Thread: Stepan
View Single Post
01-05-2014, 01:51 AM
Registered User
DelZottoHitTheNetJK's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 993
vCash: 500
Stepan has 27 points, sure. Consider the following facts:

-he's played with our 2 best offensive weapons almost exclusively all year (Nash and Kreider)
-his 5 on 5 stats suck
-his faceoff % sucks

Not impressed at all. Outside of a very select few plays/games this season, he's been dead weight on the top line. He doesn't possess the physical tools to create space for Nash and Kreider. Hockey IQ and defensive ability only gets you so far. And as we all now are finding out, Nash needs a true offensive guy in the middle to put up huge numbers. Nash was on pace for 80 points/82 last season and Stepan was playing the best hockey of his career. Stepan is sucking, and Nash is sucking. Not really a coincidence. I am extremely confident (unfortunately) that the Stepan of last year will be the exception, not the rule with him going forward. The natural offensive ability just isn't there.

Honestly, Stepan is one of the few Rangers that has value. People are going to bash, but we should trade him. Brassard is nearly identical to Stepan but with more offensive upside. Better shot, better with the puck on his stick/carrying it into the zone, slightly better speed. Defensive play Stepan definitely has the edge. This would be my plan for NYR down the middle:

Step 1: buy out Richards
Step 2: qualify Brassard
Step 3: Trade Stepan for a high end piece; legitimate scoring winger/offensive defenseman
Step 4: Use cap space from Richards to sign either Grabovski/Statsny/Thornton (in that order, preferably)

Gives us the following, NOT including what we would get for Stepan (which I don't know; I'd have to do a "value of" thread in the trade section):

Moore/Carcillo-Boyle-Dorsett? It's the 4th line..whatever

Add to that lineup the fact that we could pretty easily get a legit top 6 winger or top 4 offensive defenseman for Step and we have a much more balanced team

DelZottoHitTheNetJK is offline   Reply With Quote