[brooks] The Salary-Cap Hell the Rangers are Still Trying to Navigate

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.

Well by next year Howden will have 2 years under his belt and I don't see why he wouldn't take Strome's place. Not all of them are going to be top 6 players.

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.

That's true, but the Rangers aren't really in a position to supplement this way outside of one or two deals. I suppose they could go this route on Strome if they wanted given the cap clearance for 2021, but the principle is still true — giving long-term extensions to 27-year-olds (when Strome will be UFA) is generally a losing proposition.

I'd be far more inclined to just extend Howden and Chytil and run with what they have.

That's true, but the Rangers aren't really in a position to supplement this way outside of one or two deals. I suppose they could go this route on Strome if they wanted given the cap clearance for 2021, but the principle is still true ? giving long-term extensions to 27-year-olds (when Strome will be UFA) is generally a losing proposition.

 

I'd be far more inclined to just extend Howden and Chytil and run with what they have.

He plays all 3 forward positions, can slot anywhere on on any lines, and in all situations. He's just a good guy to have.

I'm not suggesting $5x8 here. $4x4 is a moveable contract if it doesn't work out or you need cap after a year.

Of course this all assumes he plays well this year and we'd want him back. Wouldn't do that deal as a January extension.

Except he has been. You just aren't comfortable with the length of time he was, which is understandable.

 

 

 

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.

No, he hasn't been. That is not #1D numbers. Doing it for 39 games and not being particularly good means he hasn't been a #1. Brady Skjei has done the same but nobody thinks he's a #1.

Don't care about production ceilings or the degree to which they need to improve. You said that ADA is what he is because of his age. That same logic should also apply to Trouba.

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?

I don't think anyone said anything about long term. I'd absolutely go 4x4 next summer if he plays the way he did when he came over.

 

He plays all 3 forward positions, can slot anywhere on on any lines, and in all situations. He's just a good guy to have.

 

I'm not suggesting $5x8 here. $4x4 is a moveable contract if it doesn't work out or you need cap after a year.

 

Of course this all assumes he plays well this year and we'd want him back. Wouldn't do that deal as a January extension.

Four years is long-term, at least to me, but a deal like that wouldn't be back-breaking, I agree.

No, he hasn't been. That is not #1D numbers. Doing it for 39 games and not being particularly good means he hasn't been a #1. Brady Skjei has done the same but nobody thinks he's a #1.

 

Don't care about production ceilings or the degree to which they need to improve. You said that ADA is what he is because of his age. That same logic should also apply to Trouba.

No, I said ADA's style of play is what it is because of his age. That he wasn't going to suddenly wake up and become a 200-foot player simply because he's a year older. It had nothing to do with ceilings or production — neither of which I believe he's hit yet. So the same logic does apply to Trouba, who to apply this same argument to, isn't going to suddenly become a seventh defenseman because he's a year older.

Four years is long-term, at least to me, but a deal like that wouldn't be back-breaking, I agree.

No, I said ADA's style of play is what it is because of his age. That he wasn't going to suddenly wake up and become a 200-foot player simply because he's a year older. It had nothing to do with ceilings or production — neither of which I believe he's hit yet. So the same logic does apply to Trouba, who to apply this same argument to, isn't going to suddenly become a seventh defenseman because he's a year older.

Um, no you didn't, and then you immediately responded with Trouba's production. And even still, that doesn't matter. Play styles can change as players mature.

The point is, you said that ADA "is what he is" because he's 24. That means Trouba "is what he is" at 25. Idk what you're talking about w/ a 7th defenseman and whatnot. Either a player can keep developing at 24/25, or they can't. Trouba has to develop to be a #1, ADA has to develop to prove he can consistently handle second-pair minutes. Anything else is just minutiae.

Um, no you didn't, and then you immediately responded with Trouba's production. And even still, that doesn't matter. Play styles can change as players mature.

First of all, yes, I did:

So, if DeAngelo suddenly changes course 180? you keep him? The likelihood of that happening is minimal if it exists at all. This is the player he is. He's going to be 24 to start the season.

 

And in this scenario, keeping DeAngelo on a one-year deal seems perfectly fine. You can walk away from him next offseason when he's arbitration-eligible.

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.

Second, I'm aware styles can change. I said it's unlikely his would do so dramatically away from the puck when he's gone this long through his entire career never doing so. Another counterexample to this would be someone like Andersson, based on the suggestion he would suddenly develop a goal-scoring penchant that's been nonexistent through his entire career.

The point is, you said that ADA "is what he is" because he's 24. That means Trouba "is what he is" at 25. Idk what you're talking about w/ a 7th defenseman and whatnot. Either a player can keep developing at 24/25, or they can't. Trouba has to develop to be a #1, ADA has to develop to prove he can consistently handle second-pair minutes. Anything else is just minutiae.

Again, no. I said that ADA "is what he is," regarding the idea he would dramatically improve in his own end. This all hinges on this critical factor, no matter how many times you try to ignore it or gloss over it.

Players can develop, but the idea that that development will happen rapidly as they age goes against the data we have on player progression. It's possible, obviously, but not plausible.

First of all, yes, I did:

 

Second, I'm aware styles can change. I said it's unlikely his would do so dramatically away from the puck when he's gone this long through his entire career never doing so. Another counterexample to this would be someone like Andersson, based on the suggestion he would suddenly develop a goal-scoring penchant that's been nonexistent through his entire career.

 

Again, no. I said that ADA "is what he is," regarding the idea he would dramatically improve in his own end. This all hinges on this critical factor, no matter how many times you try to ignore it or gloss over it.

 

Players can develop, but the idea that that development will happen rapidly as they age goes against the data we have on player progression. It's possible, obviously, but not plausible.

This is your first post, it had nothing to do with style of play.

So, if DeAngelo suddenly changes course 180? you keep him? The likelihood of that happening is minimal if it exists at all. This is the player he is. He's going to be 24 to start the season.

You're just adding qualifiers and degrees that only serve to, as you like to say, move the goal post from your original point. You've moved from "is what he is" to "unlikely" to "improve dramatically."

ADA isn't too old to improve in his own end, regardless of degree, and Trouba isn't too old to improve overall. But call it what it is.

And not that it matters to the point, but the idea that ADA has never shown any improvement through his entire career is complete poppycock.

Like I've said repeatedly, I was talking about his style of play. Sorry for not being more explicit in my original post, but if you read back through the conversation, it's clear that's what I was referencing, and I've been crystal clear about that since.

The posts haven't moved, either. My first post — the one you just quoted — references a 180? turn. So "unlikely," and "improve dramatically" haven't shifted a thing.

We're just talking past each other at this point, so I'm going to try this one last time:

Players develop through their early twenties and sometimes even into their later twenties, generally plateauing around 25-27. This in both literal production and aggregate improvements. None of this is what I am talking about when I talk about DeAngelo being "the player he is." What I'm referencing when I use that term is his fundamental approach to the game that projected him as and continues to project him as a stellar offensive defender who can move the puck and quarterback a power play like a boss, but who's play away from the puck has always been a negative mark on him, and is unlikely to dramatically improve. Do not conflate this with the idea that he has never shown improvement. He has. It's just been incremental. Just as his production has. Just as most players do.

Like I've said repeatedly, I was talking about his style of play. Sorry for not being more explicit in my original post, but if you read back through the conversation, it's clear that's what I was referencing, and I've been crystal clear about that since.

 

The posts haven't moved, either. My first post — the one you just quoted — references a 180? turn. So "unlikely," and "improve dramatically" haven't shifted a thing.

 

We're just talking past each other at this point, so I'm going to try this one last time:

 

Players develop through their early twenties and sometimes even into their later twenties, generally plateauing around 25-27. This in both literal production and aggregate improvements. None of this is what I am talking about when I talk about DeAngelo being "the player he is." What I'm referencing when I use that term is his fundamental approach to the game that projected him as and continues to project him as a stellar offensive defender who can move the puck and quarterback a power play like a boss, but who's play away from the puck has always been a negative mark on him, and is unlikely to dramatically improve. Do not conflate this with the idea that he has never shown improvement. He has. It's just been incremental. Just as his production has. Just as most players do.

You saying it over and over again doesn't change the fact I don't care if you're referring to his style of play. It doesn't change anything.

I could just sit here and say that Trouba's fundamental approach isn't going to change because he's 25, so he's not going to be a #1.

If your point isn't that ADA is done improving b/c of his age, fine. But then I don't know what your point is other than, "ADA is an offensive defenseman."

You saying it over and over again doesn't change the fact I don't care if you're referring to his style of play. It doesn't change anything.

 

I could just sit here and say that Trouba's fundamental approach isn't going to change because he's 25, so he's not going to be a #1.

 

If your point isn't that ADA is done improving b/c of his age, fine. But then I don't know what your point is other than, "ADA is an offensive defenseman."

trouba's fundamental approach doesn't need to change. thats his entire point.

trouba's fundamental approach doesn't need to change. thats his entire point.

I know, but I disagree in how it's presented relative to ADA.

ADA isn't who he is b/c he's 24. His fundamental approach can change. So too can Trouba's. Both need to in order to take the next step.

Pionk just signed for 2 yrs/3M per year.

Wonder what D'Angelo gets now?

Pionk just signed for 2 yrs/3M per year.

Wonder what D'Angelo gets now?

Pionk's contract doesn't matter much since he qualified for arbitration and DeAngelo does not.

I would think that if Pionk gets $3m per for two, someone would take Shattenkirk at $3.3 per for two, but everyone seems to take a pass.

Pionk is better, almost 7 years younger and on the complete opposite career trajectory.

Shatty also has a 10-team NTC, which means there's only 20 potential teams. Of those, who is a playoff team who needs a RHD to run the PP? I keep asking this question, and keep getting no answer. There is no market for him, regardless of price.

Here are last year's playoff teams and their top PPD (off the top of my head).

Tampa Bay - Hedman

Boston - Krug

Washington - Carlson

Toronto - Reilly

Carolina - Hamilton

NYI - Leddy

Pitt - Letang

CBJ - Werenski

Nashville - Josi

Dallas - Klingberg

WPG - Buff

STL - Pietro

CGY - Giordano

COL - Barrie

SJ - Burns

VGK - Schmidt

Even keep going through the 11 seeds.

Montreal - Weber

Florida - Yandle

Philly - Ghost

Zona - OEL

Chi - Keith

Minny - Dumba

That's 22 teams with players who, at worst, are equivalent to Shatty. Most of those teams have a second guy as well. Who is he supposed to replace on this list?

Colorado traded Barrie.

Not sure why Kreider and Shattenkirk can't be moved to Colorado in some way.

Maybe Colorado has a contract that they don't like we can take back

Colorado traded Barrie.

 

Not sure why Kreider and Shattenkirk can't be moved to Colorado in some way.

Maybe Colorado has a contract that they don't like we can take back

Makar....

They already moved the most Soderberg and we can't take back Johnson.

Like I've said repeatedly, I was talking about his style of play. Sorry for not being more explicit in my original post, but if you read back through the conversation, it's clear that's what I was referencing, and I've been crystal clear about that since.

 

The posts haven't moved, either. My first post ? the one you just quoted ? references a 180? turn. So "unlikely," and "improve dramatically" haven't shifted a thing.

 

We're just talking past each other at this point, so I'm going to try this one last time:

 

Players develop through their early twenties and sometimes even into their later twenties, generally plateauing around 25-27. This in both literal production and aggregate improvements. None of this is what I am talking about when I talk about DeAngelo being "the player he is." What I'm referencing when I use that term is his fundamental approach to the game that projected him as and continues to project him as a stellar offensive defender who can move the puck and quarterback a power play like a boss, but who's play away from the puck has always been a negative mark on him, and is unlikely to dramatically improve. Do not conflate this with the idea that he has never shown improvement. He has. It's just been incremental. Just as his production has. Just as most players do.

Nash totally reinvented himself into a complete player at 30.

You're not saying anything different than what I'm saying.

The point is, defense can be taught, and if ADA wants to stay in the league, he'll learn it. And there's no evidence to suggest he can't. Plenty of players come into the league with defensive holes and learn as they go. Hayes is another good example.

May players adapt to stay in the league. There's no reason to think ADA won't

 

Nash totally reinvented himself into a complete player at 30.

Yet he was under appreciated

Had he done what did as a centerman he’d have been considered one of the leagues best players