either. Yes, Stamkos and Bishop, but beyond that they still look to me, at least on paper, like a relatively average team. Young and talented, but no younger and more talented than any other club, really. The East looks like another crap shoot this year for sure, IMO.

AmericanJesus
07-31-2014, 12:50 PM
Obviously, but as I keep saying, it's August. So what else is there to discuss other than how the team looks on paper?

I get that, and I wasn't disagreeing that on paper the team we could put together now looks worse than the team that was in game 5 of the Stanley Cup Final. I just don't see how that has much bearing on the success of the the season or whether the moves made were correct so far. What determines if the moves were correct are what the available options were. As I said, if you're just looking at the coming season, Brassard at 1 year or 5 years at $5M is the exact same thing. It still limits the other moves we could make. The author provides no real alternative path the team could have taken. So what, in his opinion, should Sather have done? Sign Brassard at 1 year, then watch him walk for $6M+ as a UFA next season. Fine, but that doesn't impact this coming year.

AmericanJesus
07-31-2014, 12:51 PM
I mean, Tampa to me still isn't that scary either. Yes, Stamkos and Bishop, but beyond that they still look to me, at least on paper, like a relatively average team. Young and talented, but no younger and more talented than any other club, really. The East looks like another crap shoot this year for sure, IMO.

Well, Pitt and Boston will be up near the top. Outside of that, yeah, it's a crap shoot. It depends on what changes click, which players bounce back, what coaching changes do for teams, etc.

Pete
07-31-2014, 12:54 PM
I mean, I dunno? I know what you are saying, but I just don't really care for this type of negativity before the season even starts.

"They're not as good!" OK, well that's a rather bleak "discussion" to have. Even if we agree, what's the point? Just to point out how negative things might be? I'd rather have a discussion on what could produce the best results to start the year, even if it's not as good as what produced the best results at the end of last season, ya know? Maybe they're not as good as they were at the end of last season, but why does that mean they can't be by the end of this season? Last years' team didn't look great on paper in October either, and by the end of the year they had MSL, Carcillo, Díaz and Klein in place of Callahan and Del Zotto.

So instead of "Ugh, we have Dan Boyle instead of Anton Strålman! We're so bad!", why can't we have a better discussion on how the Rangers' defense may need to re-think it's approach not having as strong of a grouping in their own end this season? Instead of "Tanner Glass sucks", it should be "Glass isn't that great of a possession player, so the fourth line will really be relying on a strong campaign from Moore and whoever ends up on the other flank", etc.There's no reason we can't other than the fact that when it's brought up that the team doesn't look good on paper, the immediate reply is "fuck on paper". Maybe folks should help foster a conversation rather than just shit on the writer of the article and say "It's only August". We have the power to shape the debate, but the thing that we don't have the power to change is that it's August. So like I always say, unless you're planning on shutting the place down until camp, this is what you get in August. Every. Year.


Ok, so he's a poor writer afraid to take a stance. This is the exact thing I don't like about Brooks. He qualifies his writing all the time. It's an easy out and a way to not have to have an actual opinion. So if the Rangers dominate the East with much the same lineup as they have now, then win a cup, this dick bag can go back and say, "well, on paper...".I don't know or care whether or not he's a poor writer, but he's stating the obvious. That, IMO, doesn't make him scared to take a stance. You want to be mad at someone for saying the team sucks, but he never said that. He said that right now, on paper, the team doesn't look good. There's really no reply to that, because it's August and the won't play any games for 6 more weeks, so you're resorting to just saying he can go fuck himself because he questioned some questionable moves. I don't really see the point of that.

Phil in Absentia
07-31-2014, 12:55 PM
Well, Pitt and Boston will be up near the top. Outside of that, yeah, it's a crap shoot. It depends on what changes click, which players bounce back, what coaching changes do for teams, etc.

But all the good teams are returning by default, because of pieces they already had. No one got better IMO outside of Tampa, and even they I'd say only marginally increased their potency. In what world does the signing of a second-pairing 15-point defender and a fourth-line center qualify as substantial upgrade, ya know?

Had they been in on game-breakers, and picked up one or two, I'd be a lot more comfortable pushing them up the proverbial ladder.

When push comes to shove, the only teams who really got better were out West. The Avs and Stars. Everyone else I'd say did "OK". No one really "wins" free agency this year, because frankly, there was nothing substantial or ground-breaking to win.

Pete
07-31-2014, 12:58 PM
I get that, and I wasn't disagreeing that on paper the team we could put together now looks worse than the team that was in game 5 of the Stanley Cup Final. I just don't see how that has much bearing on the success of the the season or whether the moves made were correct so far. What determines if the moves were correct are what the available options were. As I said, if you're just looking at the coming season, Brassard at 1 year or 5 years at $5M is the exact same thing. It still limits the other moves we could make. The author provides no real alternative path the team could have taken. So what, in his opinion, should Sather have done? Sign Brassard at 1 year, then watch him walk for $6M+ as a UFA next season. Fine, but that doesn't impact this coming year.

Yes, that is our opinion, but that doesn't mean we are right and that there is no other possible logic. There are other ways (ways we don't agree with) that Brassard could have been handled, they just don't make sense, to us. That doesn't mean they aren't viable.

Pete
07-31-2014, 01:02 PM
But all the good teams are returning by default, because of pieces they already had. No one got better IMO outside of Tampa, and even they I'd say only marginally increased their potency. In what world does the signing of a second-pairing 15-point defender and a fourth-line center qualify as substantial upgrade, ya know?

Had they been in on game-breakers, and picked up one or two, I'd be a lot more comfortable pushing them up the proverbial ladder.

When push comes to shove, the only teams who really got better were out West. The Avs and Stars. Everyone else I'd say did "OK". No one really "wins" free agency this year, because frankly, there was nothing substantial or ground-breaking to win.

Full year of Stamkos.
Another year of experience for Palat.
Another year of experience for Johnson.
Another year of experience for Connolly.
Another year of experience for Kucherov.
Another year of experience for Hedman.

Those are the upgrades.

AmericanJesus
07-31-2014, 01:16 PM
I don't know or care whether or not he's a poor writer, but he's stating the obvious. That, IMO, doesn't make him scared to take a stance. You want to be mad at someone for saying the team sucks, but he never said that. He said that right now, on paper, the team doesn't look good. There's really no reply to that, because it's August and the won't play any games for 6 more weeks, so you're resorting to just saying he can go fuck himself because he questioned some questionable moves. I don't really see the point of that.

Yes, he's stating the obvious, that the vast majority of the top teams in the league will lose some UFAs and have to try to replace them. He also made a blanket statement that we might be a bad team, with out explaining why, other than Derek Brassard. He didn't mention the new players we brought in and how they'll fail to replace who we lost. Oh yeah, he said "Boyle's a bad contract" and so is Dan Girardi. He didn't even bother to explain why he thought that.

It's be the equivalent of me saying, "Ryan Lambert is a bad writer and he gets paid too much." Bad why? Paid to much in comparison to who?

AmericanJesus
07-31-2014, 01:19 PM
Yes, that is our opinion, but that doesn't mean we are right and that there is no other possible logic. There are other ways (ways we don't agree with) that Brassard could have been handled, they just don't make sense, to us. That doesn't mean they aren't viable.

Well, they might be viable. But then if you're writing an article, bring up the alternatives. Don't just say, "the Rangers gonna suck this year because they made some questionable signings". Explain what those signings are, why they are questionable, what fair signings would be and what the alternative is.

Phil in Absentia
07-31-2014, 01:19 PM
Full year of Stamkos.
Another year of experience for Palat.
Another year of experience for Johnson.
Another year of experience for Connolly.
Another year of experience for Kucherov.
Another year of experience for Hedman.

Those are the upgrades.

No, those are progressions. They already had those players in house, in the same respect the Rangers already have Kreider, Stepan, McDonagh, Zuccarello, Hagelin and John Moore. All of whom have another year of experience too. Stanley Cup Final experience. That's a helluva lot more valuable than the experience of getting tossed out on your ass in the first round in four straight games.

When we talk about "upgrading", we're talking about the moves that happen outside of what you already had — trade, free agency and/or call-ups.

Who upgraded in the East?

Pete
07-31-2014, 01:25 PM
Yes, he's stating the obvious, that the vast majority of the top teams in the league will lose some UFAs and have to try to replace them. He also made a blanket statement that we might be a bad team, with out explaining why, other than Derek Brassard. He didn't mention the new players we brought in and how they'll fail to replace who we lost. Oh yeah, he said "Boyle's a bad contract" and so is Dan Girardi. He didn't even bother to explain why he thought that.

It's be the equivalent of me saying, "Ryan Lambert is a bad writer and he gets paid too much." Bad why? Paid to much in comparison to who?

Because, for the 100th time, the piece is questioning BRASSARD's contract in the context of the entire team. The piece isn't about why/will the Rangers be bad. That's not the focus of his article, but it's what you're focusing on.

I don't know, sounds to me like you expect too much from writers. You've had issue with every single beat writer at one point, and you seem to take exceptional issue with any piece criticizing the team.

This isn't NYT or WSJ piece. It's a fuckin blog. He's paid to give his opinion. For the record, I think he's an ass, and I think he's wrong, but I'm not going to act is if there's zero base logic there.

Pete
07-31-2014, 01:25 PM
No, those are progressions. They already had those players in house, in the same respect the Rangers already have Kreider, Stepan, McDonagh, Zuccarello, Hagelin and John Moore. All of whom have another year of experience too. Stanley Cup Final experience. That's a helluva lot more valuable than the experience of getting tossed out on your ass in the first round in four straight games.

When we talk about "upgrading", we're talking about the moves that happen outside of what you already had — trade, free agency and/or call-ups.

Who upgraded in the East?

OK, semantics, those are the reasons why Tampa will be a better team next year. Call it whatever you want to call it.

Phil in Absentia
07-31-2014, 01:27 PM
OK, semantics, those are the reasons why Tampa will be a better team next year. Call it whatever you want to call it.

Then Tampa would have been a better team regardless. It might be semantics, but it's important to note. In the same way Dallas wouldn't look half as good as they do right now if they didn't trade for Spezza and immediately sign his running mate in Hemsky. Their team went from "pretty decent" to "pretty good" in a few quick moments, and when those guys were combined with what they already had, they upgraded the team.

Pete
07-31-2014, 01:31 PM
Then Tampa would have been a better team regardless. It might be semantics, but it's important to note. In the same way Dallas wouldn't look half as good as they do right now if they didn't trade for Spezza and immediately sign his running mate in Hemsky. Their team went from "pretty decent" to "pretty good" in a few quick moments, and when those guys were combined with what they already had, they upgraded the team.

When you're discussing "what teams will be 'better' in the East", you can't say Tampa didn't do anything but add a 4th line center and 2nd pairing D and not take into account they have 4-5 guys who are probably going to be better players this year than last year.

Slobberknocker
07-31-2014, 01:33 PM
Outside of Tanner Glass I dont think the Rangers did that bad in the FA market this year. i think Edmonton will regret giving that type of money to Poulliot. There was no way we could have competed there anyway.

i dont see how were worse off. MSL gets a full camp and we can see who he will click with. Richards while becoming the defacto captain down the stretch also faltered offensively as well.

bottom line that the writer totally overlooks however is the fact that the stable coaching environment and goaltending this team possesses remains top notch.

Phil in Absentia
07-31-2014, 01:37 PM
Outside of Tanner Glass I dont think the Rangers did that bad in the FA market this year. i think Edmonton will regret giving that type of money to Poulliot. There was no way we could have competed there anyway.

i dont see how were worse off. MSL gets a full camp and we can see who he will click with. Richards while becoming the defacto captain down the stretch also faltered offensively as well.

bottom line that the writer totally overlooks however is the fact that the stable coaching environment and goaltending this team possesses remains top notch.

And while they may not be superstars, the young talent they do have will continue to improve -- namely Kreider, Stepan and John Moore.

G1000
07-31-2014, 01:43 PM
When you're discussing "what teams will be 'better' in the East", you can't say Tampa didn't do anything but add a 4th line center and 2nd pairing D and not take into account they have 4-5 guys who are probably going to be better players this year than last year.

Every team has those guys, though. Are we not expecting Stepan, Kreider, Zucc and Moore to be better? Maybe even Hagelin too? Nash on a bounceback?

I don't get why this argument doesn't work for the Rangers but works for the Lightning.

Pete
07-31-2014, 01:46 PM
Every team has those guys, though. Are we not expecting Stepan, Kreider, Zucc and Moore to be better? Maybe even Hagelin too? Nash on a bounceback?

I don't get why this argument doesn't work for the Rangers but works for the Lightning.

Where did anyone say it didn't work for the Rangers?

I mean personally I don't expect more points out of Zuke (aside from the game she missed due to injury), Hagelin or Moore. But those are individual cases.

G1000
07-31-2014, 01:49 PM
Where did anyone say it didn't work for the Rangers?

I mean personally I don't expect more points out of Zuke (aside from the game she missed due to injury), Hagelin or Moore. But those are individual cases.

It almost sounds as if we're acting like Rangers players don't get progression and thus the Lightning can be considered that much better by adding two guys who have proven nothing outside of NY. EVERY team gets that progression we're speaking of with the Lightning. Some get a bit more of it, for sure.

FWIW, who's to say that Palat/Johnson/Kucherov don't sophomore slump it?

Pete
07-31-2014, 01:55 PM
It almost sounds as if we're acting like Rangers players don't get progression and thus the Lightning can be considered that much better by adding two guys who have proven nothing outside of NY. EVERY team gets that progression we're speaking of with the Lightning. Some get a bit more of it, for sure.

FWIW, who's to say that Palat/Johnson/Kucherov don't sophomore slump it?I'm not really sure why you're making this into a Rangers vs. Lightning thing. Phil said that he doesn't see how TBL got "that much" better by "just" adding a 4th line center and 2nd pairing D. I simply pointed out they will be better because they have players in key roles with room for growth.

Yes, every team gets progression, but there's a difference between players in key roles with high ceilings getting better (Palat) and Jesper Fast getting better.

And maybe they do have slumps, but that's not the discussion. We're talking about who got better on paper. You don't expect sophomore slumps.

AmericanJesus
07-31-2014, 02:42 PM
Because, for the 100th time, the piece is questioning BRASSARD's contract in the context of the entire team. The piece isn't about why/will the Rangers be bad. That's not the focus of his article, but it's what you're focusing on.

I don't know, sounds to me like you expect too much from writers. You've had issue with every single beat writer at one point, and you seem to take exceptional issue with any piece criticizing the team.

This isn't NYT or WSJ piece. It's a fuckin blog. He's paid to give his opinion. For the record, I think he's an ass, and I think he's wrong, but I'm not going to act is if there's zero base logic there.

What other option did he present besides signing Brassard to a 1 year deal for virtually the same figure which leaves us in the same spot for next year? How would me make the team better?

I don't get angry at every beat writer or when ever the team gets criticized. I point out when writers do a poor job of writing, or if they are basically trolling a team's fans for eyeballs.

It's easy to sit around before the season, take any deal any team offered this off season, call it a bad deal and say you think the team will be bad. Heck, you could criticize LA for re-signing Gaborik for the deal he got and talk about how the team held on by their finger tips in each of the first three rounds, then had some lucky breaks in 3 OT's in the finals, haven't improved their team and that you can't expect a team to do that again. Easy to claim, impossible to dispute when you don't present any other solution or alternative game plan.

Pete
07-31-2014, 02:48 PM
What other option did he present besides signing Brassard to a 1 year deal for virtually the same figure which leaves us in the same spot for next year? How would me make the team better?

I don't get angry at every beat writer or when ever the team gets criticized. I point out when writers do a poor job of writing, or if they are basically trolling a team's fans for eyeballs.

It's easy to sit around before the season, take any deal any team offered this off season, call it a bad deal and say you think the team will be bad. Heck, you could criticize LA for re-signing Gaborik for the deal he got and talk about how the team held on by their finger tips in each of the first three rounds, then had some lucky breaks in 3 OT's in the finals, haven't improved their team and that you can't expect a team to do that again. Easy to claim, impossible to dispute when you don't present any other solution or alternative game plan.
It's Puck Daddy. Do you NOT think those other articles are out there?

AmericanJesus
07-31-2014, 03:00 PM
It's Puck Daddy. Do you NOT think those other articles are out there?

Oh, I bet they are. I think that the article confuses the discussion you wanted to have, though. For me there are a number of questions now:

1) Is this team a cup contender as is?
2) Does this team have the assets to improve if not?
3) Were any of the signings made so far this season bad for the team/were there any better options?

I think the answers are no, yes but barely and not significantly.

So I think as Phil has said before, we probably have one more bullet. Given the past moves, I can't see not using it. That means probably losing some more youth for win now options along the way this season. It might mean a bigger shake up deal or an attempt to get a true first line center. I said in the Brassard thread, I wasn't convinced we should go long term with him. I thought it was possible to sign him for one year and re-assess. Because I think he's the type of player that might keep us from being terrible in a rebuild. And there is nothing worse in this league than not being terrible during a rebuild. It turns a 2-3 year process into a 4-5 year or more process.

fletch
07-31-2014, 04:15 PM
Ignoring the article's tone (written like an asshole) and looking at the crux of the article. This is how Sather does business. He buys talent (like MSL, Nash, etc) because the Rangers haven't developed enough top 6 contributors (like Stepan). When you acquire talent, you are going to pay premium money for UFAs, or inherit contracts that you can't negotiate. And Sather has consistently committed to resigning key members of the team at market prices (you can argue about Callahan but I continue to maintain that Callahan's performance will fall off a cliff in the next few years and a new contract for him would have been crippling). The salary cap didn't rise as much as we hoped and circumstances forced us to get younger in the third and fourth lines after letting some veteran experience go. I think the youth will be key in energizing the vets and gearing up for a long grind (shorter off-season) to get back into the playoffs ready for a run.

The article does a good job at picking out 'bad contracts' out of the context that they were signed. I could say that based on Nash's playoff performances we're paying him too much money. It sounds good, but ignores the context in which we got him from Columbus, and the logic of the move at the time.

ThirtyONE
08-01-2014, 12:59 AM
Meh. I'll wait till the season starts to talk about whether or not Brassard at 5M is a good deal or not. The fact that his deal DECREASES over time instead of increases is what I really like. If he doesn't live up to it, then so what? You trade him and it doesn't matter.

momentum
08-01-2014, 06:25 AM
As probably already mentioned in this thread I think this is a clear case of the writer not taking into account that we bought out several ufa years from Brassard, if you don't think about that it might seem silly to offer a guy 3.9 mil one day while the guy asks for 4.9 and then the next day go out and pay him 5 mil a year for 5 years.
Brassard is a very talented player who I think has a real potential to increase his number with more responsibility and minutes than he has got so far in his career, when you combined that with the fact that he slots as our 2nd line center I don't think 5 mil is out of line whatsoever. It's RIGHT where he should be IMO.
5.5 mil for him and it starts feeling a bit bloated, 4.5 or lower and it feels as an underpayment in todays league where players like Callahan gets 5,8 mil etc.

Also if the cap rises and IF Brassard increases his numbers a bit the way I personally at least think he's capable of, this contract will not be spot on like it is now, it will become a bargain.

momentum
08-01-2014, 06:26 AM
Meh. I'll wait till the season starts to talk about whether or not Brassard at 5M is a good deal or not. The fact that his deal DECREASES over time instead of increases is what I really like. If he doesn't live up to it, then so what? You trade him and it doesn't matter.

Yeah this is a very tradable contract so I don't see any problems with it whatsoever

AmericanJesus
08-01-2014, 08:46 AM
Yeah this is a very tradable contract so I don't see any problems with it whatsoever

I think it's a little over payment now, spot on in a couple years and a slight bargain in the last few years. Coupled with the salary structure, it's easily tradable down the line. To me, that makes it a fair deal for both sides.

Myusername
08-01-2014, 09:06 AM
I think the Brassard deal is pretty fair. He probably won't ever score more than 60 points, but this is a guy that steps up at the right times. Also, he has very good chemistry with Zuccarello already... that can't be understated. Chemistry is hard to come by

As for this article, I can't really take these type of blowhard writers seriously. Attention is more important to them than objectiveness. Yes he makes some valid points if you look past his obnoxiousness, but this is another case of someone only considering the potential downsides to everything and not the upsides.

Also, as pedestrian as Girardi was in the postseason, there is no way his contract is "awful". Give me a break.

Pete
08-01-2014, 09:16 AM
Girardi's contract isn't awful, but is still pretty bad.

Girardi, IMO, was absolutely terrible in the Final.

AmericanJesus
08-01-2014, 09:23 AM
Girardi's contract isn't awful, but is still pretty bad.

Girardi, IMO, was absolutely terrible in the Final.

Girardi was terrible in the final. No question. But whether the contract is bad will depend on how he plays going forward. If he maintains his level from the past few years over the rest of the deal, it will be a good contract. His production in the post season and the regular season match (.30 PPG approx) and his minutes, as expected, tick up in the post season. I still think his contract and even Brassard's is just sticker shock at the new NHL reality.

Stralman got similar term to Girardi for $4.5M ($1M less per year). He's never been the minutes eater Girardi has been consistently for years and he's also never produced as well as Girardi has (not pretty offense, but wrist shots from the point that end up in the net are still goals). I think these are just what UFA defenders in their range get these days. Same as 2nd line centers get what Brassard just got.

Pete
08-01-2014, 09:34 AM
Girardi was terrible in the final. No question. But whether the contract is bad will depend on how he plays going forward. If he maintains his level from the past few years over the rest of the deal, it will be a good contract. His production in the post season and the regular season match (.30 PPG approx) and his minutes, as expected, tick up in the post season. I still think his contract and even Brassard's is just sticker shock at the new NHL reality.

Stralman got similar term to Girardi for $4.5M ($1M less per year). He's never been the minutes eater Girardi has been consistently for years and he's also never produced as well as Girardi has (not pretty offense, but wrist shots from the point that end up in the net are still goals). I think these are just what UFA defenders in their range get these days. Same as 2nd line centers get what Brassard just got.

G is older and more beat up than Stralman. Plus the no trade, plus the fact that we might lose Staal because we paid G...again, I'll say it all day...You don't need to pay McDs partner that much. Especially when the fancy stats support an argument I've made previously, G is pretty bad away from McD and may actually hold McD back, in some ways.

AmericanJesus
08-01-2014, 09:45 AM
G is older and more beat up than Stralman. Plus the no trade, plus the fact that we might lose Staal because we paid G...again, I'll say it all day...You don't need to pay McDs partner that much. Especially when the fancy stats support an argument I've made previously, G is pretty bad away from McD and may actually hold McD back, in some ways.

I hadn't considered the trade clause, so yeah, that's significantly more valuable to him than what ever limited NTC Stralman got. Can't blame Girardi for his deal if we lose Staal, that's on Sather for cap management. G might be older, but beat up his hard to quantify. We see the tough minutes he gives and you'd assume he's beat up, but other than the finals, he's never really shown it. Iron man as far as games played per season and his minutes don't seem to get impacted. Outside of the finals, he doesn't often look worn late in seasons, in fact, his trouble is usually more towards the beginnings of seasons, where he's a slow starter.

Not trying to be a dick on this point, but do you have a link to the fancy stats you're talking about? McD away from Girardi can't be too frequent an event so I want to see the sample size. And I'd like to see the zone starts and quality of competition that these new pairs face. Is it something where say Moore got less ice time so McDonagh got put out in a 3rd pair role? Because yeah, he's going to look better there than against top opposition. Advanced stats can help you to know the context.

Pete
08-01-2014, 10:25 AM
I hadn't considered the trade clause, so yeah, that's significantly more valuable to him than what ever limited NTC Stralman got. Can't blame Girardi for his deal if we lose Staal, that's on Sather for cap management. G might be older, but beat up his hard to quantify. We see the tough minutes he gives and you'd assume he's beat up, but other than the finals, he's never really shown it. Iron man as far as games played per season and his minutes don't seem to get impacted. Outside of the finals, he doesn't often look worn late in seasons, in fact, his trouble is usually more towards the beginnings of seasons, where he's a slow starter.Oh, I don't blame G. But that doesn't make it a good contract.


Not trying to be a dick on this point, but do you have a link to the fancy stats you're talking about? McD away from Girardi can't be too frequent an event so I want to see the sample size. And I'd like to see the zone starts and quality of competition that these new pairs face. Is it something where say Moore got less ice time so McDonagh got put out in a 3rd pair role? Because yeah, he's going to look better there than against top opposition. Advanced stats can help you to know the context.Sure, there's a lot of it here (http://www.blueshirtsbrotherhood.com/showthread.php?13873-Dan-Girardi-is-Ruining-the-Rangers-Stanley-Cup-Chances).

Also this (http://www.sportingnews.com/nhl/story/2014-02-28/dan-girardi-nhl-trade-rumors-ryan-callahan-ny-rangers) article.

There was another one I can't seem to find right now, but anecdotally, a certain -5 performance by Girardi in a playoff game vs. Boston while paired with Del Zotto comes to mind. And we've seen it happen, when McD is hurt or not playing well, G looks very bad. Did we need to spend that on a complimentary player? He's clearly a "passenger" with whomever his partner is (Tyutin, Staal, McD).

Now, I will allow that there is a value in him giving that comfort level to guys like Staal or Tyutin, but when advanced stats suggest that we aren't getting the most of McD when he's with G...Then I don't think that's something we can ignore, and that value isn't worth his contract AND trade clause.

Slobberknocker
08-01-2014, 10:47 AM
girardi was bad no doubt. you could actually see hank becoming exasperated when he couldn't even execute an outlet pass out of his zone. maybe the pressure just got to him.

brass is still a young player. i like the idea of giving him the shot of playing against the better opposing lines. sometimes with age comes maturity and will be interesting to see if he can rise to the challenge.

Myusername
08-01-2014, 10:54 AM
Too bad we lost Sauer... the guy looked so promising in the few games he played here. I think he would have been overall better than Girardi had it not been for that stupid hit.

DiJock94
08-01-2014, 11:02 AM
Too bad we lost Sauer... the guy looked so promising in the few games he played here. I think he would have been overall better than Girardi had it not been for that stupid hit.

I agree. He was a big kid too. Big and didn't lack mobility.

momentum
08-01-2014, 11:11 AM
G is older and more beat up than Stralman. Plus the no trade, plus the fact that we might lose Staal because we paid G...again, I'll say it all day...You don't need to pay McDs partner that much. Especially when the fancy stats support an argument I've made previously, G is pretty bad away from McD and may actually hold McD back, in some ways.

I would be curious of how McD/Staal, Boyle/Girardi might do as pairings...Boyle is really an offensive dman I think Giradi might work real well with him.

DiJock94
08-01-2014, 11:13 AM
I would be curious of how McD/Staal, Boyle/Girardi might do as pairings...Boyle is really an offensive dman I think Giradi might work real well with him.

I feel like I remember AV mentioned it was important to stick with a righty and a lefty per pairing

AmericanJesus
08-01-2014, 11:27 AM
Oh, I don't blame G. But that doesn't make it a good contract.

Sure, there's a lot of it here (http://www.blueshirtsbrotherhood.com/showthread.php?13873-Dan-Girardi-is-Ruining-the-Rangers-Stanley-Cup-Chances).

Also this (http://www.sportingnews.com/nhl/story/2014-02-28/dan-girardi-nhl-trade-rumors-ryan-callahan-ny-rangers) article.

There was another one I can't seem to find right now, but anecdotally, a certain -5 performance by Girardi in a playoff game vs. Boston while paired with Del Zotto comes to mind. And we've seen it happen, when McD is hurt or not playing well, G looks very bad. Did we need to spend that on a complimentary player? He's clearly a "passenger" with whomever his partner is (Tyutin, Staal, McD).

Now, I will allow that there is a value in him giving that comfort level to guys like Staal or Tyutin, but when advanced stats suggest that we aren't getting the most of McD when he's with G...Then I don't think that's something we can ignore, and that value isn't worth his contract AND trade clause.

Thanks for looking that up, Pete. The underlying stats seem to come from here:

http://stats.hockeyanalysis.com/showplayer.php?pid=203&withagainst=true&season=2013-14&sit=5v5

They are together approximately 80% of the time and apart 20%. I'm just looking at their 5v5 stats for this past year because I don't have a ton of time right now, but I'm not seeing them worse together across the board. I'm seeing them worse apart in some key stats that aren't mentioned in the article. Their goals for per 20 minutes together is higher than either is apart (although Girardi drops more significantly than McDonagh does). Their goals against per 20 minutes together is significantly lower together than either is apart. So last year at 5v5, they were better scoring goals and preventing them together than either was apart.

So strictly on goals for and against when they're paired/not paired, they're both better when paired. The shot attempts for and against seem to tell a different story, but I'll have to get into more detail with zone start adjustments to figure out where the numbers actually sit.

Pete
08-01-2014, 11:34 AM
Thanks for looking that up, Pete. The underlying stats seem to come from here:

http://stats.hockeyanalysis.com/showplayer.php?pid=203&withagainst=true&season=2013-14&sit=5v5

They are together approximately 80% of the time and apart 20%. I'm just looking at their 5v5 stats for this past year because I don't have a ton of time right now, but I'm not seeing them worse together across the board. I'm seeing them worse apart in some key stats that aren't mentioned in the article. Their goals for per 20 minutes together is higher than either is apart (although Girardi drops more significantly than McDonagh does). Their goals against per 20 minutes together is significantly lower together than either is apart. So last year at 5v5, they were better scoring goals and preventing them together than either was apart.

So strictly on goals for and against when they're paired/not paired, they're both better when paired. The shot attempts for and against seem to tell a different story, but I'll have to get into more detail with zone start adjustments to figure out where the numbers actually sit.

Well if they are together for 80% of the time and apart for only 20%, then goals would definitely not be an accurate indicator. Not enough of a sample size. Shots are a better indicator, but not the end-all-be-all.

Then, of course, there's what our eyes tell us and some of us have said this about G since his re-signing became a real topic. Now we just have an actual metric that supports our eyeballs.

AmericanJesus
08-01-2014, 11:41 AM
Well if they are together for 80% of the time and apart for only 20%, then goals would definitely not be an accurate indicator. Not enough of a sample size. Shots are a better indicator, but not the end-all-be-all.

Then, of course, there's what our eyes tell us and some of us have said this about G since his re-signing became a real topic. Now we just have an actual metric that supports our eyeballs.

Yeah, I think there is little doubt that Girardi is at his best when paired with a legitimate #1. I think that's what you find from #2 defenders. The question you have and I get it, is could another defender, in a true #2 role paired with McDonagh, excel at a cheaper cost or be better than Girardi there at the same cost. Hard to say.

Just as you indicate the goals for/against are a small sample size, so to are the shot totals. Since Corsi includes shots on goal, blocks and misses (all attempted shots), it's difficult to judge with a small sample. Perhaps Girardi out of his comfort zone does more shot blocking/attempted blocks that force shots wide without McD. I'll also have to look at zone starts and quality of competition to know who was getting paired up against who.

Pete
08-01-2014, 11:49 AM
Yeah, I think there is little doubt that Girardi is at his best when paired with a legitimate #1. I think that's what you find from #2 defenders. The question you have and I get it, is could another defender, in a true #2 role paired with McDonagh, excel at a cheaper cost or be better than Girardi there at the same cost. Hard to say.

Just as you indicate the goals for/against are a small sample size, so to are the shot totals. Since Corsi includes shots on goal, blocks and misses (all attempted shots), it's difficult to judge with a small sample. Perhaps Girardi out of his comfort zone does more shot blocking/attempted blocks that force shots wide without McD. I'll also have to look at zone starts and quality of competition to know who was getting paired up against who.

Yea, we're on the same page here. I have no qualms with G as a #2, but a guy at that pay grade would be more of a #1 on the second pair (make sense?), and G hasn't shown he can be that guy. Staal has, so I'd have rather paid Staal.

DiJock94
08-01-2014, 11:58 AM
I'd doesn't bother me as much because I just remind myself that's what we paid roszival

Shanahammer
08-01-2014, 02:50 PM
Yeah, I think there is little doubt that Girardi is at his best when paired with a legitimate #1. I think that's what you find from #2 defenders. The question you have and I get it, is could another defender, in a true #2 role paired with McDonagh, excel at a cheaper cost or be better than Girardi there at the same cost. Hard to say.

Just as you indicate the goals for/against are a small sample size, so to are the shot totals. Since Corsi includes shots on goal, blocks and misses (all attempted shots), it's difficult to judge with a small sample. Perhaps Girardi out of his comfort zone does more shot blocking/attempted blocks that force shots wide without McD. I'll also have to look at zone starts and quality of competition to know who was getting paired up against who.

I feel like CF% and FF% arent really great stats when applied to defensemen. Doesn't really take QoC and Zone starts into account. Go to extraskater.com and check out some of the defensmen with better CF% Rel than McD. I'd say McD is better than almost all of them, save for those truly elite franchise dmen. (Keith, Petro, Doughty, etc.)

NYR2711
08-01-2014, 03:37 PM
Too bad we lost Sauer... the guy looked so promising in the few games he played here. I think he would have been overall better than Girardi had it not been for that stupid hit.

The problem with Sauer was that he was injury prone throughout his career. I honestly don't think he would have lasted to much longer in the NHL. He had tons of knee issues as well, its a shame because he was a solid defensemen.