BrooksBurner Posted March 28, 2019 Share Posted March 28, 2019 Buying out Strome makes 0 sense. He’s done a really nice job and fills that 3rd line center role quite well. His contract is not stopping the rangers from making moves. Also... you can’t just buy everyone out. Namestnikov and Strome contracts probably prevents them from signing Panarin and Karlsson both if that's what they want to do. I would like to know why so many are claiming a guy who is at a 40 point scoring pace with the Rangers is all of a sudden a cog for next season. He is expendable, and if he has played himself into being worth something via trade that is even better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Posted March 28, 2019 Share Posted March 28, 2019 Buying out Strome makes 0 sense. He’s done a really nice job and fills that 3rd line center role quite well. His contract is not stopping the rangers from making moves. Also... you can’t just buy everyone out. That depends entirely on the purpose of buying him out. If it's to open even more cap because they plan on hunting big, then it does make sense. Especially given his age, and his relativety to UFA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Posted March 28, 2019 Share Posted March 28, 2019 Namestnikov and Strome contracts probably prevents them from signing Panarin and Karlsson both if that's what they want to do. I would like to know why so many are claiming a guy who is at a 40 point scoring pace with the Rangers is all of a sudden a cog for next season. He is expendable, and if he has played himself into being worth something via trade that is even better. He's been a good player right now, but a good player on a very bad team. It reminds me a lot of, ironically enough, Spooner last season. Add to this, Strome is a career 9.7% shooter. He's shooting at 20.8% with the Rangers, and still is only pacing his career average because of how poorly he was shooting (3%~) with Edmonton. Buyer be-fucking-ware. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gravesy Posted March 28, 2019 Share Posted March 28, 2019 That depends entirely on the purpose of buying him out. If it's to open even more cap because they plan on hunting big, then it does make sense. Especially given his age, and his relativety to UFA. What’s stopping you from trading him in that scenario? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Posted March 28, 2019 Share Posted March 28, 2019 What’s stopping you from trading him in that scenario? The fact he makes $3.1 million. What team would be looking to add a soon-to-be 26-year-old a year away from free agency that isn't some level of contender? Now, which of those teams is not against the cap? Strome is the kind of player a bunch of those types of clubs would love to add... for half what he's making now. After a buyout that pays him 1/3 of his remaining deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
josh Posted March 28, 2019 Share Posted March 28, 2019 He's been a good player right now, but a good player on a very bad team. It reminds me a lot of, ironically enough, Spooner last season. Add to this, Strome is a career 9.7% shooter. He's shooting at 20.8% with the Rangers, and still is only pacing his career average because of how poorly he was shooting (3%~) with Edmonton. Buyer be-fucking-ware. Maybe based on late season production, only. Strome has been playing a bottom 6 role, Spooner can't. Strome is sound defensively, can effectively play either wing or C, and PKs. Not to mention he's been getting first PP icetime and making the most of it. Play-wise, he's closer to Namestnikov, but producing at a better rate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Posted March 28, 2019 Share Posted March 28, 2019 Maybe based on late season production, only. Strome has been playing a bottom 6 role, Spooner can't. Strome is sound defensively, can effectively play either wing or C, and PKs. Not to mention he's been getting first PP icetime and making the most of it. Play-wise, he's closer to Namestnikov, but producing at a better rate. Sure, I agree with all of that. I'm just saying, there's plenty of reason/benefit to buying him out. Namely, the unlikelihood of his being a long-term piece in the first place. They just traded Stepan and Hayes to not box out the middle of the ice from the centers they've drafted (and the ones they might). Keeping Strome brings them right back there again. Especially if you are keeping him long-term. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrooksBurner Posted March 28, 2019 Share Posted March 28, 2019 He's been a good player right now, but a good player on a very bad team. It reminds me a lot of, ironically enough, Spooner last season. Add to this, Strome is a career 9.7% shooter. He's shooting at 20.8% with the Rangers, and still is only pacing his career average because of how poorly he was shooting (3%~) with Edmonton. Buyer be-fucking-ware. This is ultimately my point, though Strome has had longer this year with the Rangers to establish a better track record than Spooner last year. I'm not saying Strome hasn't been decent, but he's certainly not irreplaceable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
josh Posted March 28, 2019 Share Posted March 28, 2019 Sure, I agree with all of that. I'm just saying, there's plenty of reason/benefit to buying him out. Namely, the unlikelihood of his being a long-term piece in the first place. They just traded Stepan and Hayes to not box out the middle of the ice from the centers they've drafted (and the ones they might). Keeping Strome brings them right back there again. Especially if you are keeping him long-term. But Strome can play wing. And he can also play an effective game when the offense isnt there. (unlike Spooner) Additionally, he's a younger kid that went through ups-and-downs, he's been on different teams, in different situations. Based on the interviews, he seems to have a good personality (I think he looks like a douche, personally) and all that can help a team full of transitioning kids next season. But I'd certainly buy him out if it means top-tier players coming to NY. If not, Strome certainly has use next season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrooksBurner Posted March 28, 2019 Share Posted March 28, 2019 Maybe based on late season production, only. Strome has been playing a bottom 6 role, Spooner can't. Strome is sound defensively, can effectively play either wing or C, and PKs. Not to mention he's been getting first PP icetime and making the most of it. Play-wise, he's closer to Namestnikov, but producing at a better rate. Is 2 PPG and 3 PPA in the last 20 games really making the most of it though? He doesn't belong anywhere near the PP IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrooksBurner Posted March 28, 2019 Share Posted March 28, 2019 But Strome can play wing. And he can also play an effective game when the offense isnt there. (unlike Spooner) Additionally, he's a younger kid that went through ups-and-downs, he's been on different teams, in different situations. Based on the interviews, he seems to have a good personality (I think he looks like a douche, personally) and all that can help a team full of transitioning kids next season. But I'd certainly buy him out if it means top-tier players coming to NY. If not, Strome certainly has use next season. Something something Lisa Andersson. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Posted March 28, 2019 Share Posted March 28, 2019 But Strome can play wing. And he can also play an effective game when the offense isnt there. (unlike Spooner) Additionally, he's a younger kid that went through ups-and-downs, he's been on different teams, in different situations. Based on the interviews, he seems to have a good personality (I think he looks like a douche, personally) and all that can help a team full of transitioning kids next season. But I'd certainly buy him out if it means top-tier players coming to NY. If not, Strome certainly has use next season. Sure, I'm right there with you. I like him as a player, too. I just don't see a lot of value in keeping those kinds of players around for the long-term. It's like you say about the guys who get that $4 million or $5 million. They're the ones who hurt your team. I'd rather give Karlsson and Panarin $22 million than give Panarin $11 million and keep Strome around at $4 million for the next four years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
josh Posted March 28, 2019 Share Posted March 28, 2019 Is 2 PPG and 3 PPA in the last 20 games really making the most of it though? He doesn't belong anywhere near the PP IMO. That's 50% of their PPGs during that span and 2nd on the team in PPP during that stretch while ranking 8th among PP TOI During those 20 games, he also leads the team in goals and points Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
josh Posted March 28, 2019 Share Posted March 28, 2019 Sure, I'm right there with you. I like him as a player, too. I just don't see a lot of value in keeping those kinds of players around for the long-term. It's like you say about the guys who get that $4 million or $5 million. They're the ones who hurt your team. I'd rather give Karlsson and Panarin $22 million than give Panarin $11 million and keep Strome around at $4 million for the next four years. I thought we were talking about next season? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrooksBurner Posted March 28, 2019 Share Posted March 28, 2019 That's 50% of their PPGs during that span and 2nd on the team in PPP during that stretch while ranking 8th among PP TOI During those 20 games, he also leads the team in goals and points I mean if you use this team's performance as a barometer for how well a player is performing, perhaps. I don't think that's how performance or decisions should be measured, especially for a bottom 6 plug. He's not a PP player on any decent team IMO. I'll reiterate that I'm on board with Strome being here next season if they don't make any major moves, but he shouldn't be why they don't make major moves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
josh Posted March 28, 2019 Share Posted March 28, 2019 I mean if you use this team's performance as a barometer for how well a player is performing, perhaps. I don't think that's how performance or decisions should be measured, especially for a bottom 6 plug. He's not a PP player on any decent team IMO. I'll reiterate that I'm on board with Strome being here next season if they don't make any major moves, but he shouldn't be why they don't make major moves. best of the worst! And if we have him in the bottom 6, thats good Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Posted March 28, 2019 Share Posted March 28, 2019 I thought we were talking about next season? We are. But like my initial response said, I think there's absolutely justification for buying him out if it means freeing up the kind of money they will need to acquire game-breakers. Cap space isn't an issue (yet), but it will be when you sink $22 million plus into Karlsson and Panarin and are still looking to add (say Trouba, for arguments sake). The reason no one cares that Namestnikov makes $4 million to be a slightly above average fourth-line player is becuase there's no one better (right now) to spend that money on. The momen the is available, however, it matters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
josh Posted March 28, 2019 Share Posted March 28, 2019 As long as the money is used on top-tier players. No buying out girardi to sign Smith -like moves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Posted March 28, 2019 Share Posted March 28, 2019 No disagreement. Sent from my iPhone using Blueshirts Brotherhood mobile app powered by Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Posted March 28, 2019 Share Posted March 28, 2019 Sure, I agree with all of that. I'm just saying, there's plenty of reason/benefit to buying him out. Namely, the unlikelihood of his being a long-term piece in the first place. They just traded Stepan and Hayes to not box out the middle of the ice from the centers they've drafted (and the ones they might). Keeping Strome brings them right back there again. Especially if you are keeping him long-term. I'm not suggesting that Strome is not movable because he's played well for us. Nor am I in any way suggesting that he shouldn't give way to one of our upcoming centers or future centers. I like him because he's flexible plus he serves a role on a bad team...which will probably still be the case next year. A very solid place-holder that can move up and down the lineup (opening day in baseball term!). I don't believe the Rangers are getting both Karlsson and Panarin so there will be cap room available for a guy like him making 3.1 mil. If he continues to produce next year maybe he becomes a tradeable asset. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Future Posted March 29, 2019 Share Posted March 29, 2019 The fact he makes $3.1 million. What team would be looking to add a soon-to-be 26-year-old a year away from free agency that isn't some level of contender? Now, which of those teams is not against the cap? Strome is the kind of player a bunch of those types of clubs would love to add... for half what he's making now. After a buyout that pays him 1/3 of his remaining deal. Soooo the Rangers just retain 50%. Every team in the league can take on $1.6m, assuming an ~$83-84m cap. There's no value in a buyout for the Rangers. If he's moved before the deadline, he's more likely to go to a team like Buffalo, Arizona, Colorado...who have cap space and a need for depth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Posted March 29, 2019 Share Posted March 29, 2019 Or you offer a modest raise and keep him as a 40 point 3rd line tweener because as we know, not every player you draft pans out. We could offer him $4x3 with some decent ice time and he can spring that into a new deal. Depends how much he likes NY. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Future Posted March 29, 2019 Share Posted March 29, 2019 He's not a 40-point player on any team that isn't rebuilding. On a good team, he's a 30-point bottom 6 player. He's shooting 20% and a chunk of his points have come on the PP. Neither of those conditions exist on an improved roster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Posted March 29, 2019 Share Posted March 29, 2019 Good thing we'll be rebuilding for about 3 more years give or take. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.