Athletic Regression Candidate: Sammy Blais

[siddious]

2 hours ago, Pete said:

That would really have nothing to do with Buch and more about KK, ALF and Krav sucking. 

Those guys excelling should make us forget all about 89.

Yepp agreed. Although I meant more about Blais disappearing. 

[Ozzy]

21 hours ago, Capt said:

I don't think it was a misstep to not get a first back.  I'm sure Drury tried but the market wasn't there for a first.  It's not like he turned it down.  What he got back looks like a core type bottom 6 player that winning teams find.  A player who has intangibles in spades and brings an element that the Rangers are lacking and quite frankly is lacking league wide.  Blais to me anyway is a slam dunk to be a more important player than Buch could ever be, with the only thing possibly getting in the way is his health.  Regardless there was no room here ice time wise or cap wise for Buch.  I'm just so happy that the Rangers didn't get back another vanilla forward who isn't good enough to play top 6 minutes and isn't tough enough to play bottom 6 minutes with a purpose.

Bolded for truth, justice and the NHL way!! 

5 hours ago, lefty9 said:

All I got to say is, who's Buch 

Yup...a lot of us knew from pretty much January of last year that he was going to be the odd man out.  I think it was either Josh or Pete that called that one even before that...and it still makes sense.

Kakko's gonna be fantastic, and possibly win a Selke (Shouldda took it over the goal line @G1000!!!  LOL), and this year Yukon's gonna go berserk on offense.  "Buch who?" is right!

[Cash or Czech]

22 hours ago, The Dude said:

What happens if Kakko, or Lafreniere or Kravstov don't pan out. You don't trade a known commodity to make room for question marks whom MAY require big contracts in 3 years. Buch signed for 4.  What do you do if 2 of the 3 wingers don't pan out? 

Kakko is on season 3 and has really done nothing to show he's going to be a 1st 2nd OR 3rd player. Kravstov played 20 NHL games one year after he ran home when things didn't go his way. Lafreniere went from generational talent to another question mark on the roster.  There's questions about these guys even being in the NHL, yet you're replacing a ppg player with them and giving them each 5+ million. Meanwhile NONE have accomplished what Buchnevich has, even as a rookie. 

A LOT of counting chickens before they hatch.  Besides Fox, none of these forwards have arrived on the scene and dominated.  Their next contract should not be some sort of crippling deal. 

You've answered your own question. You make the decision hoping the players you've drafted and developed can make up for the production lost by the other guy. Rosters are fluid. Guys come in and out every year. This isn't unheard of by any means. You get the cap savings now to reallocate to other players later. It's a fact of the NHL.

And Fox, Zibanejad, and Strome are all getting big deals. Kakko and Lafreniere not so much, but if we don't bridge them we might have to pay more than some folks expect. 

Edited October 10, 2021 by Xander

[The Dude]

2 hours ago, Xander said:

You've answered your own question. You make the decision hoping the players you've drafted and developed can make up for the production lost by the other guy. Rosters are fluid. Guys come in and out every year. This isn't unheard of by any means. You get the cap savings now to reallocate to other players later. It's a fact of the NHL.

And Fox, Zibanejad, and Strome are all getting big deals. Kakko and Lafreniere not so much, but if we don't bridge them we might have to pay more than some folks expect. 

Please give me an example of another team, flat out DUMPING  a ppg player who played on their top line in order to make room for players who have not proven to be capable of playing a top line role. 

The reasons given by people here, have been that they needed future cap space for superstar contracts for Kakko, Kravtsov and Lafreniere. As if they are guaranteed to magically pan out. It didn't make sense to me, because it's a pretty big gamble considering the team didn't give these players the opportunity in a lost season last year. 

The bigger contracts for Zibanejad, Strome and Fox are all pretty much accounted for. But speaking of those players.  Dropping Buch, and back filling with unknowns, would be like dropping Zib or Strome and acting like Chytil is a sure fire fill in. 

I honestly, truly, hope the Rangers gamble pays off. These players were highly regarded prior to joining the Rangers. It'd be amazing if these kids turn it around and become what they were drafted to be. 

 

 

[Phil]

6 hours ago, The Dude said:

Please give me an example of another team, flat out DUMPING  a ppg player who played on their top line in order to make room for players who have not proven to be capable of playing a top line role. 

The reasons given by people here, have been that they needed future cap space for superstar contracts for Kakko, Kravtsov and Lafreniere. As if they are guaranteed to magically pan out. It didn't make sense to me, because it's a pretty big gamble considering the team didn't give these players the opportunity in a lost season last year. 

The bigger contracts for Zibanejad, Strome and Fox are all pretty much accounted for. But speaking of those players.  Dropping Buch, and back filling with unknowns, would be like dropping Zib or Strome and acting like Chytil is a sure fire fill in. 

I honestly, truly, hope the Rangers gamble pays off. These players were highly regarded prior to joining the Rangers. It'd be amazing if these kids turn it around and become what they were drafted to be. 

 

 

Have you ever considered they just didn't want to pay him? You keep saying point-per-game player, but he's not one. He technically wasn't even one last year. 48 in 54 is 0.9, not 1.0, but regardless, it was a significant jump, conspicuously done right before he needed a big new deal. Prior to last season, he was a 0.6 P/GP player.

Chances are they didn't trust that, and didn't want to pay top dollar for a player they didn't believe in.

[The Dude]

3 hours ago, Phil said:

Have you ever considered they just didn't want to pay him? You keep saying point-per-game player, but he's not one. He technically wasn't even one last year. 48 in 54 is 0.9, not 1.0, but regardless, it was a significant jump, conspicuously done right before he needed a big new deal. Prior to last season, he was a 0.6 P/GP player.

Chances are they didn't trust that, and didn't want to pay top dollar for a player they didn't believe in.

I've been saying "almost a ppg" in most responses. So, stop with that. If you're going to be exact with his numbers, be exact with what I've been saying through out. 

The guy got better year after year and did what you expect players to do. Trend up. He didn't break bank on his deal either. People here were saying he'd want like 7 mill X 7 years. He got 5.8 for 4 years. It's not like he was going to hold them hostage and ask for a 10 year deal, like most in his situation would and do. 

I question the brain trust that doesn't want a trending up player, who plays a gritty, 2 way game and clicks with the top line. They'll pass on that but give term and an overpayment on Goodrow?

If the plan was to give Kravstov and Kakko his spot, why not deal him at the deadline last year and get a massive haul? I don't want to hear about a different GM. Drury was part of that braintrust.

I rack it up to poor asset management by both GMs and a missed opportunity to see what Kakko, Kravtsov and Lafreniere can do with top minutes last year and the year prior. I'm not confident in where these kids are currently in their development. If any of them fail, it's a pretty big problem. There's a strong possibility of that. I really hope I'm dead wrong. 

[Pete]

Paying a player making a 20 point jump in a contract year is folly.

Fact is they couldn't even afford the 6 million that St Louis gave him. 

While the return could be considered underwhelming, it was really a no-brainer to walk away from the player at this point considering our roster and where he is in his career.

[Albatrosss]

8 hours ago, Pete said:

Paying a player making a 20 point jump in a contract year is folly.

Fact is they couldn't even afford the 6 million that St Louis gave him. 

While the return could be considered underwhelming, it was really a no-brainer to walk away from the player at this point considering our roster and where he is in his career.

But giving Zibby 8 years at 29 is ok?

Edited October 10, 2021 by CCCP

[Pete]

3 minutes ago, CCCP said:

But giving Zibby 8 years at 29 is ok?

Didn't say anything about age, did I?

Yea it's OK because he's a premier player at his position and has been so. He didn't have 1 career year in a contract year.

Plus he plays a more important position. 

Plus the Rangers aren't loaded with players ready to take his place. 

This is all pretty straightforward. There's no hidden agenda or logic. It's really just common sense. 

[Albatrosss]

It only makes sense if we’re primed to compete for the cup in the next 3-4 years, which i dont think we are. I dont think we’re there yet. Giving these long term contracts to players “at the stage of their careers” shows to me that this organization has no long term plan. 

[shestYORKin]

38 minutes ago, CCCP said:

It only makes sense if we’re primed to compete for the cup in the next 3-4 years, which i dont think we are. 

I need a drink  

[Phil]

39 minutes ago, CCCP said:

It only makes sense if we’re primed to compete for the cup in the next 3-4 years, which i dont think we are. I dont think we’re there yet. Giving these long term contracts to players “at the stage of their careers” shows to me that this organization has no long term plan. 

They disagree. So do I. So would most of us, I'd imagine.

That they're locking these players up long-term literally indicates their long-term thinking.

[Flynn]

This thread gave me a brain tumor. Thanks guys. 

[Pete]

11 hours ago, CCCP said:

It only makes sense if we’re primed to compete for the cup in the next 3-4 years, which i dont think we are. I dont think we’re there yet. Giving these long term contracts to players “at the stage of their careers” shows to me that this organization has no long term plan. 

Then trade Panarin and be in a perpetual rebuild. 

[Zuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuc]

12 hours ago, CCCP said:

It only makes sense if we’re primed to compete for the cup in the next 3-4 years, which i dont think we are. I dont think we’re there yet. Giving these long term contracts to players “at the stage of their careers” shows to me that this organization has no long term plan. 

If not, we're fucked anyway.

In 4 years Panarin will be 33 and at the end of his contract/career, Kakko, Laf, Fox, Miller, Chytil, Kravtsov, Shesterkin will al be in or entering their prime in the middle/late-20's. Kreids, Mika, Trouba will all be in their 30's with just a few years left in the tank. If they're not competing by then I don't understand when they will.

First window opens now and will be for as long as Panarin is an elite player (probably next 3-5 years). After that I could see a little "re-tool" period of 1-3 years where they need to get rid of the back end of Panarin, Mika, Trouba and Kreids contracts, before they enter the "2nd window" with Kakko, Laf, Shesty, Fox etc. entering their late 20's/early 30's.

[Pete]

18 minutes ago, Zuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuc said:

If not, we're fucked anyway.

In 4 years Panarin will be 33 and at the end of his contract/career, Kakko, Laf, Fox, Miller, Chytil, Kravtsov, Shesterkin will al be in or entering their prime in the middle/late-20's. Kreids, Mika, Trouba will all be in their 30's with just a few years left in the tank. If they're not competing by then I don't understand when they will.

First window opens now and will be for as long as Panarin is an elite player (probably next 3-5 years). After that I could see a little "re-tool" period of 1-3 years where they need to get rid of the back end of Panarin, Mika, Trouba and Kreids contracts, before they enter the "2nd window" with Kakko, Laf, Shesty, Fox etc. entering their late 20's/early 30's.

Agree. 

Also completely disagree that they are three or four years away. That would make this a 7-year rebuild...not a chance. 

[Zuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuc]

11 minutes ago, Pete said:

Agree. 

Also completely disagree that they are three or four years away. That would make this a 7-year rebuild...not a chance. 

Yeah there's no way they're that far away.

Honestly, what is missing from this team? Besides some playoff experience, this team got everything it needs. A superstar #1D, a legit #1C, a top 5 player in the league in Panarin, a solid goalie, good and experienced bottom 6 and a lot of younger very skilled players on cheap contracts for a few years (Kakko, Laf, Chytil, Krav, Lundkvist, Jones, Miller). They also have a solid leadership/veteran group in Kreids, Trouba, Reaves, Mika, (Panarin, Goodrow) and now got an experienced and good coach aswell.

Might not win a cup this upcoming season, but it should be the goal the next 4-5 years.

[shestYORKin]

13 minutes ago, Zuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuc said:

Honestly, what is missing from this team? Besides some playoff experience, this team got everything it needs.

yep. initial power rankings for the season have been dropping here and there and everyone has us around 14-15ish. understandable because nothing has been proven. but under the hood this is already a top 10 team. the next 3-4yrs are going to be  

[ThirtyONE]

I hate that fans worry about contracts 5 years from now. There is no way to know what the team will look like then or what the cap situation will be. The fact that Mika is at least 1.5M under value is an insane deal for the Rangers. 

If longer deals give us less AAV, then that's the way to go. We've seen teams around the league figure out ways to get from these guys time and time again. 

[Phil]

48 minutes ago, Pete said:

Agree. 

Also completely disagree that they are three or four years away. That would make this a 7-year rebuild...not a chance. 

If they're 3-4 years from even competing, it's not even a rebuild, it's perpetual rebuild. Like Ottawa or Arizona. There is no actual light at the end of the tunnel.

[The Dude]

14 hours ago, CCCP said:

It only makes sense if we’re primed to compete for the cup in the next 3-4 years, which i dont think we are. I dont think we’re there yet. Giving these long term contracts to players “at the stage of their careers” shows to me that this organization has no long term plan. 

I dunno man. Signing your top center to a long term deal and preparing to sign your top D man to a long term deal, as well as deciding what to do with Strome, AFTER they extended their young promising goal and they just walked away from paying Buch in an effort to clear cap space for these future contracts... Sounds like a long term plan to me. This is essentially it. This is who they are going with. 

Maybe if things dont go well,  they take a shot at acquiring Tarasenko, but this is the plan. This is the start of their plan for competing. Long term in this league IS 3-4 years. 

[Ozzy]

You guys are right...It's "GO TIME"...starting this year!   Enough bullshit...we're built to win!  Now!

[The Dude]

6 minutes ago, Ozzy said:

You guys are right...It's "GO TIME"...starting this year!   Enough bullshit...we're built to win!  Now!

What else can they do? They have to commit to Kakko, Kravtsov and Lafreniere at forward and they seem to think Lundkvist is a legit player, with a shit ton of options if he's not there yet. Everything else is pretty much there. 

What other options do they have? This was going to be the year it becomes expected they compete.  

[Ozzy]

1 minute ago, The Dude said:

What else can they do? They have to commit to Kakko, Kravtsov and Lafreniere at forward and they seem to think Lundkvist is a legit player, with a shit ton of options if he's not there yet. Everything else is pretty much there. 

What other options do they have? This was going to be the year it becomes expected they compete.  

I'm committed to them...so fuck it...These guys are my guys.  Lundqvist is a legit player in my eyes.  I'm all in, big fella!  ..and with the depth we have on defense, we're going to be in it for quite a while in my book!

...and the Reaves for 15 campaign begins, baby!!!!!   LOL

Hey @G1000...when Reaves pots number 15 you gotta buy a round for me!!! 

[Pete]

Just now, Ozzy said:

when Reaves pots number 15

You don't seem like the type who's willing to wait 3 years for a drink...