Future

Of course he'll score more with Panarin... But the point is that he's been tried there before, and it has worked. Until his injury, Buch was pacing like 65 points. Kreider and Zib were both pacing around 70 points until Zib's injury in November, it's not like they weren't productive. Buch has been put in positions to score in his career, playing with the best talent on the team. The difference is that now he's more ready to stick there because he has - presumably - a more complete game.

Are we just ignoring the fact that AV did this...in 2016? Are we forgetting KZB? I think it will work better now, because Buch is a better player and there's more depth, but it's not like he's never been put in a position to be productive or it's some new way of thinking baout Buch.

Agreed. Wait until after NE...10 days to prepare for Arizona and you avoid both NE and Minny the week before.

That's MR. Cowboys fan, to you, pal.

Lol no it doesn't. The Giants suck and aren't close to being good. That perspective has nothing to do with who I root for.

I mentioned Love. Just because they are young doesn't mean they are good. You're banking on 8 of these 10 guys becoming good players in the next two years? No shot.

It's illustrative of how "proving yourself" doesn't really make sense for the offer that ADA got.

Then how can you say that Rykov and Lindgren deserve the same contract? Has ADA not proven more than them?

His character issues aren't worth $3+ million dollars. He's kind of a punk, but it's not like he's out getting in any real trouble or anything. But like I said, those guys aren't really his peers, so he shouldn't be getting $4m. But 925k is the same amount that guys make who haven't even played a game in North America. Put it this way...do Rykov and Lindgren deserve the same contract as ADA? Have they proven they're worth it any more than ADA? Like him or not, he's shown to be an NHL talent. That's more than a lot of guys who make the same money.

This is only true if you haven't paid attention to the last two seasons. He is a legitimate NHL defenseman. The question is whether or not he's a top-4, PP1QB, or third-pair in favorable matchups.

$925k is really a lowball offer, I don't blame ADA for not wanting that. I know that points don't tell the whole story but, he scored at the same rate as Jake Gardiner, who just got $4m. Colton Parayko and Hampus Lindholm had 2 fewer points in 19 and 15 more games and make over $5m. Christ, Shattenkirk was effectively behind ADA on the depth chart and got double (1.75). Ghost and Montour are comps in terms of scoring pace and defensive meh-ness, and make closer to $4m. No, those first few guys aren't ADA's peers, and $4m is too high. But an ELC/vet min number is really, really low. I'm also not really sure I understand why anyone would be saying we're OK without him or he's super expendable. Are we forgetting...the second half of the season? Starting in February, he played 29 games. Had 18 points (pace 51), was a +2 and averaged 20:02. In February alone, playing with Staal primarily, he had 11 in 13 games. On that roster, those numbers are...very strong.

Yea, I'm not saying they shouldn't give him a look at some point, but I don't think the overall roster construction should really influence where Kakko plays. If he's an elite W but just a good C, leave him on the wing and build around him. For instance, I'd rather have him be Patrick Kane than Sean Couturier even if Couturier fills a more obvious hole on the roster.

The bolded is the thinking that I don't agree with. That type of thinking shoehorns players into roles that limits their ceilings. The overall roster fit for a guy who is 18 should be secondary to development. I'd rather have to go out and find another center than limit Kakko's upside by molding him into a center.

He's a sure thing as a winger, but not as a C. If the responsibilities of being a C limit his playmaking, then it would be silly to move him.

Well I doubt it, but, regardless, the deal doesn't end until like 2026.

Idk about Canada, but the US NBC deal ends after the 2021-22 season. The next one will go way up from $200m/year.

I'm confused, why does the Draisaitl deal matter? I think they're biggest problem was not trading Nylander, but I don't see why Draisaitl matters there?

What do you mean all of the picks? They have 4 young guys - Wilkins, Carter, Baker and Ximines - who have any shot at being difference makers. Love, Hill, McIntosh...these guys are all just down-roster fodder. Their only value is in being on a rookie deal. But even if those guys do pan out, by the time they are good, say 3 years from now, the contracts from the cap space you're talking about will be prohibitive. It's conflicting viewpoints to spend a bunch on FAs and depend on rookies, because the timelines are way different.

The back-to-back Cup champion Penguins say hello. Even the Blues' playoff scoring was ridiculously top heavy. If you have a dynamic top 6, then you just need a bottom 6 who can PK and not fuck it up. That's not expensive.

Yes, it does, because you can't buy enough players to make a noticeable difference. They could add, say, 5 good starters and move from a 2-win team to a 4-win team, but what's the point? I mean do you honestly think that spending $40m on Jadaveon Clowney and Leonard Williams, $15m on AJ Green, and $15m Byron Jones makes them a contender in 2 years? Even assuming you get all those guys, that's a pretty hard sell unless Jones is absolutely great right away. But even then, I don't see how that team is different than, say, Houston. But the OL and secondary are still average at best, there's no real DL depth, your LBs are a guessing game, and now you've made it more difficult to sign Hernandez ($15m), Saquon ($17), Engram ($12m) and Jones ($35m). Plus, Solder and Zeitler are up after 2022. Spending big on FAs works if you have a 2-year window. The Giants are so far away from being competitive that no amount of spending in the next two years will make them a contender, and it's not worth the cap troubles long term. The Cowboys and Redskins took this same approach for the better part of the 2000s, and it never worked.

Theoretically, if it means tanking this year. Someone is going to trade up to grab a QB. It might not be quite that high, but pretty close. But it's two separate trades. Saquon is the first, and then the second is a byproduct of trading Saquon. Cap space means nothing when you have multiple holes at every spot. The Giants are basically where the Browns were when they drafted Manziel.

A couple years? The defense has 0 building blocks except Baker and Lawrence. The offensive line is a) average at best and b) aging. 5 years is an eternity for RBs, especially for guys who rely purely on athleticism, like Saquon. But think of what a return could be: Saquon trade today: 1st, 3rd, defensive player. #2 overall: 1st, 1st, 2nd, 2nd. That slew of draft picks changes the trajectory of your organization. As of right now, the Giants don't even have a light at the end of the tunnel.

They should just trade Saquon and cement the #2 overall now. The haul you get for him AND that pick is franchise changing. The only thing Saquon is doing right now is getting them to 3 wins...maybe. But they have so few core players that they should be going full Dolphin right now.

The fact that you're just quibbling over Arizona being too low by ~10 points because you simply think they're going to be better based on the half made up thought that Phil Kessel is going to help them at 5v5, or that guys like Dvorak, Garland and Keller are all going to make huge jumps, or that Stepan isn't going to continue regressing means that the model is working exactly how it should.

Age and development are factors, and his model is based on standard data. Nitpicking his methodology is fine (for instance, you could think his weighting in Game Score is off), but I think there's a little bit of forest/trees here. I mean, is a projection of the Rangers at 85 points really so unrealistic as to question the model? The rankings he's released have teams finishing: 31 - OTT 71 30 - DET 74 29 - LAK 79 28 - BUF 80 27 - EDM 83 26 - NYR 85 25 - VAN 85 24 - ARZ 85 23 - CHI 87 Wouldn't that ranking be basically the same if you're using just the eye test? https://theathletic.com/1166232/2019/09/05/luszczyszyn-2019-20-nhl-season-previews/