Ryan Strome: Good, Actually

[BlairBettsBlocksEverything]

my initial reaction to seeing that was no way. But when I tried to type out a good reason for no I couldn't think of one. I would hope for maybe 5.5x5-6 instead to cut back on the years but if he keeps up his production its not the worst thing in the world. Worst case scenario he's still a serviceable player for the backend of that deal and could be traded with retention if needed

[LindG1000]

my initial reaction to seeing that was no way. But when I tried to type out a good reason for no I couldn't think of one. I would hope for maybe 5.5x5-6 instead to cut back on the years but if he keeps up his production its not the worst thing in the world. Worst case scenario he's still a serviceable player for the backend of that deal and could be traded with retention if needed

 

That's what I keep coming back to - what's the good reason to say no?

 

Term kills you when the cap number is too high. 5, for a center of Strome's caliber? That's better than fine for the first two or three years, fine for the next three, and serviceable for the rest.

[Ozzy]

G1000 just proposed this off the board: would Strome take a deal similar to RNH –- say $5M x 8? If so, how do you turn that down?

 

I'd go for that....I like Strome and he has good chemistry already. That cap hit is very team friendly for the player he already is, no less what he's trending to still become.

[Phil]

So long as there's not a NMC, I'm fine with it. Because RNH's deal will certainly be ugly at the end, just as Strome's would be. 8 years is a long ass time.

 

For almost anyone, I agree, but it's instrumental in reducing the AAV to a number you can manage at the end of the deal. If you structure this contract properly, you can effectively dump him in years seven and eight to a team — cough*Ottawa*cough — who will love the $5 million AAV and the like $2 million base pay.

[josh]

Too long.

 

Rangers don’t make it through their long contracts. Never have.

[LindG1000]

Too long.

 

Rangers don’t make it through their long contracts. Never have.

 

Almost nobody does. It's why you make the deal tradeable in the back-end.

[Phil]

Too long.

 

Rangers don’t make it through their long contracts. Never have.

 

No one does. It's not a Rangers problem, it's a league problem. It's why all the guys who do this end up flipping those players at the end.

[Dunny]

That's what I keep coming back to - what's the good reason to say no?

 

Term kills you when the cap number is too high. 5, for a center of Strome's caliber? That's better than fine for the first two or three years, fine for the next three, and serviceable for the rest.

 

The equally long track record of him being terrible?

[Phil]

I'll admit, the eight years is stomach churning, but the idea of keeping Strome around a while longer really isn't. He feels like a genuine solution. As long as Panarin is signed, Strome should be, too. Don't fuck with happy.

[BrooksBurner]

You guys realize that 8 years now is really 9 years because he has a year left on his deal? It would take him until he's 37. That's insanity. He hasn't proven enough over a long enough period of time to be worth that kind of committment.

[Phil]

You guys realize that 8 years now is really 9 years because he has a year left on his deal? It would take him until he's 37. That's insanity. He hasn't proven enough over a long enough period of time to be worth that kind of committment.

 

I get that. I just said, it's stomach-churning. Maybe they don't actually have to go the full eight. Six might do it? Maybe even five? I just don't know what the lack of extra years does to the AAV.

 

Strome, to me, feels like he's in the "right spot" in his career playing shotgun to Panarin, who has five years left on his own deal. I've no problem trying to line those two up for the duration of Panarin's deal, is my larger point.

[Gravesy]

That's what I keep coming back to - what's the good reason to say no?

 

Term kills you when the cap number is too high. 5, for a center of Strome's caliber? That's better than fine for the first two or three years, fine for the next three, and serviceable for the rest.

 

The only reason I'm thinking of, and this is a pure eye test/gut feeling type of argument, is that Strome and his line seem a lot less effective when the going gets tough. He strikes me as one of those "good regular season team" types that's been discussed lately. I'm not sure Strome is your 2C for a deep playoff run and I'm pretty damn sure he's not your 3/4 C.

But I say this fully aware that there might be underlying stats that proves I'm talking out of my ass.

[Phil]

The only reason I'm thinking of, and this is a pure eye test/gut feeling type of argument, is that Strome and his line seem a lot less effective when the going gets tough. He strikes me as one of those "good regular season team" types that's been discussed lately. I'm not sure Strome is your 2C for a deep playoff run and I'm pretty damn sure he's not your 3/4 C.

But I say this fully aware that there might be underlying stats that proves I'm talking out of my ass.

 

Because they don't have Fast anymore. I know we have a thread on it, but if you get them a bull to fight for pucks, that line is probably a helluva lot more reliable in meaningful games. I think there's a reason Panarin apparently requested to play with Blackwell rather than Kakko.

[Pete]

So long as there's not a NMC, I'm fine with it. Because RNH's deal will certainly be ugly at the end, just as Strome's would be. 8 years is a long ass time.

This. The NMC is key. You want the NMC, buy it from the team at $1M per year.

[Phil]

He'd probably get modified protection for the first half of the deal. I seriously doubt he'd get full protection for the entire ride. Not even Trouba or Kreider managed that, and I'd argue they "earned" it more than Strome has.

[Albatrosss]

Because they don't have Fast anymore. I know we have a thread on it, but if you get them a bull to fight for pucks, that line is probably a helluva lot more reliable in meaningful games. I think there's a reason Panarin apparently requested to play with Blackwell rather than Kakko.

 

if you get a bull on the line, what do you need Strome for? What does he add to the line that no other center can? How does he make anyone around him better? i really dont understand the fascination

[Pete]

if you get a bull on the line, what do you need Strome for? What does he add to the line that no other center can? How does he make anyone around him better? i really dont understand the fascination

Panarin had better years playing with Strome than he did with Patrick Kane. Whatever the juju is, you don't mess with it.

 

It takes good players to play with other good players, people just need to accept that Strome is a good player.

[Albatrosss]

Panarin had better years playing with Strome than he did with Patrick Kane. Whatever the juju is, you don't mess with it.

 

It takes good players to play with other good players, people just need to accept that Strome is a good player.

 

there's no juju, there's only coattails

[Phil]

if you get a bull on the line, what do you need Strome for? What does he add to the line that no other center can? How does he make anyone around him better? i really dont understand the fascination

 

 

Panarin had better years playing with Strome than he did with Patrick Kane. Whatever the juju is, you don't mess with it.

 

It takes good players to play with other good players, people just need to accept that Strome is a good player.

 

[Albatrosss]

if he was a good player, most of the ranger fanbase wont be looking to upgrade him

[Pete]

if he was a good player, most of the ranger fanbase wont be looking to upgrade him

Depends on your opinion of how knowledgeable "most of the ranger fanbase" is.

 

These are people who thought Gomez was an upgrade on Nylander... And didn't give one ounce of credit towards chemistry.

 

Again, you don't mess with the juju... Especially because the ranger fan base thinks you should.

[josh]

Strome going to turn into that Brassard/Stepan role player and still put up 30-40 points as a 3rd liner

[Phil]

Depends on your opinion of how knowledgeable "most of the ranger fanbase" is.

 

These are people who thought Gomez was an upgrade on Nylander... And didn't give one ounce of credit towards chemistry.

 

Again, you don't mess with the juju... Especially because the ranger fan base thinks you should.

 

Also, grass is always greener, until you realize you've walked into a field of cow shit. I think that's how that analogy goes.

[Phil]

Strome going to turn into that Brassard/Stepan role player and still put up 30-40 points as a 3rd liner

 

I mean, probably, yeah. Nothing about his style of play suggests he's an injury concern or someone who is so physical he's going to fall apart before the end of the deal. It's just standard aging curve stuff. Even at 32, 33, maybe more, he's probably going to be good for 30-40 points in a reduced role (with the Senators).

[BrooksBurner]

I get that. I just said, it's stomach-churning. Maybe they don't actually have to go the full eight. Six might do it? Maybe even five? I just don't know what the lack of extra years does to the AAV.

 

Strome, to me, feels like he's in the "right spot" in his career playing shotgun to Panarin, who has five years left on his own deal. I've no problem trying to line those two up for the duration of Panarin's deal, is my larger point.

 

You made your post at same time as mine. Yeah, stomach churning is accurate lol

 

I would do 5 yrs max on Strome if we had to keep him. I wouldn't keep him though for the reasons I've stated in the homo thread. He's in that one trick pony group and we need to cut those down.