BrooksBurner

Wouldn't they all to this? lol

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.

Strome is actually 26 anyway. Good luck with that. Here's to hoping he busts out now in year 7!

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?

Definitely the crocodile. As I said in the other thread, at least there's a fighting chance against a croc if you can wrap around the snout before it opens it's jaws. Interesting factoid: https://www.livescience.com/28306-crocodiles.html

Yes. At least there's a fighting chance there if you can wrap around the snout before it opens it's jaws.

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.

25 PPG? I hope he signed with the Knicks. Really though, you are right. The total points argument on Trouba isn't the correct one because it doesn't represent the pace he has put up points. The real argument should be durability. 2016-17: 45 point pace, but only played 60 games 17-18: 36 point pace but only played 55 games On top of that, he historically hasn't gotten much PP time. Last year he had an uptick in PP time but still well below other first pairing defensemen he is being compared to. He had 18 PPP last year, and his previous high was 6. Just as importantly as PP time, he played the whole year.

If that's what Trouba turns out to be then I'd be more okay paying him 8 than the 5.25 Skjei gets to be a sieve in the D zone.

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?

A couple of others have chimed in already, but he's had less than 2 full seasons in the NHL. I think he's pretty refined offensively. I don't think it's out of the question to expect him to improve defensively. I wouldn't call that changing course 180 degrees. Many defensemen don't reach their peaks until mid-late 20s.

It's a wierd condition to put in the trade. The Rangers clearly must have doubt about Fox cracking the lineup, even if they say he will get a full opportunity to make the team. He would really have to blow them away. Forget all of this if they pivot and buyout Shattenkirk though.

At the moment, yes, I agree. You can't long term him right now, but if DeAngelo improves defensively it would be a tough call to extend him versus trade him next summer. I'm not sold that they will see Fox enough this year to know that they can dump DeAngelo. I have a suspicion they put the 30 game condition on the pick in the Fox trade because they don't expect him to reach it, which tells me the plan is to go with Trouba/DeAngelo/Shattenkirk and get Fox exposure in the 2nd half. I'd like to think that was their plan at the time of the trade anyway.

Pionk's offense was never his problem. He could easily hit 40-45 points, but his defense was always the problem. Similar with DeAngelo, though I saw improvement from DeAngelo defensively as the season progressed. It felt like Pionk regressed even more in that aspect.

I don't see them going into the season with Kreider, Namestnikov, and Buchnevich. One of them is a goner. I imagine they've gotten word from Kreider on what he is expecting by now contract wise, so they can make their next move. It's been pretty tight lipped. If it's reasonable, I think Namestnikov is gone and Kreider is re-signed. If not, Kreider is gone. Wild card is they trade Buchnevich but I have a tough time thinking they would do that before the alternative.

Seems likely DeAngelo is going to get hardballed since he is not arbitration eligible. Wouldn't be surprised to see a 1 year deal for 1.2-1.5. Long term deal next offseason if he improves further. Saving 500k-1M on his contract is a big deal.

There were no pot shots there lol. Your OEL comparison is way off the mark. You picked a bad example and then you try to group him with Hedman and Carlson. Oof. Trouba is close to OEL, and the other 2 are clearly on a different level. The Rangers gambled on trading for Trouba without talking to him first about a contract. Seems to me they were in a spot where they pay a little more than his current worth or they go into the season with a question mark on him remaining with the team after a year. If you disagree with the gamble, fine. I can't say I am particularly all in on the move either. At least like I am with the Panarin signing anyway.

OEL, Hedman, Carlson. One of these is not like the others. I'm actually surprised Hedman and Carlson took those deals to be honest, when guys like Doughty get 11. Karlsson this year at 11.5. It's actually pretty confusing and illustrates you can't pick out the contracts that fit a narrative and leave the ones out that don't. Seems probable to me that Hedman/Carlson valued where they were enough to give quite a large hometown discount to stay put. If the Rangers were uncomfortable with the Trouba $ they shouldn't have made the trade in the first place.

You made the OEL claim then brought up Trouba's 50 points and said it wasn't valid. Do better to back up your claim.

You're stuck on point totals. It's not one good year. Jury is definitely out on Trouba living up to the contract, but his body of work to this point though puts him in this neighborhood dollar wise. Even though it's at the higher end of the neighborhood.

Agreed, but I'm not the one who made the OEL claim or the one who initially brought up point totals to paint a picture. I posted even strength stats because someone posted point totals first, which was gerrymandering as you say ;)

I didn't bring OEL up. Someone said there was a big gap between him and Trouba. I'm not sure what your point is, or if you even have one.

I wasn't aware that an 86 point team was terrible, but I'm not sure where I've said that team talent doesn't matter. Pretty sure I said the exact opposite a few posts up.

No. I've already stated I thought the contract came in a little high. I think OEL's is a bit high too. What we've established though is that you are wrong about there being a big gap between Trouba and OEL.

Yes and even strength OEL has 127 points in 479 games and Trouba has 121 in 408 games, which is my point about PP time. OEL has had the minutes and opportunity to do damage on the PP. Trouba didn't really get that opportunity until last season, and he still only got close to half the PP time that OEL received (165 min vs. 276 min). It doesn't mean Trouba is guaranteed to repeat production even with a repeat in PP time or with a new team, but based on the numbers he is not that far behind OEL.