Phil Posted July 22, 2019 Author Share Posted July 22, 2019 Why? This logic didn't apply to Trouba. I'm talking about his fundamental ability. Trouba didn't magically do something he appeared incapable of. The point jump for him was a byproduct of more time on the ice in more advantageous positions (power play), so where's the violation in logic? In DeAngelo's case, what I'm saying is that he's clearly a quality offensive player who, away from the puck, is a complete liability. That isn't likely to change. He's simply going to get more expensive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrooksBurner Posted July 22, 2019 Share Posted July 22, 2019 I'm talking about his fundamental ability. Trouba didn't magically do something he appeared incapable of. The point jump for him was a byproduct of more time on the ice in more advantageous positions (power play), so where's the violation in logic? In DeAngelo's case, what I'm saying is that he's clearly a quality offensive player who, away from the puck, is a complete liability. That isn't likely to change. He's simply going to get more expensive. Just so I'm clear on the argument...if, no matter how big an if, he improves enough away from the puck this season, you would not want to entertain him as a long term player next summer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fatfrancesa Posted July 22, 2019 Share Posted July 22, 2019 The point isn’t that trouba is better. The point is that if trouba isn’t fully developed yet at 25, then why is ada at 24. They will both become more expensive yet one will earn 1/4 of the other probably for 1/4 the term. So yes ada will get more expensive, yes trouba is better, but no logic doesn’t dictate that one has room to grow but the other can’t because you prefer one over the other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fatfrancesa Posted July 22, 2019 Share Posted July 22, 2019 Not to mention just a few short summers ago you advocated then supported the signing of a refined offensive defenseman who’s a complete liability defensively at almost 7m a year. Ada is basically a better cheaper version of that player right now without growing at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Future Posted July 22, 2019 Share Posted July 22, 2019 I'm talking about his fundamental ability. Trouba didn't magically do something he appeared incapable of. The point jump for him was a byproduct of more time on the ice in more advantageous positions (power play), so where's the violation in logic? In DeAngelo's case, what I'm saying is that he's clearly a quality offensive player who, away from the puck, is a complete liability.That isn't likely to change. He's simply going to get more expensive. Nonsense. The contract is a bet that Trouba becomes something he never has been before, a #1D. In other words, it's assuming he'll grow as a player. ADA has shown capable of being responsible enough to play in a top-4, if he's given "advantageous positions." Also, Trouba was not that good when Buff was out. The idea that he showed himself to be a #1 in that time is a myth. In 39 games from Jan 1 to March 30,: TOI: 23:48 +/-: -3 EV points: 12 (3rd among WPG D) SAT%: 47.19 (2nd) - OZS: 49.41 PP points - 17 (2 G, 10 secondary assists) On that team, nobody should be impressed by those numbers. The guy hasn't shown anything to be a top-pair play driver, and that's what he's paid to be and what he has to develop into. If "he is what he is," NYR just gave $8 million to a 2nd-pair D. Right now, he's Ryan Ellis, not Roman Josi, but they're paying him as the latter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albatrosss Posted July 22, 2019 Share Posted July 22, 2019 cant ADA be waived if needed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dunny Posted July 22, 2019 Share Posted July 22, 2019 cant ADA be waived if needed? No need, he has a lot of value. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albatrosss Posted July 22, 2019 Share Posted July 22, 2019 no he doesn't. but if Fox outplays him in the preseason, worst case scenario is that you can waive ADA if need be Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keirik Posted July 22, 2019 Share Posted July 22, 2019 I still say the best course is to try and use a Georgiev as a sweetener to try and dump a salary like a staal, Smith, or shattenkirk. I’m thinking Columbus would work out nicely. You then buy out one more and have the ability to not lose a Buch and have some wiggle room. Yes it would stink to lose Georgie’s but realistically, Hank is still here two years and we do have the other option in Shesterkin, albeit unproven. Going to have to gamble with something here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrooksBurner Posted July 22, 2019 Share Posted July 22, 2019 I still say the best course is to try and use a Georgiev as a sweetener to try and dump a salary like a staal, Smith, or shattenkirk. I’m thinking Columbus would work out nicely. You then buy out one more and have the ability to not lose a Buch and have some wiggle room. Yes it would stink to lose Georgie’s but realistically, Hank is still here two years and we do have the other option in Shesterkin, albeit unproven. Going to have to gamble with something here. My hesitation with Georgiev is that Shesterkin isn't guaranteed to succeed. Chances are good, but not guaranteed. It would really suck to trade Georgiev, have Shesterkin get shelled in the AHL, and basically be stuck with Henrik for 1 more year and nothing? I think they are better safe than sorry keeping Georgiev for the time being since he has shown to be an adept NHL goalie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Puck Head Posted July 22, 2019 Share Posted July 22, 2019 We have 3 tenders, Georgie and Shesterkin are the two I?d want to keep. Sent from my iPhone using Blueshirts Brotherhood mobile app powered by Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangersIn7 Posted July 22, 2019 Share Posted July 22, 2019 I still say the best course is to try and use a Georgiev as a sweetener to try and dump a salary like a staal, Smith, or shattenkirk. I’m thinking Columbus would work out nicely. You then buy out one more and have the ability to not lose a Buch and have some wiggle room. Yes it would stink to lose Georgie’s but realistically, Hank is still here two years and we do have the other option in Shesterkin, albeit unproven. Going to have to gamble with something here. That doesn’t become totally viable until you know what you have exactly in Shestyorkin. And they won’t know that until he plays some here in NA. And Georgiev has played 45 NHL games. Not every GM will have a high value placed on him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Posted July 22, 2019 Share Posted July 22, 2019 Moving ADA is more than fine with me. Could he get better on the defensive end sure but I highly doubt it. I think he looks good offensively but at times it's just in comparison to how bad he is going the other way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Posted July 23, 2019 Share Posted July 23, 2019 Nonsense. The contract is a bet that Trouba becomes something he never has been before, a #1D. In other words, it's assuming he'll grow as a player. ADA has shown capable of being responsible enough to play in a top-4, if he's given "advantageous positions." Also, Trouba was not that good when Buff was out. The idea that he showed himself to be a #1 in that time is a myth. In 39 games from Jan 1 to March 30,: TOI: 23:48 +/-: -3 EV points: 12 (3rd among WPG D) SAT%: 47.19 (2nd) - OZS: 49.41 PP points - 17 (2 G, 10 secondary assists) On that team, nobody should be impressed by those numbers. The guy hasn't shown anything to be a top-pair play driver, and that's what he's paid to be and what he has to develop into. If "he is what he is," NYR just gave $8 million to a 2nd-pair D. Right now, he's Ryan Ellis, not Roman Josi, but they're paying him as the latter.That's for articulating my point from another thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dude Posted July 23, 2019 Share Posted July 23, 2019 I don't think that's enough, and then you're below roster size. You could always bury Smith and then buyout Strome with next to no penalty. I know there are some that like Strome, but he's not really a long term solution for this team. And all of this buyout talk is assuming there are ZERO teams that want Namestnikov, Strome, or can't be talked or bribed into taking Smith or Shattenkirk with a B asset like you've already shown with the hypothetical Ottawa trade. Gorton's got options here. Strome just turned 25. How is he not a long term solution if he plays a full season like the way he did as a Ranger? Easily a possible middle/bottom 6 forward for the next 5 years. If Edmonton can deal Lucic, the Rangers should be able to find a taker on one or two of Shattenkirk, Smith, Namestnikov, or Staa.l Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangersIn7 Posted July 23, 2019 Share Posted July 23, 2019 Strome just turned 25. How is he not a long term solution if he plays a full season like the way he did as a Ranger? Easily a possible middle/bottom 6 forward for the next 5 years. If Edmonton can deal Lucic, the Rangers should be able to find a taker on one or two of Shattenkirk, Smith, Namestnikov, or Staa.l Edmonton could deal Lucic because they took back Neal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keirik Posted July 23, 2019 Share Posted July 23, 2019 And Georgiev has played 45 NHL games. Not every GM will have a high value placed on him. Yes and no. Talbot, Raanta, Darling are just three recent examples of goaltenders that really hadn't had all too much experience before teams too fairly large chances on them. It's not out of the realm of possibility a team takes a decent chance on him along with a little baggage if they think there is a shot they get a guy they can lock up a position with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Posted July 23, 2019 Author Share Posted July 23, 2019 Nonsense. The contract is a bet that Trouba becomes something he never has been before, a #1D. In other words, it's assuming he'll grow as a player. ADA has shown capable of being responsible enough to play in a top-4, if he's given "advantageous positions." Except he has been. You just aren't comfortable with the length of time he was, which is understandable. Also, Trouba was not that good when Buff was out. The idea that he showed himself to be a #1 in that time is a myth. In 39 games from Jan 1 to March 30,: TOI: 23:48 +/-: -3 EV points: 12 (3rd among WPG D) SAT%: 47.19 (2nd) - OZS: 49.41 PP points - 17 (2 G, 10 secondary assists) On that team, nobody should be impressed by those numbers. The guy hasn't shown anything to be a top-pair play driver, and that's what he's paid to be and what he has to develop into. If "he is what he is," NYR just gave $8 million to a 2nd-pair D. Right now, he's Ryan Ellis, not Roman Josi, but they're paying him as the latter. I agree that they are buying in expecting more improvement, but those numbers aren't explicitly negative. In that short stretch, he's basically a breakeven ES player and posted superior PP stats. Also, the "he is what he is," comment was a reference to the idea that DeAngelo would suddenly develop a penchant for 200-foot play. Not that he's hit his production ceiling. In other words, it's possible, even likely, he's yet to post his career numbers yet, but it's unlikley he's going to suddenly develop an affinity for sound positional defense simply because he's older. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangersIn7 Posted July 23, 2019 Share Posted July 23, 2019 Yes and no. Talbot, Raanta, Darling are just three recent examples of goaltenders that really hadn't had all too much experience before teams too fairly large chances on them. It's not out of the realm of possibility a team takes a decent chance on him along with a little baggage if they think there is a shot they get a guy they can lock up a position with. Not out of the question But Talbot and Darling haven’t exactly worked out. And Raanta played less than 50 games that first year in Arizona and then got hurt all of last season. If you’re saying take a shot just to acquire Georgiev straight up, sure. But if I’m a GM, it would be hard to take salary back just to acquire a young and inexperienced goalie who I’m not certain is my guy. And remember when they traded Talbot, they were unable to get a 1st back for him. Trade Georgiev and saddle that transaction with a salary dump, you’ll get a very low return Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keirik Posted July 23, 2019 Share Posted July 23, 2019 We have 3 tenders, Georgie and Shesterkin are the two I’d want to keep. Sent from my iPhone using Blueshirts Brotherhood mobile app powered by Tapatalk I agree but Hank probably is not going anwhere for another two years. Add in our recent signings and Kakko "fortune" and it seems that we are more on the side of a faster rebuild. WE don't know what Igor is going to bring, but I could see him being a Saros type for the next two years awaiting his turn and in the meantime still getting decent playing time with an older Hank. He gets two years for us to find this out working with Benoit Allaire. If it doesn't work? So be it. At least we were able to retain another younger talent hopefully along the way with an ADA or Buch instead of cutting ties because of a bad D contract that we all know is never part of our future. I feel like in today's NHL there is a lot more movement in goalies than in the past where the same goalie was between the pipes for a decade or so. I'm willing to take that chance if it means getting 2-3 more years of someone else staying to develop into an impact player. Just my two cents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keirik Posted July 23, 2019 Share Posted July 23, 2019 Not out of the question But Talbot and Darling haven’t exactly worked out. And Raanta played less than 50 games that first year in Arizona and then got hurt all of last season. If you’re saying take a shot just to acquire Georgiev straight up, sure. But if I’m a GM, it would be hard to take salary back just to acquire a young and inexperienced goalie who I’m not certain is my guy. And remember when they traded Talbot, they were unable to get a 1st back for him. Trade Georgiev and saddle that transaction with a salary dump, you’ll get a very low return I know, you'll likely get no return. I'm fine with that. The return to me is losing one contract so buying out another means we easily have the cap room to retain Buch, Lemieux, and ADA. I think being able to gamble Georgiev to give us more time to see if two or three of those guys turn into long term keepers is fine with me. By the time 20/21 finishes, we lose the remaining one of of the three contracts in Staal, Shatty, and Smith and lose Hank. At the worst, if we do that and are able to push our RFAs down the road, we decide if they are worth locking up longer term at that point or see where we can spend some money at a point where we know how close we are to being contenders. To me it just makes sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keirik Posted July 23, 2019 Share Posted July 23, 2019 My hesitation with Georgiev is that Shesterkin isn't guaranteed to succeed. Chances are good, but not guaranteed. It would really suck to trade Georgiev, have Shesterkin get shelled in the AHL, and basically be stuck with Henrik for 1 more year and nothing? I think they are better safe than sorry keeping Georgiev for the time being since he has shown to be an adept NHL goalie. If that happens, which is a possibility, it will still be easier to find a solution for goal by the end of that season with all the money we have than it will be to try and replace the 2 or 3 pieces we cant keep because of those 3 helty D contracts. Remember, im only suggesting this if a contract is taken as well. Obviously if not, this makes no sense, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrooksBurner Posted July 23, 2019 Share Posted July 23, 2019 Strome just turned 25. How is he not a long term solution if he plays a full season like the way he did as a Ranger? Easily a possible middle/bottom 6 forward for the next 5 years. If Edmonton can deal Lucic, the Rangers should be able to find a taker on one or two of Shattenkirk, Smith, Namestnikov, or Staa.l 25 with 5 1/2 seasons in the NHL. He's a bottom 6 plug. The Rangers shouldn't be in the business of paying guys like him 3-4 million AAV on a long term deal when they can insert a player on an ELC to put up the 30-35 points. The better question is how is he a long term solution? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Posted July 23, 2019 Author Share Posted July 23, 2019 25 with 5 1/2 seasons in the NHL. He's a bottom 6 plug. The Rangers shouldn't be in the business of paying guys like him 3-4 million AAV on a long term deal when they can insert a player on an ELC to put up the 30-35 points. The better question is how is he a long term solution? This. These aren't the players you lock up. They're the ones you milk and let go to free agency for someone else to regret signing for years they're statistically likely to regress over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Posted July 23, 2019 Share Posted July 23, 2019 This. These aren't the players you lock up. They're the ones you milk and let go to free agency for someone else to regret signing for years they're statistically likely to regress over.No, that's a blanket statement that doesn't apply to every team across the board. If you're getting value in your top 6 on ELCs and 2nd contracts, which we should be... You can absolutely stabilize your bottom 6 with a Namestnikov/Strome type player. As we've said... You can't ice a lineup full of rookies. That's similarly pointless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now