Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst ... 34567 LastLast
Results 81 to 100 of 123

Thread: Versatile Veteran Strome Looking to be Part of the Rangersí Core

  1. #81
    Senior Member Bantam Division
    rmc51's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    2,446
    Rep Power
    87
    Quote Originally Posted by The Dude View Post
    On the wing. On the PK. On defensive zone draws. On the 3rd line. In a role that let's you slide him up and down the lineup. The guy can do a variety of things. Not sure how and why everyone is forgetting that he bounced back last season and that we are 2 games into this season. I'd rather see Strome kept around over a guy like Fast.

    Plus, not for nothing, but the prospects many had high hopes for aren't exactly lighting it up at any level. One of which was a healthy scratch in the minors. Holding out hope that Strome finds his game might be something we should be hoping for, rather than hoping they ditch him right now. Like it or not he's probably the best option for this team as of now..
    Nothing here is really wrong, but it's kind of making the point against being in a position of re-signing him. He's a 3rd line player and Cup winning teams don't often have 3rd line players making 4-5 million dollars. They are utilizing their dollars towards talented top 6 forwards and top 2-4 D.

    The Rangers are trying to build long term, and the best way to do it is to pay their high end players. If the cost is losing a couple of more experience 3rd/4th line players then that's where you cut your losses.

  2. #82
    Senior Member Junior Division
    The Dude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    6,390
    Rep Power
    76
    Quote Originally Posted by Phil in Absentia View Post
    He's 26, is a career 38-point player, and shot at 22.5% — more than double his career average of 10% — last season.

    Why are you paying this guy? You know who he sounds like? Ryan Spooner — a career 42-point player who rode 16 points in 20 games after the trade to New York into a two-year deal they basically regretted the moment the ink dried.
    I pay him on if he has another productive season. As he gets older, he slides down the depth chart in favor of the prospect hopefulls. Again. 5 mill for a middle 6 guy that can play multiple positions and play multiple roles. Things Spooner couldn't do.
    It's not like what I'm suggesting is an overpayment, if he produces. I'd say that's the market. And if Chytil or Andersson or Howden can't step it up this season, the Rangers may have no choice but to pay that.

  3. #83
    Senior Member Junior Division
    The Dude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    6,390
    Rep Power
    76
    Quote Originally Posted by rmc51 View Post
    Nothing here is really wrong, but it's kind of making the point against being in a position of re-signing him. He's a 3rd line player and Cup winning teams don't often have 3rd line players making 4-5 million dollars. They are utilizing their dollars towards talented top 6 forwards and top 2-4 D.

    The Rangers are trying to build long term, and the best way to do it is to pay their high end players. If the cost is losing a couple of more experience 3rd/4th line players then that's where you cut your losses.
    When a guy like Brian Boyle can get a 5-6 million dollar deal to be a good teams 4th line PK specialist, I tend to disagree with your philosophy of how teams pay players.

    AGAIN. I only give him such a contract if he produces this season. That means 40-50 points. That means solid 2 way play. That means forcing the team to use him. If he plays mediocre or worse, fine. Walk away.

    It's not like I'm even counting on it. I think he's capable of doing it. I hope he does. He seems like the type that may want to stick around if he gets back on track.

    I'm puzzled by how many don't want him here right now. I love his style of play. I think he fits a mold of how the Rangers want to play. Just as long as he produces...

  4. #84
    Senior Member Junior Division
    The Dude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    6,390
    Rep Power
    76
    Quote Originally Posted by Phil in Absentia View Post
    By not being very good.
    30 points in 69 games in his last season with the Isles. That ain't bad. Not amazing. But not "played his way off the team" bad.

  5. #85
    Senior Member Bantam Division
    rmc51's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    2,446
    Rep Power
    87
    Quote Originally Posted by The Dude View Post
    When a guy like Brian Boyle can get a 5-6 million dollar deal to be a good teams 4th line PK specialist, I tend to disagree with your philosophy of how teams pay players.

    AGAIN. I only give him such a contract if he produces this season. That means 40-50 points. That means solid 2 way play. That means forcing the team to use him. If he plays mediocre or worse, fine. Walk away.

    It's not like I'm even counting on it. I think he's capable of doing it. I hope he does. He seems like the type that may want to stick around if he gets back on track.

    I'm puzzled by how many don't want him here right now. I love his style of play. I think he fits a mold of how the Rangers want to play. Just as long as he produces...
    Brian Boyle's contracts have been between 1.7 and 2.6M per year. If Strome wants to sign in that range, I'd consider it good value.

  6. #86
    HNIC BSBH Legend
    Pete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    78,236
    Rep Power
    558
    Quote Originally Posted by Phil in Absentia View Post
    "It could happen" is a flimsy rationale for giving $20 million dollars to a career under-performer.

    It's not hyperbole, either. It's fact. There's literally nothing that supports the idea that things are going to magically turn around in any of the data. Boxcars, underlying, whatever.

    Even if you want to throw everything away before he was a Ranger ó fine. He still shot at more than double his career average shooting percentage. I'm not sure how you square that, especially if he does something similar this year to break 50 points for the second time in his career (the first being the year he rode shotgun to Tavares).

    In short: the guy is a walking, flashing "buyer beware" sign.

    Yes, it's possible he'll just be a good player because New York is the right situation for him, but it's plausibility I'm interested in. Hope is not a strategy.
    In short, if a player comes to your team and does well, the default answer shouldn't be "Well he didn't do well anywhere else" because hey... Anywhere else isn't HERE.

    There are all kinds of factors the fancy spreadsheets don't cover like relationship with a coach, good therapist, killer weed guy and plenty of call girls... There's a reason Gomez was good in NJ and not so much anywhere else.

    Maybe we can let guys play and see how they do before judging them on a spreadsheet of past accomplishments?

    Also to note... 1. No one said sign him and hope he's good. It was always IF he's good, extend him. 2. Saying he was BAD is complete and utter hyperbole in a league where Lucic is still playing. 3. You can't say "Throw everything away before he was a Ranger" and then compare him to his average...before ...he was...a Ranger.

    Last time I checked, the guys living by spreadsheets were doing podcasts or getting hosed...like Dubas...or losing like Coyote boy.
    Last edited by Pete; 10-09-2019 at 12:04 AM.

  7. #87
    Senior Member Bantam Division
    Gravesy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Posts
    1,877
    Rep Power
    72
    I think branding Strome a "middle six guy" is pretty damn generous. He's in that role because the Rangers have virtually no depth at the center position, but he is never a middle six guy for a contending team bar being able to do a job in a pinch. Put it another way, if Strome is playing meaningful minutes on the Rangers second line in two years time it's highly doubtful this rebuild went as planned.
    If he does well this year I would consider signing him to terms reflective of what you'd typically pay a bottom six utility player, but that's it.

  8. #88
    HNIC BSBH Legend
    Pete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    78,236
    Rep Power
    558
    Averaging half a point a game for pretty terrible teams isn't middle 6?

    Wow. Tough crowd.

    Take a look around the league... Better teams have 50 point players on their second lines. Gourde, Tyler Johnson... DeBrusk in Boston. Strome averaged 40 over his career, for known shit show teams.

    It's like there's a narrative that just doesn't align with facts...
    Last edited by Pete; 10-09-2019 at 06:46 AM.

  9. #89
    The future is spelled K-A-K-K-O BSBH Legend
    Phil in Absentia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Brooklyn, NY
    Posts
    87,594
    Rep Power
    476
    Quote Originally Posted by The Dude View Post
    I pay him on if he has another productive season. As he gets older, he slides down the depth chart in favor of the prospect hopefulls. Again. 5 mill for a middle 6 guy that can play multiple positions and play multiple roles. Things Spooner couldn't do.
    It's not like what I'm suggesting is an overpayment, if he produces. I'd say that's the market. And if Chytil or Andersson or Howden can't step it up this season, the Rangers may have no choice but to pay that.
    Multiple roles? He has roster flexibility, I'll give you that, but "multiple roles" isn't a very accurate description. He can be used on a second PK unit. Like most players. Outside of that he's been, to this point, your average, run-of-the-mill middle-six player who can't produce big points or excel in a checking role, so he's just kind of there.

    We literally just lived through this with Namestnikov and Spooner. Vesey, too, to some extent. Why are we in such a hurry to give $5 million dollars to a guy who could just as easily end up the league's most expensive fourth-line center as he could a quality third-line center? Moreover, why are we in a hurry, period, to sign third-liners to long-term deals? It's like we're in Groundhog's Day with this stuff. Callahan, Dubinsky, Vesey, Namestnikov, Spooner, Strome. Soon it'll be Lemieux. None of these are the types of players you should be marrying. Get what you can out of them, let them go in free agency, and backfill with whoever you took in the second- and third-rounds two drafts ago. Rinse, repeat.
    "Everyone says you should be a good loser. If youíre a good loser, youíre a loser."
    - John Tortorella


    "Never be a spectator of unfairness or stupidity. Seek out argument and disputation for their own sake; the grave will supply plenty of time for silence."
    - Christopher Hitchens

  10. #90
    Moderator Junior Division
    Future's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Posts
    7,779
    Rep Power
    169
    Quote Originally Posted by Phil in Absentia View Post
    Multiple roles? He has roster flexibility, I'll give you that, but "multiple roles" isn't a very accurate description. He can be used on a second PK unit. Like most players. Outside of that he's been, to this point, your average, run-of-the-mill middle-six player who can't produce big points or excel in a checking role, so he's just kind of there.

    We literally just lived through this with Namestnikov and Spooner. Vesey, too, to some extent. Why are we in such a hurry to give $5 million dollars to a guy who could just as easily end up the league's most expensive fourth-line center as he could a quality third-line center? Moreover, why are we in a hurry, period, to sign third-liners to long-term deals? It's like we're in Groundhog's Day with this stuff. Callahan, Dubinsky, Vesey, Namestnikov, Spooner, Strome. Soon it'll be Lemieux. None of these are the types of players you should be marrying. Get what you can out of them, let them go in free agency, and backfill with whoever you took in the second- and third-rounds two drafts ago. Rinse, repeat.
    I agree with you about who Strome is, but I think you're exaggerating at $5m. The rest of the league knows all this too.

    His only long-term value to the Rangers is whatever he can fetch at the deadline. If he's a 50-point player, it'll be a decent return. If not, it's the same as the Namestnikov deal - which I'd do now to protect yourself against him being a 30-point player - and we move on.

  11. #91
    The future is spelled K-A-K-K-O BSBH Legend
    Phil in Absentia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Brooklyn, NY
    Posts
    87,594
    Rep Power
    476
    Quote Originally Posted by Pete View Post
    In short, if a player comes to your team and does well, the default answer shouldn't be "Well he didn't do well anywhere else" because hey... Anywhere else isn't HERE.

    There are all kinds of factors the fancy spreadsheets don't cover like relationship with a coach, good therapist, killer weed guy and plenty of call girls... There's a reason Gomez was good in NJ and not so much anywhere else.

    Maybe we can let guys play and see how they do before judging them on a spreadsheet of past accomplishments?

    Also to note... 1. No one said sign him and hope he's good. It was always IF he's good, extend him. 2. Saying he was BAD is complete and utter hyperbole in a league where Lucic is still playing. 3. You can't say "Throw everything away before he was a Ranger" and then compare him to his average...before ...he was...a Ranger.

    Last time I checked, the guys living by spreadsheets were doing podcasts or getting hosed...like Dubas...or losing like Coyote boy.
    Not only are you crawling into an unnecessary trench here, but you're tilting at windmills to boot. I literally said nothing about "spreadsheets." I didn't raise a single metric you'd consider "advanced." I gave you boxcar stats and referenced the aging curve — a principle that's been around for decades.

    Regardless, your argument sinks on principle. If history were as worthless as you suggest, no one would be balking at signing a 34-year-old player who's numbers are dwindling year-over-year because by your logic "everything that happened there isn't here." It's magic beans.

    "Sure, he beat all his other wives, but I'm different."

    Quote Originally Posted by Future View Post
    I agree with you about who Strome is, but I think you're exaggerating at $5m. The rest of the league knows all this too.

    His only long-term value to the Rangers is whatever he can fetch at the deadline. If he's a 50-point player, it'll be a decent return. If not, it's the same as the Namestnikov deal - which I'd do now to protect yourself against him being a 30-point player - and we move on.
    It's a figure Pete floated early on in the thread, assuming he put up 50 points this season.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gravesy View Post
    I think branding Strome a "middle six guy" is pretty damn generous. He's in that role because the Rangers have virtually no depth at the center position, but he is never a middle six guy for a contending team bar being able to do a job in a pinch. Put it another way, if Strome is playing meaningful minutes on the Rangers second line in two years time it's highly doubtful this rebuild went as planned.
    If he does well this year I would consider signing him to terms reflective of what you'd typically pay a bottom six utility player, but that's it.
    It's a nicer way of saying "third-liner."
    "Everyone says you should be a good loser. If youíre a good loser, youíre a loser."
    - John Tortorella


    "Never be a spectator of unfairness or stupidity. Seek out argument and disputation for their own sake; the grave will supply plenty of time for silence."
    - Christopher Hitchens

  12. #92
    Moderator Junior Division
    Future's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Posts
    7,779
    Rep Power
    169
    Quote Originally Posted by Phil in Absentia View Post
    It's a nicer way of saying "third-liner."
    Lol, yea I hate the term middle 6. Most of the guys who get that title are more likely to be on the 4th line than the 2nd line of any good team.

  13. #93
    HNIC BSBH Legend
    Pete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    78,236
    Rep Power
    558
    Strome isn't 34. Not sure what this means.

    Regardless, I am digging myself into a trench, over a player I actually don't care if they sign.

    I just think some of the descriptions and rationales not to sign him are hyperbolic and inaccurate.

    50 points is 2nd line production on good teams. Strome averaged 40 on bad teams. It's also been 2 games where only 3 forwards have been good and everyone is focused on him like he's the only issue.
    Quote Originally Posted by Phil in Absentia View Post
    Not only are you crawling into an unnecessary trench here, but you're tilting at windmills to boot. I literally said nothing about "spreadsheets." I didn't raise a single metric you'd consider "advanced." I gave you boxcar stats and referenced the aging curve ó a principle that's been around for decades.

    Regardless, your argument sinks on principle. If history were as worthless as you suggest, no one would be balking at signing a 34-year-old player who's numbers are dwindling year-over-year because by your logic "everything that happened there isn't here." It's magic beans.

    "Sure, he beat all his other wives, but I'm different."



    It's a figure Pete floated early on in the thread, assuming he put up 50 points this season.



    It's a nicer way of saying "third-liner."

  14. #94
    The future is spelled K-A-K-K-O BSBH Legend
    Phil in Absentia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Brooklyn, NY
    Posts
    87,594
    Rep Power
    476
    I mean, swap the age for someone his age, or similar. What I'm trying to illustrate is that — especially relative to the aging curve, which universally indicates that forwards peak at 27 — history still matters. Yes, there's critical context to account for, like the quality of teams played for (Ryan O'Reilly was a huge victim of this, as an example), but that's not a reason to treat history with a wash.

    There isn't a GM in the league — not one unconcerned with his future, at least — that wouldn't at least pause to question whether awarding such a player a multi-year deal is a worthwhile venture. Not when this happens almost every offseason with players in similar situations/positions, the majority of whom become burdens. Ville Leino, David Clarkson, Stephen Weiss, etc.
    "Everyone says you should be a good loser. If youíre a good loser, youíre a loser."
    - John Tortorella


    "Never be a spectator of unfairness or stupidity. Seek out argument and disputation for their own sake; the grave will supply plenty of time for silence."
    - Christopher Hitchens

  15. #95
    HNIC BSBH Legend
    Pete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    78,236
    Rep Power
    558
    Quote Originally Posted by Phil in Absentia View Post
    I mean, swap the age for someone his age, or similar. What I'm trying to illustrate is that — especially relative to the aging curve, which universally indicates that forwards peak at 27 — history still matters. Yes, there's critical context to account for, like the quality of teams played for (Ryan O'Reilly was a huge victim of this, as an example), but that's not a reason to treat history with a wash.

    There isn't a GM in the league — not one unconcerned with his future, at least — that wouldn't at least pause to question whether awarding such a player a multi-year deal is a worthwhile venture. Not when this happens almost every offseason with players in similar situations/positions, the majority of whom become burdens. Ville Leino, David Clarkson, Stephen Weiss, etc.
    All of whom got pretty max deals IIRC, I'm not talking about that for Strome. It doesn't matter, we don't need to agree, I'm not going to argue the point further.

    But I will continue to call out things like "he can't play on a second line". He certainly can, he just can't drive it and he's on a second line with 2 other player who can't drive it either.

  16. #96
    The future is spelled K-A-K-K-O BSBH Legend
    Phil in Absentia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Brooklyn, NY
    Posts
    87,594
    Rep Power
    476
    Which is my entire reason for not signing him to any deal of significance in term or AAV. My fundamental belief on this is to pay the guys who move the needle and use the ones who don't before leaving them to find homes in free agency. In other words, I draw a hard line between top-six and bottom-six and rarely do I agree with the idea that anyone south of it is worth marrying.
    "Everyone says you should be a good loser. If youíre a good loser, youíre a loser."
    - John Tortorella


    "Never be a spectator of unfairness or stupidity. Seek out argument and disputation for their own sake; the grave will supply plenty of time for silence."
    - Christopher Hitchens

  17. #97
    HNIC BSBH Legend
    Pete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    78,236
    Rep Power
    558
    Quote Originally Posted by Phil in Absentia View Post
    Which is my entire reason for not signing him to any deal of significance in term or AAV. My fundamental belief on this is to pay the guys who move the needle and use the ones who don't before leaving them to find homes in free agency. In other words, I draw a hard line between top-six and bottom-six and rarely do I agree with the idea that anyone south of it is worth marrying.
    I'd like to see if anyone in the NHL agrees with that, since the guys in those roles are often valued highly by teammates and are great in the room...Poile is a pretty good GM and he married Colton Scissons for 7 years tho cheap.

  18. #98
    Senior Member Bantam Division
    rmc51's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    2,446
    Rep Power
    87
    Quote Originally Posted by Pete View Post
    Strome isn't 34. Not sure what this means.

    Regardless, I am digging myself into a trench, over a player I actually don't care if they sign.

    I just think some of the descriptions and rationales not to sign him are hyperbolic and inaccurate.

    50 points is 2nd line production on good teams. Strome averaged 40 on bad teams. It's also been 2 games where only 3 forwards have been good and everyone is focused on him like he's the only issue.
    No, he certainly hasn't. Let's not take one year in the league with the Islanders and pretend how capable he is of consistently being a 40 point player. And he wasn't a guarantee to get to 40 last year if he played the entire year with the Rangers. At best, as of right now, he has consistently averaged around 35 points. If that's your 2nd line center, you're not winning a Cup. Frankly, it doesn't really matter if he were to put up 50 this year. He's done it before and then regressed to a 35 point player for several years. I wouldn't trust him to do it again whatsoever based on his body of work.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pete View Post
    All of whom got pretty max deals IIRC, I'm not talking about that for Strome. It doesn't matter, we don't need to agree, I'm not going to argue the point further.

    But I will continue to call out things like "he can't play on a second line". He certainly can, he just can't drive it and he's on a second line with 2 other player who can't drive it either.
    He can. Just not on a Cup contender. I guess it comes down to what kind of team you want to build. I'd rather have one that can win a Cup.

  19. #99
    The future is spelled K-A-K-K-O BSBH Legend
    Phil in Absentia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Brooklyn, NY
    Posts
    87,594
    Rep Power
    476
    Quote Originally Posted by Pete View Post
    I'd like to see if anyone in the NHL agrees with that, since the guys in those roles are often valued highly by teammates and are great in the room...Poile is a pretty good GM and he married Colton Scissons for 7 years tho cheap.
    That's why I said rarely, not never. If your organization has a couple of glue guys who's off-ice value elevates their status beyond their on-ice impact, by all means, but the margin for error here is small.

    But there are caveats to who and how long to account for there, too. Prust was one of those guys, for example. Do you regret the Rangers not giving him the four-year deal he was after? I don't.
    "Everyone says you should be a good loser. If youíre a good loser, youíre a loser."
    - John Tortorella


    "Never be a spectator of unfairness or stupidity. Seek out argument and disputation for their own sake; the grave will supply plenty of time for silence."
    - Christopher Hitchens

  20. #100
    HNIC BSBH Legend
    Pete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    78,236
    Rep Power
    558
    Quote Originally Posted by Phil in Absentia View Post
    That's why I said rarely, not never. If your organization has a couple of glue guys who's off-ice value elevates their status beyond their on-ice impact, by all means, but the margin for error here is small.

    But there are caveats to who and how long to account for there, too. Prust was one of those guys, for example. Do you regret the Rangers not giving him the four-year deal he was after? I don't.
    Not really, but then they went and traded for Dorsett...So at end of day we agree it's all about price tag.

Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst ... 34567 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •