Jump to content
  • Join us — it's free!

    We are the premiere internet community for New York Rangers news and fan discussion. Don't wait — join the forum today!

IGNORED

Jimmy Vesey on the Block?


Phil

Recommended Posts

I think Strome appears to be a better fit for this system/coach.

 

Probably, but again, that's not really a strong reason to keep a guy around long-term. Not when you account for the average shelf life of an NHL coach.

 

I'm not saying it's an objectively bad idea to sign him. I'm saying I personally wouldn't. I just don't care enough for players who don't move the needle to invest in them on multi-year extensions. To me, Strome is the kind of player you ride while he's hot and let walk or trade when his value has maximized. Dubinsky, Callahan, Boyle, Prust, Fedotenko, Hagelin — Strome is somewhere in this mix of type of player. And like all of them, long-term deals (as evidenced most recently by Dubinsky, Callahan, and Hagelin) is a bad idea that only leads to trade.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 81
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Well, out of the gate, you know I'm balking at the eye test as a measure of objective reality. It's not. It's remarkably unreliable, in fact, from sports to police lineups to simple historical recollection. Our eyes/brains lie to us all the time. It's evolutionary. It's why we often see things that aren't there, from optical illusions to the fear stimulated by a shadow in the bushes.

 

I do agree that a players' shooting percentage alone isn't enough to judge them on, but it can be a major red flag given that player's proximity to UFA. Specifically, because we've seen too many guys cash in at around the same age Strome would only to end up thrown on the historical pile of regret. His inflated shooting percentage is directly linked to a career-high in goals and yet if you took only his production with the Rangers into account, he's still pacing (0.52) around his career average (0.46) in P/GP. What happens when that percentage regresses to the mean? To me, that's a giant, flashing "buyer beware."

 

Right-handedness and multi-positionality I'll give you. Both are big positives. But big picture, I just don't see any long-term value in keeping a guy like this around for more than another year. In fact, I'd go so far as to argue his value as a trade piece has never been higher. I'd rather sell high on the 18 goals and 33 points in 63 games player he is right now than assume that won't regress to the mean next season in his walk year.

Eyeballs means when I watch games I see Strome doing more things right than Names. I'm sorry you can't quantify that, so you choose to ignore it. But that makes you as guilty of ignoring all the data as anyone else.

 

Then you say he's not that far off from his career P/G in his time in NY...so what regression are you worried about? He had a shit stint in Edmonton. So did 18 other guys not Draisatl or McD.

 

It's like you're looking for data to support your argument rather than using data to form your opinion. I take him at $4x4 all day and don't look back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The four guys being mentioned are all middle to bottom 6 guys. And in all reality, they are all probably operating under short-term, placeholder type status. Of the 4, Strome and Fast probably have the most value, for their versatility and defensive play respectively. Namestnikov clearly won’t produce big offensively without elite talent beside him, and Vesey is what he is.

 

I don’t know that any of them have real value long-term. But if several of them are around next season, it probably doesn’t hurt them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Probably, but again, that's not really a strong reason to keep a guy around long-term. Not when you account for the average shelf life of an NHL coach.

 

I'm not saying it's an objectively bad idea to sign him. I'm saying I personally wouldn't. I just don't care enough for players who don't move the needle to invest in them on multi-year extensions. To me, Strome is the kind of player you ride while he's hot and let walk or trade when his value has maximized. Dubinsky, Callahan, Boyle, Prust, Fedotenko, Hagelin — Strome is somewhere in this mix of type of player. And like all of them, long-term deals (as evidenced most recently by Dubinsky, Callahan, and Hagelin) is a bad idea that only leads to trade.

 

None of these guys are "long term", but if they are looking to keep 1 around for a few more seasons, it should be the guy that is the most useful to the coach. While I like Namestinikov's game more, he is not as effective when employing the game approach Quinn is demanding. Strome's adjustment to the system has been much more successful.

 

There is a reason there was roster turnover from Torts lunchpal crew to AV's pansy boys.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eyeballs means when I watch games I see Strome doing more things right than Names. I'm sorry you can't quantify that, so you choose to ignore it. But that makes you as guilty of ignoring all the data as anyone else.

 

Then you say he's not that far off from his career P/G in his time in NY...so what regression are you worried about? He had a shit stint in Edmonton. So did 18 other guys not Draisatl or McD.

 

It's like you're looking for data to support your argument rather than using data to form your opinion. I take him at $4x4 all day and don't look back.

 

Of course you can quantify it. There are dozens of ways to do so — from boxcars to models. I don't even disagree with the statement that he does more things right than Namestnikov. To me, Strome is a strong two-way player who is positionally sound in all three zones. He's also riding an insane shooting percentage at the moment. These two things can, and are, true at the same time. It's the latter I fear, not the former. And remember, I don't want any of these players long-term. Don't take my balking at a long-term extension for Strome as support for the same for Namestnikov.

 

The regression I'm worried about is the one that can come about after giving a career 35-point player a contract worth, say, $4.5 million a year based on a shooting percentage-inflated season in which he's pacing 43 points, and then watching his 28-30-years-old years shrink to below that relative value. It's not as bad as paying, say, Wade Redden $6.5 million a year to be a healthy scratch, but it's not too far off the mark of overpaying a fringe middle-six player who is a stone's throw away from being an overachieving fourth-liner. It's also the kind of deal that absolutely can fuck up your ability to acquire game-breaking talent.

 

Like I said a little bit ago, I'd sooner pay Karlsson and Panarin $24 million than pay just one of them because the team chose to keep Ryan fuckin' Strome.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

None of these guys are "long term", but if they are looking to keep 1 around for a few more seasons, it should be the guy that is the most useful to the coach. While I like Namestinikov's game more, he is not as effective when employing the game approach Quinn is demanding. Strome's adjustment to the system has been much more successful.

 

There is a reason there was roster turnover from Torts lunchpal crew to AV's pansy boys.

 

Agree. 3-4 seasons is not a long time. Long term is 6-8 years. 3-4 is nothing. And those contracts are easy move, at value. I don't think anyone's suggesting over-paying him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The four guys being mentioned are all middle to bottom 6 guys. And in all reality, they are all probably operating under short-term, placeholder type status. Of the 4, Strome and Fast probably have the most value, for their versatility and defensive play respectively. Namestnikov clearly won’t produce big offensively without elite talent beside him, and Vesey is what he is.

 

I don’t know that any of them have real value long-term. But if several of them are around next season, it probably doesn’t hurt them.

 

It's not next season any of us (me) are worried about. It's the ones after. When you will need to give any of them, or one of them, a long-term deal to stick around that buys nothing but UFA years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course you can quantify it. There are dozens of ways to do so — from boxcars to models. I don't even disagree with the statement that he does more things right than Namestnikov. To me, Strome is a strong two-way player who is positionally sound in all three zones. He's also riding an insane shooting percentage at the moment. These two things can, and are, true at the same time. It's the latter I fear, not the former. And remember, I don't want any of these players long-term. Don't take my balking at a long-term extension for Strome as support for the same for Namestnikov.

 

The regression I'm worried about is the one that can come about after giving a career 35-point player a contract worth, say, $4.5 million a year based on a shooting percentage-inflated season in which he's pacing 43 points, and then watching his 28-30-years-old years shrink to below that relative value. It's not as bad as paying, say, Wade Redden $6.5 million a year to be a healthy scratch, but it's not too far off the mark of overpaying a fringe middle-six player who is a stone's throw away from being an overachieving fourth-liner. It's also the kind of deal that absolutely can fuck up your ability to acquire game-breaking talent.

 

Like I said a little bit ago, I'd sooner pay Karlsson and Panarin $24 million than pay just one of them because the team chose to keep Ryan fuckin' Strome.

 

That's not going to happen, in reality. But you can't ice a team of guys who are all over 30 or under 25, and have a revolving door of people who come in and out every 2 years. Strome is a leader and a good guy in the room, aside from what he does on the ice. There's value in that. I don't know about $4.5, but if you can do 4x3 or 4x4 that's fine for 40 points.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's not going to happen, in reality. But you can't ice a team of guys who are all over 30 or under 25, and have a revolving door of people who come in and out every 2 years. Strome is a leader and a good guy in the room, aside from what he does on the ice. There's value in that. I don't know about $4.5, but if you can do 4x3 or 4x4 that's fine for 40 points.

 

We can say this on the Karlsson/Panarin front because they're both UFA this summer and Strome is next, but I'm talking about the principle of it. I just see guys like this as not the kind you give more than two years to at a time. I just don't see the value, personally. He's one bad season away from being a seriously expensive fourth-line player. Think Brendan Smith, except at forward. If you dig back, I'm pretty sure the majority of the fanbase, including most of us here, were fine with the deal he got. Until we weren't. Just one season later.

 

At 4x3 or 4x4, I'd probably bite my tongue, but I'd never feel comfortable knowing that deal is on the books. Because the second the team is angling at adding another game-breaker for a would-be Cup run, it's that deal (more than the Panarin or Karlsson deals, in this case) that would be hurting their ability to do so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Strome's as weak on the puck and boards as Fast is, I don't think he's even close to Namestnikov in the NZ or DZ. Positionally he's fine, but he's not athletic enough to be impactful.

 

I don't care about Strome's SH% as much as the fact that all of his goals are the product of someone else's work and the puck coming to him. There's a skill in being able to find space and finish, but it's not really a skill that matters all that much for a bottom-6 player. How many of his goals are just wide open on the weak side? That's totally unsustainable.

 

 

He's not doing anything lol.

 

He's got, what, 2 empty netters, one that bounced off his leg at NJ, one on a tap-in rebound in transition, the OT goal against TOR... He has a handful of goals that he had to actually work for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We can say this on the Karlsson/Panarin front because they're both UFA this summer and Strome is next, but I'm talking about the principle of it. I just see guys like this as not the kind you give more than two years to at a time. I just don't see the value, personally. He's one bad season away from being a seriously expensive fourth-line player. Think Brendan Smith, except at forward. If you dig back, I'm pretty sure the majority of the fanbase, including most of us here, were fine with the deal he got. Until we weren't. Just one season later.

 

At 4x3 or 4x4, I'd probably bite my tongue, but I'd never feel comfortable knowing that deal is on the books. Because the second the team is angling at adding another game-breaker for a would-be Cup run, it's that deal (more than the Panarin or Karlsson deals, in this case) that would be hurting their ability to do so.

You act like a contract like that isn't tradeable.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You act like a contract like that isn't tradeable.

 

I mean, it is, but it's not good, is my point. It puts the Rangers into a disadvantageous position in trade talks, too. Other teams would read the tea leaves and know that — at least in this scenario — New York needs to move this player to clear cap, and could demand the team retain on the deal, or accept a bad deal in return, etc. All of which is, again, the negative outcome of investing multiple years into a player you probably shouldn't invest multiple years into.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or he could be another great find in the scrap heap, like Stralman.

 

We can go back and forth all day but the fact is you can't ice a team of guys younger than 25 and older than 30 and just swap out players like they are spare parts every 2 years. There's no one on this team under contract past 2021 except Lundy, Skjei and Z right now. You have to have some continuity, somewhere. That's really not how NHL locker rooms are successful. It's not baseball.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, out of the gate, you know I'm balking at the eye test as a measure of objective reality. It's not. It's remarkably unreliable, in fact, from sports to police lineups to simple historical recollection. Our eyes/brains lie to us all the time. It's evolutionary. It's why we often see things that aren't there, from optical illusions to the fear stimulated by a shadow in the bushes.

 

I do agree that a players' shooting percentage alone isn't enough to judge them on, but it can be a major red flag given that player's proximity to UFA. Specifically, because we've seen too many guys cash in at around the same age Strome would only to end up thrown on the historical pile of regret. His inflated shooting percentage is directly linked to a career-high in goals and yet if you took only his production with the Rangers into account, he's still pacing (0.52) around his career average (0.46) in P/GP. What happens when that percentage regresses to the mean? To me, that's a giant, flashing "buyer beware."

 

Right-handedness and multi-positionality I'll give you. Both are big positives. But big picture, I just don't see any long-term value in keeping a guy like this around for more than another year. In fact, I'd go so far as to argue his value as a trade piece has never been higher. I'd rather sell high on the 18 goals and 33 points in 63 games player he is right now than assume that won't regress to the mean next season in his walk year.

 

 

This post sums up the exact problem with the advanced stat crowd. It is so arrogant it’s beyond belief. It’s not possible for somebody who’s been in hockey their entire life to pass judgement on a player by watching them? It’s ridiculous. Those who claim to use these stats to prove what they know only prove the opposite when they are so dismissive of others. evaluating players happened long before the video game stats and somehow the world didn’t miss some great players. So if stromes shooting % dips he basically becomes Namestnikov.

 

Why is it so hard to use every advantage you can in assessing a player. Old school eye test and new school stats. Dismissing either is foolish. I’m guessing those who dismiss the eye test do it because they don’t properly understand what they are watching.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This post sums up the exact problem with the advanced stat crowd. It is so arrogant it?s beyond belief. It?s not possible for somebody who?s been in hockey their entire life to pass judgement on a player by watching them? It?s ridiculous. Those who claim to use these stats to prove what they know only prove the opposite when they are so dismissive of others. evaluating players happened long before the video game stats and somehow the world didn?t miss some great players. So if stromes shooting % dips he basically becomes Namestnikov.

 

Why is it so hard to use every advantage you can in assessing a player. Old school eye test and new school stats. Dismissing either is foolish. I?m guessing those who dismiss the eye test do it because they don?t properly understand what they are watching.

 

Hang on, hang on -- shooting percentage is advanced? :rofl:

 

As to the eye test, I don't trust it implicitly. That's not the same as dismissing it. It's an entry point to me to then look at data (a fancy word for fact) to draw conclusions that can actually be reproduced (also called science).

 

For example, if you put Kreider with Zuccarello and see that the two appear to have tremendous chemistry, you can then look at the data to see if it support your instincts. In that case, it would. Everything from traditional boxcars (goals, points) to more advanced models (WAR, GAR, xG) would prove positive. If you then took Kreider away from Zuccarello and played him with another player, you could then see less chemistry, also likely supported by data. You can then reproduce your original instinct ? Kreider and Zucc together ? and the results would likely prove positive again. Thus confirming your instincts (what your eyes told you) with stats.

 

Or you can just call everyone who posts a number arrogant and pretend your sport will forever buck the data revolution. Good luck with that.

 

 

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or he could be another great find in the scrap heap, like Stralman.

 

We can go back and forth all day but the fact is you can't ice a team of guys younger than 25 and older than 30 and just swap out players like they are spare parts every 2 years. There's no one on this team under contract past 2021 except Lundy, Skjei and Z right now. You have to have some continuity, somewhere. That's really not how NHL locker rooms are successful. It's not baseball.

 

Sure. I'm not dismissing that as a possibility. I'm saying I don't feel comfortable rolling those dice. Not like I did with Stralman, who had stronger underlying numbers, and less rocky boxcars (S%) to suggest less of a risk.

 

That's what this actually boils down to -- risk assessment. I take a more pessimistic approach in this particular case.

 

 

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure. I'm not dismissing that as a possibility. I'm saying I don't feel comfortable rolling those dice. Not like I did with Stralman, who had stronger underlying numbers, and less rocky boxcars (S%) to suggest less of a risk.

 

That's what this actually boils down to -- risk assessment. I take a more pessimistic approach in this particular case.

 

 

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

Ok and what about the rest of the post unrelated to Stralman?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also no disagreement. To that, I think Strome is a fine veteran player. But so too are better, clearer top-six players who I'd sooner invest in. Kreider, for example.

 

Similar to my point earlier, I'd rather pay Kreider $6 million than Strome $4.5 million.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also no disagreement. To that, I think Strome is a fine veteran player. But so too are better, clearer top-six players who I'd sooner invest in. Kreider, for example.

 

Similar to my point earlier, I'd rather pay Kreider $6 million than Strome $4.5 million.

 

I think the reality is that Strome gets more like $4 over 3 and Krieder $6.5+ over 6. So that's not apples to apples.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even in that scenario, I'd rather give Kreider — a sure-fire top-six player, albeit a maddening one at times — the $6.5 milion than Strome $4 million. The likelihood of Kreider turning into an expensive fourth-liner is significantly less than the likelihood of Strome doing the same.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hang on, hang on -- shooting percentage is advanced? :rofl:

 

As to the eye test, I don't trust it implicitly. That's not the same as dismissing it. It's an entry point to me to then look at data (a fancy word for fact) to draw conclusions that can actually be reproduced (also called science).

 

For example, if you put Kreider with Zuccarello and see that the two appear to have tremendous chemistry, you can then look at the data to see if it support your instincts. In that case, it would. Everything from traditional boxcars (goals, points) to more advanced models (WAR, GAR, xG) would prove positive. If you then took Kreider away from Zuccarello and played him with another player, you could then see less chemistry, also likely supported by data. You can then reproduce your original instinct — Kreider and Zucc together — and the results would likely prove positive again. Thus confirming your instincts (what your eyes told you) with stats.

 

Or you can just call everyone who posts a number arrogant and pretend your sport will forever buck the data revolution. Good luck with that.

 

 

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

 

The issue exists on both sides. You can't solely look at data and say "Well he's shooting well above his career high, and that's not sustainable" without watching a game or doing more digging to find out why he's shooting at twice his rate. At least Future went through the process of cherry picking out the lucky goals. ;-)

 

On his 31 Thoughts 'cast he told Freidman that Quinn told him to just go and make in impact on the game, even if it wasn't on the scoresheet. Maybe that led to taking some pressure off, making better shot selections, relax a little bit. There are plenty of middle 6 players who hover shooting 20%. Cody fuckin Eakin? It's not out of the realm of possibility that a guy who was drafted 5th overall improves on his career shooting percentage as a later bloomer.

 

I'm not suggesting any of this is fact. I'm saying a lot more goes into it that some people think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even in that scenario, I'd rather give Kreider — a sure-fire top-six player, albeit a maddening one at times — the $6.5 milion than Strome $4 million. The likelihood of Kreider turning into an expensive fourth-liner is significantly less than the likelihood of Strome doing the same.

 

But you're not paying them to be in the same role or do the dame job or anywhere near the amount of money, so it's moot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...