[brooks] Versatile Veteran Strome Looking to be Part of the Rangers? Core

Namestnikov is an interesting name in this conversation because he's the same age as Strome and is in roughly the same position relative to free agency. He also shares a number of similar in-game characteristics like playing multiple forward positions and putting up middle-to-bottom-six numbers for most of his career.

 

If Vlad put up a 50-point season, would you want him at say 5x4 or 5x5? I wouldn't.

At the time most were advocating for Strome, he basically doubled Names goal output (on a goal per game rate). That's the difference.

 

Two games in this year, he looks totally overmatched and there's no room for him on the third line... So... 80 games left to see what happens.

At the time most were advocating for Strome, he basically doubled Names goal output (on a goal per game rate). That's the difference.

 

Two games in this year, he looks totally overmatched and there's no room for him on the third line... So... 80 games left to see what happens.

 

Shooting at 20+ percent ? a rate we both knew he?d regress to the mean from.

 

There?s still time, of course, but both his history and the aging curve are working against him, as is the fact they?d likely be paying for what could be an aberration year (should they lock him up after a say 50-point season). Too many variables. Not enough constants.

 

And none of this even broaches the fact that keeping him blocks the path for numerous centers who can?t get into the lineup and/or into advantageous positions as it is.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Blueshirts Brotherhood mobile app powered by Tapatalk

Shooting at 20+ percent ? a rate we both knew he?d regress to the mean from.

 

There?s still time, of course, but both his history and the aging curve are working against him, as is the fact they?d likely be paying for what could be an aberration year (should they lock him up after a say 50-point season). Too many variables. Not enough constants.

 

And none of this even broaches the fact that keeping him blocks the path for numerous centers who can?t get into the lineup and/or into advantageous positions as it is.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Blueshirts Brotherhood mobile app powered by Tapatalk

Yea but there are plenty of players who are late bloomers.

 

That's why it was always "IF Strome puts up 50 points this year" he's worth something like $4+ x 5 to give your middle 6 some stability and versatility. That's not a cap-busting deal for that kind of production.

Not many. Some. It's very rare. It's why the aging curve exists. Most players stay true to it. Given the inflated shooting percentage and his career numbers/averages, he's not very likely to buck that trend.

 

That's also not a cap-busting deal yet. It would quickly become a problem (see Toronto) when Kakko, Kravtsov, Miller, etc. all need big-money long-term extensions. Those "danger zone" deals are always the ones that hurt the most.

Not many. Some. It's very rare. It's why the aging curve exists. Most players stay true to it. Given the inflated shooting percentage and his career numbers/averages, he's not very likely to buck that trend.

 

That's also not a cap-busting deal yet. It would quickly become a problem (see Toronto) when Kakko, Kravtsov, Miller, etc. all need big-money long-term extensions. Those "danger zone" deals are always the ones that hurt the most.

Well they're called "late bloomers" because they buck the trend. Even with the age curve, on a 5 year deal you keep him 2 years past "prime".

 

On this team, we have our danger zone contracts expiring in Staal, Lundy, Smith and buyouts all coming off in big chunks.

 

You can't build with a revolving door, either.

Not many. Some. It's very rare. It's why the aging curve exists. Most players stay true to it. Given the inflated shooting percentage and his career numbers/averages, he's not very likely to buck that trend.

 

That's also not a cap-busting deal yet. It would quickly become a problem (see Toronto) when Kakko, Kravtsov, Miller, etc. all need big-money long-term extensions. Those "danger zone" deals are always the ones that hurt the most.

 

Have to start adding Zibanejad to that list. He'll be a UFA at 29 and the Rangers may have a very important decision to make on him. Might be looking for a Panarin contract.

Well they're called "late bloomers" because they buck the trend. Even with the age curve, on a 5 year deal you keep him 2 years past "prime".

 

On this team, we have our danger zone contracts expiring in Staal, Lundy, Smith and buyouts all coming off in big chunks.

 

You can't build with a revolving door, either.

 

Which should serve as warnings, not invitations to do it again. Smith, though a defenseman, is a prime example of a guy who was paid for what turned out to be an anomaly. His case was an even smaller sample size, but it still illustrates the point well: danger zone deals for 26/27/28-year old players are generally not a good idea.

Have to start adding Zibanejad to that list. He'll be a UFA at 29 and the Rangers may have a very important decision to make on him. Might be looking for a Panarin contract.

Panarin was 27 though, not 29.

Which should serve as warnings, not invitations to do it again. Smith, though a defenseman, is a prime example of a guy who was paid for what turned out to be an anomaly. His case was an even smaller sample size, but it still illustrates the point well: danger zone deals for 26/27/28-year old players are generally not a good idea.

Depends if you're a cap team or not.

 

We're not like TO. Doesn't look like Chytil or Andersson are gonna get paid.

 

Maybe Kravtsov.

 

Probably Kakko. But not all at the same time.

Right, but within years of each other, and the team alerady has Panarin locked up and will likely need ot do the same with Zibanejad. Even with a rising cap, it's just not wise to sink a lot of money into guys who aren't going to get better or who aren't statistically likely to be a stronger performer. Strome, to me, is just too risky a player to bank multiple years on.

Panarin was 27 though, not 29.

 

Probably won't change the fact Zibanejad will be looking for a 7 year deal at high $.

 

Not being clogged down with 4-5M in a guy like Strome allows you to make that signing more easily.

Probably won't change the fact Zibanejad will be looking for a 7 year deal at high $.

 

Not being clogged down with 4-5M in a guy like Strome allows you to make that signing more easily.

I don't know if I'd want to sign Zib for 7 years on the other side of 29, unless it was a REALLY team Friendly deal.

Strome isn't even risky, he's brutal, he'll show you this in the next 80 games. Just move on.

Strome isn't even risky, he's brutal, he'll show you this in the next 80 games. Just move on.

Nah. Names was brutal.

 

Strome is just middle of the road when it doesn't pay to be a middle of the road free agent.

 

Someone with no cap issues will pay him, and he'll contribute.

 

I mean people are judging him based on his play for 2 shit orgs, and 2 games this year, and totally discounting when he played well.

 

For some players, it's all about role and expectations.

Nah. Names was brutal.

 

Strome is just middle of the road when it doesn't pay to be a middle of the road free agent.

 

Someone with no cap issues will pay him, and he'll contribute.

 

I mean people are judging him based on his play for 2 shit orgs, and 2 games this year, and totally discounting when he played well.

 

For some players, it's all about role and expectations.

 

Strome has been worse than Namestnikov, because he has had more ice time and has done nothing with it. I'd be shocked if the Rangers consider him a realistic option to be part of the core moving forward.

They've produced at the same rate in their career. Namestnikov played with some good players but so has Strome, arguably more often.

 

Namestnikov was bad, but he has the same disease Strome has, he lacks the high end skill to create and finish. Plays go to die on Strome's stick the same as they did for Namestnikov.

 

They're pretty set at 3/4 C so I have no idea where Strome is fitting in, he's not, obviously.

Strome has been worse than Namestnikov, because he has had more ice time and has done nothing with it. I'd be shocked if the Rangers consider him a realistic option to be part of the core moving forward.

Yes... Over the first TWO games this season.

 

But not at all the case last season. Names was the one who was showcased at times with Zib after Zucc was traded.

They've produced at the same rate in their career. Namestnikov played with some good players but so has Strome, arguably more often.

 

Namestnikov was bad, but he has the same disease Strome has, he lacks the high end skill to create and finish. Plays go to die on Strome's stick the same as they did for Namestnikov.

 

They're pretty set at 3/4 C so I have no idea where Strome is fitting in, he's not, obviously.

Sorry but box stats and eyeballs don't say Strome and Names were the same for the Rangers. Which is really all I care about. Previous teams mean jack.

OK, you put that stock in a shooting pct run, more power to you.

OK, you put that stock in a shooting pct run, more power to you.

You're right. Strome was probably just really lucky at the EXACT SAME TIME Names was just realllllllly unlucky... And not having his value elevated with Stamkos and Kuch in a genius move by Yzerman.

 

That's all pure and total coincidence. I'll probably play 9-0-1-6 as lotto numbers because of the kismit.

What are you on about, I'm saying both are bad.

 

Strome played his way off two teams by age 24.

 

Then he came here and had 18 goals on 30 shots for a bottom feeder club.

 

I'll take larger sample size that showed he was really, really bad.

Yes... Over the first TWO games this season.

 

But not at all the case last season. Names was the one who was showcased at times with Zib after Zucc was traded.

 

Don't care too much to narrow down the careers of both players to just last year. Looking at the full body of work, there's no difference between the two. Zero. $3M 3rd line type players. Strome's marginally better performance in 3/4 of a season with the Rangers, and a lower cap hit, is the only reason he is here and Namestnikov is not.

Nah. Names was brutal.

 

Strome is just middle of the road when it doesn't pay to be a middle of the road free agent.

 

Someone with no cap issues will pay him, and he'll contribute.

 

I mean people are judging him based on his play for 2 shit orgs, and 2 games this year, and totally discounting when he played well.

 

For some players, it's all about role and expectations.

 

No, I'm judging him based on his entire career + the inflated shooting percentage performance he had with the Rangers that's in no way sustainable.

Right. But to be clear, it's the years I care about most. Much more than the AAV. I'd sooner give Strome one year at 5 million than five years at just about anything.

 

 

 

That was mostly true in previous years' markets. It's not really the case anymore. Rising cap = rising salaries.

 

And again, history of player + aging curve suggests he has more bad years ahead than good. I'm not investing in that in the hopes that he's going to buck the trend and stave off father time.

 

He's 26.... 5 mill for a guy that can play any position in your middle six and possibly put up 40-50 points? Isn't that below market these days? This is all contingent on him playing well again. If he puts up points that's two productive seasons in a row... Players have gotten much more from teams for less output.

 

If Strome produces, I would like to bring him back at nothing more than 5 mill X 3/4 years.

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.