BrooksBurner

Yea, end of the day I think we just kind of have an opposite perspective on what he is. A UFA providing value is exceedingly rare, but I do think Duchene can be a 70-point player fairly consistnetly...that's worth $8m on the market all day.

 

I think there's a ton of value in having a high-end 2c, especially with the way Kakko immediately changes our wing depth. Assuming you're overpaying for a UFA anyways, I'd be tempted to do that, at still a lower price, than go all in for Panarin, because you're filling a hole that Panarin simply doesn't. We need to keep in mind that the cost of Panarin is Panarin + a 2c. I can't imagine they plan on going into this season with Panarin and having the 2c be Chytil or Howden.

 

If Duchene becomes a perennial 70 point center over the next 4-5 years, whoever gets him at 7-8 mill a season will be getting a great deal. My money says he doesn't though. I feel like he's been in the league long enough to see what he is, which is a fairly inconsistent 2nd line C.

2 points fewer at $2m cheaper, I'm taking McD. There's also a colossal difference between a player who is 22 and one who is 27.

 

The first thing you responded to was me talking about both, together. You then went into the talk about Standard Deviations and comparing Panarin to Duchene, in a vacuum. All I said about Panarin was that he has as many seasons as a 70-something point player as he does an 80-something point player.

 

Well, clearly a misunderstanding. I addressed your Kreider/Duchene vs. Panarin hypothetical. Then I separately addressed a comment you made in the same post about why there would be a distaste for Duchene (specifically, not Kreider). I thought it was clear but I should have broken down your quote into two sections and answered separately.

 

The point still stands though. Duchene is far more likely to wind up not earning his contract than Panarin. It doesn't mean he wouldn't, but odds and probability matter.

I'd like to think Rykov is a little more seasoned than Lindgren since he has spent a few seasons in the KHL compared to Lindgren's 1 full season in the AHL. The KHL is probably a more talented league to play in.

The "math" I referred to was, explicitly, Kreider+Duchene.

 

McDavid had 116 points last year. That's more than the numbers I posted above and he didn't even lead the league in scoring...People forget that Panarin was 17th in scoring last year. It's not like he's a top-5 player.

 

It's also not just Kreider+Duchene vs. Panarin production in a vacuum. It includes price. Is 30 more goals worth $2m more? Would you trade Kreider, Duchene, 4 first rounders, and an extra $9-10m in cap space for Panarin and Point? If not Point, what's the cost of a 2c? Would you rather have Panarin and, say, Kevin Hayes at $18m instead of Kreider and Duchene at $14m? In these cases, I'm having a hard time seeing where Kreider+Duchene isn't really the best option. Yes, there is some risk in Duchene.

 

Give me McDavid's 3 year average just like you did with the other 2, and not just the career high he set last year. Let's not cherrypick.

 

McDavid 3 year average: 37 G 71 A 108 points

 

Still less output. Now what?

 

Also I never mentioned Kreider. I pointed out Duchene's variance as a reason for "distaste", which you tried to invalidate with some off the cuff and inaccurate Panarin variance comparison.

Duchene + Kreider...

 

Both would have to hit pretty ridiculous lows to not surpass Panarin's production. Just averaging the last 3-year pace....

 

Kreider + Duchene - 55 G, 60 A

Panarin - 29 G, 53A

 

So sure, your point is true that there is more variance to Duchene's game, and probably Kreider's too, than Panarin's. But it's a pretty hard sell that both Kreider and Duchene would hit such low numbers as to not surpass what you get from Panarin. That's my point. Plus, you don't need to spend further resources on a 2c.

 

My comment wasn't about Duchene + Kreider. That's a separate discussion. It was in reference to your comment about a distaste for Duchene. It's variance and therefore increased risk.

 

With regards to Duchene + Kreider vs Panarin, does it really work like that? By that logic Kreider + Duchene would outscore just about any single player in the league. So Duchene + Kreider > McDavid?

p/gp, not total points, is relevant.

 

I'm not even sure what your point is though. Panarin is a better player.

 

Lol you asked what math makes it true. Standard deviation of year over year production is a good indicator of what range from the mean we might see. Duchene has a lot more uncertainty. But yes, you are right in that P/GP std deviation year over year would be much more accurate.

 

Panarin: 0.0728

Duchene: 0.1629

 

Panarin much more likely to finish closer to his P/GP average than Duchene; therefore, much less likely to bust.

I don't really know what math makes that true...

 

Could say the same about Panarin. Is he an 87-point player or a 76-point player? It's not like Duchene has never been a 70+ player before.

 

Just look at the stats. If you really want to break it down calculate the standard deviation for each.

 

Duchene: 13.01

Panarin: 4.95

 

There is a much greater range in production from year to year with Duchene. You can tell this discrepancy just by looking at year over year production.

 

This doesn't take into account potential progression upwards either. Panarin is still on an upwards trajectory. Duchene is up and down. Hard to tell.

I don't really get the distatste for Duchene, he would be a great get for the Rangers precisely because he could be a "wagon" as the 2c behind Zib. Especially considering our hole at C, he could be an excellent add. Panarin at $12m might not be a better signing than Duchene at, say, $8m, without giving up RFA compensation. The problem is that someone is likely to pay Duch as a high-end 1c.

 

I think the conversation around NYR hasn't shifted enough to address the massive hole at C, or the fact that Kakko solves a lot of the issues on the wing. The Panarin talk started long before the lottery, and getting so lucky changed a lot of that, or should have.

 

Are we sure that a top-9 of:

 

Kreider - Zib - Buch

Kakko - Duchene - Chytil

Lias - Howden - Kravtsov

 

would be worse than:

 

Panarin - Zib - Buch

Lias- Chytil - Kakko

Lemieux - Howden - Kravtsov

 

I mean, is Panarin at $12m better than Kreider AND Duchene at $14m? I'd have a hard time buying that argument, especially when you haven't solved 2c with Panarin.

 

Right now? Absolutely yes.

 

I wouldn't call it distaste for Duchene as much as you don't know what you're getting with him. Are you getting 70 point Duchene from last season or are you getting 55 point Duchene from basically the rest of his career? Hard to know if he's hitting a stride of consistency at a high level or if he just peaked and that's all you're paying for. Locked up to a 55 point player for 7-8 million over 5-7 years is big trouble. That's part of the reason why they traded Stepan.

I'd argue this one, actually. For 2020, you're almost assuredly right - I can't argue that.

 

However, for two or three years down the line?

 

You'd be talking about a top of the lineup that looks something like this:

 

Kreider-Point-Kakko

Kravtsov-Zibanejad-Chytil

 

Miller-Fox

Hajek-Rykov

 

Georgiev/Shesterkin

 

Hard to imagine that top of the lineup not being competitive - not including Buchnevich in here, or Andersson, or any of the other pieces we'll pick up on the way.

 

I consider phrasing the question as "Would you give #15 in 2020, #24 in 2021, #32 in 2022 (hey, let's get some optimism), and #24-32 in 2023 for Point?" and I've gotta say...that's not a tough sell in my book.

 

Agreed. The firsts should certainly become less valuable year over year.

This to me is more of an example of them not having enough time to cover every detail in an effort to wrap everything up in a six-episode season. Tyrion wasn't executed because Danny didn't order him executed at that moment, just imprisoned. My guess is that she figured she could deal with him later so she could enjoy her victory, but later never came.

 

Grey Worm has never been a decision maker. He's a follower of orders. He was bred to be a follower of orders. Who's going to order him to execute Jon? We've seen this before. He didn't immediately storm King's Landing when Missande was executed by Cersei because he has that kind of restraint. He loved her more than he loved Dany. So he's not going to take it upon himself to execute Jon.

 

Perhaps, but it doesn't explain the Dothraki and there was plenty of other fluff in the season that wasn't nearly as important as explaining the gap between Daenerys' death and the council meeting. All of which still points to bad writing.

Believe me, man. I care about details of TV. It's my job. Bronn's storyline wasn't one that needed further exploration. His character is a secondary character -- so yeah, his name is not one I was thinking about nor caring about at the end of this journey. I forgot all about him until he walked in the room at the end.

 

I would say they weren't killed because Jon was the rightful king, which everyone knew by that time. It's also a moment where for the first time in the history of that universe, there's no one to tell them what to do. An "oh shit, what now" moment. Jon and Tyrion were also in the shit with Grey Worm, they're not just random people. They have a deep history. It shows a growth in Grey Worm and ads intrigue to his character arc. He was torn. Which we saw all the way up until the end.

 

I'd love to know what else you didn't think made any sense. I'm using you as the voice of the vocal minority in social media who went so far as to sign a god damn petition to get the show remade. People who claim that the sanctity of Star Wars is now fucked -- a series that fucking stinks anyway.

 

I don't mean to jump on you specifically, but I'm a TV writer and I take great offense to people shitting on someone because it didn't go the way they wanted. I reject the terms "lazy" or "bad writing" considering the entire country tuned in for 10+ years to watch this story unfold. Live events were scheduled around the airing of this show. It's the best television show ever made.

 

Nah, I can dislike an episode without being grouped with whiners signing petitions. I enjoyed the rest of the season despite the rushed nature, up until the last episode and bits of the one before that.

 

I could sit here for 20 minutes typing up a bunch of examples but it's over and it wouldn't change the ending or your mind regardless. You called it the greatest finale in history though and you didn't know who Bronn was. Come on man...you set yourself up on that one. You have a sympathetic attachment for the writers given your own working background, but this kind of job naturally comes with critique. They got a lot of deserved praise for a long time with this show, but they botched the ending and are getting much deserved criticism. They will just have to live with the "but" attached to a description of the series: "Game of Thrones was one of the great tv shows in this era, but the ending wasn't up to par".

 

Personal opinion: Breaking Bad remains the best written tv show ever made. From start to finish. Game of Thrones had a chance to compete with a ginormous budget and came short at the end.

or 4 1sts.

$10,568,590+

 

To date, I haven't seen enough from the Rangers prospects in the NHL to be comfortable trading away 4 1sts for Point.

 

$10.5 million+ to give up 4 1sts, no thanks.

 

A counter point is if the Stars re-sign Zucc and we get their 1st, then we trade Kreider for a 1st+, that recoups roughly half the cost for an offersheet to Point. Not exactly half since I would rather own the Rangers' own 1sts than those hypothetical ones.

 

I would probably be inclined to do Kreider and 2 1sts for Point. Hell, make Tampa a similar offer for Point before offersheeting if you go that route.

If not Panarin, and presumably no Karlsson, then it should be nobody. Elite players only. Don't overpay for secondary players. Continue down the path of youth development and expect a lottery team the next 2 years.

If Tampa's trading Callahan it's probably to flat out dump his salary to get some cap space back. Would be shocked if they had any interest in Shattenkirk with his contract. I would think they'd be more interested in someone like Pionk, who can probably be re-signed on a cheaper 2x2.5 kind of deal. That would save them 3.3M against the cap if they are unloading Callahan. The question is, do they have anything good enough to make it worth it on the Rangers' end?

There are plenty of characters that didn't resonate with me that I might not remember the names of but other people who liked those characters would feel were integral.

 

Bronn got his castle, I'm sure he's not complaining. I'm not sure what you think could have been added to his story line that isn't just comic relief.

 

Especially when there were not enough minutes to go around.

 

I'm interested in what significant logical lapses people find. Most character's got wrapped up appropriately in my view.

 

I liked but didn't love this season. That's a step down from the other 7 seasons for me. It was the lapse of details that are understandable in this short of a season.

 

Sent from my [device_name] using http://Blueshirts Brotherhood mobile app powered by Tapatalk

 

I just wouldn't expect someone who doesn't know who Bronn is to care much about details. That's all.

 

Here's an example of a significant logical lapse: Jon and Tyrion aren't immediately executed by the Unsullied and Dothraki after their Queen is murdered. All of a sudden they are reasonable people? Even reasonable people would dole out capital punishment, let alone savage armies.

 

Regardless, I've moved on from the show and onto another one. It was great while it lasted, but the last 2 episodes certainly knock the show down a peg. Certainly takes away from rewatchability.

The writing was great but you don't know who Bron was? That's....curious.

 

If someone doesn't know who Bronn was then they really didn't pay much attention, or maybe even watch the series. Kind of invalidates any opinion there. Some people like to be contrarian for the sake of being contrarian.

You can't end the show with Cersei being alive, because then the show isn't over. As far as storylines go, the finale made sense for every single character.

 

It floors me that people say "the writing sucks" and shit on the two writers when really it just didn't end like YOU wanted it to.

 

It doesn't have anything to do with getting a specific ending, but it should at least make sense (and no, it absolutely did not make sense).

How do you read that script and think that's good writing?

Fuck that. That is all.

I don't get the hate for the Sharks around here? Just because they got a couple of calls that wasn't their choice, or is there another reason?

I do wonder if people would still be all about Kakko if we had the 1st overall pick. Like I wonder as to the extent to which the likelihood of getting him impacts folks' opinions. Anyone still taking Kakko if we were picking 1st overall?

 

Heh, kinda funny. I had just mentioned this in another thread too: http://www.blueshirtsbrotherhood.com/showthread.php?21604-Kane-on-Hughes-He-does-a-lot-of-things-better-than-me&p=968636&viewfull=1#post968636

 

All of the talk would be about Hughes' electeic playmaking and skating IMO...as it should be.

People have been shitting on Marc Staal for years but he’s the only plus defender in the last two seasons (collectively) and has been beyond steady. Yes, I’m sure there’s some kind of advanced stat based on zone starts or whatever that says he’s garbage but as far as being a leader and defensive defender, he’s a useful piece to a rebuilding team that has no idea how to keep the puck out of their net. I’d much rather keep him than Shattenkirk or Smith or Pionk even.

 

I think Staal built that rap sheet because he had a horrific 1-2 seasons, 3-4 years ago. I thought he was solid last year and the year before. I agree with you as I absolutely think he is a good thing to have on a 2nd/3rd pair for this team right now.

They should be using Karlsson on the PP and offensive draws only. He clearly is having issues skating right now.

When was the last time anyone felt this fortunate to have the #2? Probably Tampa Bay when they took Hedman after Tavares went #1. Either way, they were getting a stud.

 

Yup. I do think if the Rangers had the #1 pick, the tune around here and other Rangers fan message boards would be different though with regards to Hughes vs Kakko. To me, Hughes is and has been the best prospect for this draft class for 2-3 years. A few games in a tournament doesn't change that. Nothing against Kakko, but Hughes is the superior prospect and is elite in the types of things that make a player elite in today's NHL. That's not to say Kakko isn't a very high end prospect in his own right and has a chance to be better than Hughes, but it does feel like there's some sugar coating going on just because we are almost definitely getting Kakko instead.

https://www.nhl.com/news/jack-hughes-gets-assist-from-family-ahead-of-2019-nhl-draft/c-307453174

 

"I feel like when smaller players come into the League and they have that offensive-type game, it seems to be easy to compare them to a guy like me," said Kane, who is 5-foot-10, 170 pounds, but was 5-9, 160 at the 2007 NHL Scouting Combine. "But I think he does a lot of things better than me, to be honest with you.

 

"He's always moving, always skating, and even if he's not near the puck or the action, he's still got his speed and he's coming into the zone or coming into the action with a lot of movement and speed."