Jump to content
  • Join us — it's free!

    We are the premiere internet community for New York Rangers news and fan discussion. Don't wait — join the forum today!

IGNORED

Jimmy Vesey on the Block?


Phil

Recommended Posts

5. If Pavel Buchnevich and Tony DeAngelo represent players who seemed to respond to Quinn?s tough love, then what to make of Jimmy Vesey, who recorded one point ? a goal ? over the last 19 games?

 

Other, that is, than it is more likely the Harvard product will be somewhere else rather than in Tarrytown when training camp opens in September.

 

https://nypost.com/2019/04/08/rangers-should-brace-themselves-for-draft-lotterys-fickle-ways/?utm_source=twitter_sitebuttons&utm_medium=site%20buttons&utm_campaign=site%20buttons

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 81
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Namestnikov is the best player of the group. He's also the most expensive. Two years from now, none of them should be on the team, however. They're all placeholders. Every single one of them. This is rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Namestnikov has been a huge failure here, I hope they can get rid of him during the off season.

He's only a failure if you ever thought he was going to be a 40-50 player. He is the exact player he's always been, doing what he always does.

 

As a bottom-6 forward, he's a good player to have, depending on the price.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Namestnikov is the best player of the group. He's also the most expensive. Two years from now, none of them should be on the team, however. They're all placeholders. Every single one of them. This is rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.
As long as they keep Strome.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Namestnikov won’t be here in a year, probably gone at the deadline as a rental. Only has a year left on his deal. He’s absolutely just a place holder. They took a 2 year flier on him at mid-range money. He’s not killing them, and it wasn’t a bad risk to take.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Namestnikov has been a huge failure here, I hope they can get rid of him during the off season.

 

By what standard? If you thought he was the point producer he was with Tampa (where he was riding shotgun to Stamkos), then yeah, but that's not who he *actually* is. He's a mildly productive third-line prototype who can play up and down your lineup in a pinch. On a rebuilding team, he's the exact type of player you want grooming young prospects who will, ideally, take his job over the course of a few seasons. Same with Fast.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As long as they keep Strome.

 

Of that group of young veteran middle-six players — Strome, Vesey, Namestnikov, Fast — I keep Namestnikov over all the others. But ideally, none are around long-term. These aren't the kinds of players you invest years in beyond a handful of seasons. They're the ones you allow to groom your prospects into NHL players and then let sign regrettable UFA contracts with another team. Think Callahan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of that group of young veteran middle-six players — Strome, Vesey, Namestnikov, Fast — I keep Namestnikov over all the others. But ideally, none are around long-term. These aren't the kinds of players you invest years in beyond a handful of seasons. They're the ones you allow to groom your prospects into NHL players and then let sign regrettable UFA contracts with another team. Think Callahan.

 

Strome is night and day better than Names.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Strome is night and day better than Names.

 

By what standard? I'm not trolling you. I'm legit asking.

 

We both know where this is going to go, so let's get the obvious out of the way: he's a career 10% shooter shooting at more than double that (22.5) this season.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

By what standard? I'm not trolling you. I'm legit asking.

 

We both know where this is going to go, so let's get the obvious out of the way: he's a career 10% shooter shooting at more than double that (22.5) this season.

 

Yea, and that's literally the one thing you keep coming back to...So if that's the only argument I'd say it's not a good enough one. Eyeballs and stats wise he's producing more than Names. He plays all 3 forward positions, is one of the few right shots we have, can play in any situation, while not great on draws is better than Names by a good bit.

 

Put it this way, even if you don't agree he's a better player, he certainly had a better season and if I had to guess is more likely to keep it up than Names is of getting any better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yea, and that's literally the one thing you keep coming back to...So if that's the only argument I'd say it's not a good enough one. Eyeballs and stats wise he's producing more than Names. He plays all 3 forward positions, is one of the few right shots we have, can play in any situation, while not great on draws is better than Names by a good bit.

 

Put it this way, even if you don't agree he's a better player, he certainly had a better season and if I had to guess is more likely to keep it up than Names is of getting any better.

 

Well, out of the gate, you know I'm balking at the eye test as a measure of objective reality. It's not. It's remarkably unreliable, in fact, from sports to police lineups to simple historical recollection. Our eyes/brains lie to us all the time. It's evolutionary. It's why we often see things that aren't there, from optical illusions to the fear stimulated by a shadow in the bushes.

 

I do agree that a players' shooting percentage alone isn't enough to judge them on, but it can be a major red flag given that player's proximity to UFA. Specifically, because we've seen too many guys cash in at around the same age Strome would only to end up thrown on the historical pile of regret. His inflated shooting percentage is directly linked to a career-high in goals and yet if you took only his production with the Rangers into account, he's still pacing (0.52) around his career average (0.46) in P/GP. What happens when that percentage regresses to the mean? To me, that's a giant, flashing "buyer beware."

 

Right-handedness and multi-positionality I'll give you. Both are big positives. But big picture, I just don't see any long-term value in keeping a guy like this around for more than another year. In fact, I'd go so far as to argue his value as a trade piece has never been higher. I'd rather sell high on the 18 goals and 33 points in 63 games player he is right now than assume that won't regress to the mean next season in his walk year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...