Speculation: 2013 Offseason Thread Part IV: Streit's rights to PHI for 2014 4th Rounder

[NYR Viper]

How many more decades is it going to take for Ranger fans to realize that "bringing in veteran leadership" usually fails here?

The problem is, bringing in a vet to finish off the team is one thing. Bringing in a vet and hoping they can help carry the team is entirely different. It would be the latter at this point...

 

[Trxjw]

Play the youth. Deal with the growing pains. Bring in a coach who is willing to develop a team. Each year, who are the people who really make a positive impact on this team? It's the players who developed within the organization.

 

[Raspewtin]

Who is getting nasty? I have no problem. Go look at your response to me regarding Jokinen. You took exception to a comment I made which even wasn't directed to you. Carolina gave Ruutu $19M. The lockout happens. Ruutu has hip surgery. He misses most of the season. Now according to you its a bad contract. Ruutu completed one year. There is not cap recapture issue regarding Ruutu. Compliance and ordinary course buyouts have the same formula. If Carolina did buy Ruutu out,why wouldn't they just buy him out as a regular buyout and have it count against the cap? Helps them reach the floor. The compliance buyouts are for the rich teams to buy out players and then spend that money on other players to reach the upper limit. Carolina is a budget team.

I said "what does Jokinen have to do with this" because bringing him up had nothing to do with the discussion on Ruutu. Wasn't an insult, just don't know where you got him from. Don't be like "people change their names" or "you probably wanted Jokinen as a replacement for Stepan" when I simply asked what Jokinen had to do with a Ruutu buyout.

 

[LGRDunDunDunDunDa]

Play the youth. Deal with the growing pains. Bring in a coach who is willing to develop a team. Each year, who are the people who really make a positive impact on this team? It's the players who developed within the organization.

They've done this the last 3 years it is time to Finish this with a couple of pieces
or I think Hank will possibly walk.

 

[Trxjw]

They've done this the last 3 years it is time to Finish this with a couple of pieces
or I think Hank will possibly walk.

The last 3 years they've signed a UFA with no knees in Frolov, handed out a massive UFA contract to Richards, traded a chunk of their youth for Nash, and then dealt another recent UFA signing for more kids who have played excellent hockey for us. The Rangers have been trying to "finish this with a couple pieces" for years now and it hasn't worked.

Frankly, I'm not interested in building a team with the goal of keeping Lundqvist in NY. I want to build a team that can compete for the next 5+ years.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

Play the youth. Deal with the growing pains. Bring in a coach who is willing to develop a team. Each year, who are the people who really make a positive impact on this team? It's the players who developed within the organization.

Im probably on board with this.

Although having Lundqvist around makes that wait and see approach a little more difficult.

 

[Trxjw]

Im probably on board with this.

Although having Lundqvist around makes that wait and see approach a little more difficult.

I just can't get on board with configuring a team building strategy around convincing Hank to stay. I realize he's been the foundation of this team's success since the last lockout, but he's either a part of the team, or he's not. Nobody should be bigger than the team. Not anymore.

 

[JESSEWENEEDTOCOOK]

Frankly, I'm not interested in building a team with the goal of keeping Lundqvist in NY. I want to build a team that can compete for the next 5+ years.

Agreed. I love Hank, but I'd rather the team be built with prolonged success in mind, not trying for another '94 by loading up with aging vets just so one player, as good as he is, can get his cup.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

I just can't get on board with configuring a team building strategy around convincing Hank to stay. I realize he's been the foundation of this team's success since the last lockout, but he's either a part of the team, or he's not. Nobody should be bigger than the team. Not anymore.

Perhaps me being cynical and not thinking our youth is very good (championship caliber) plays a role into my thinking.

Im just not sure I can fully endorse a team-building strategy of "let the kids play" when you have the best goaltender in the world behind you. You've got a pretty damn big piece of that "prolonged success" sitting there in Hank right now.

Maybe Im misunderstanding, but to go full throttle on what you're seemingly endorsing, the Rangers should trade Lundqvist.

 

[Clown Fiesta]

Play the youth. Deal with the growing pains. Bring in a coach who is willing to develop a team. Each year, who are the people who really make a positive impact on this team? It's the players who developed within the organization.

This, our team of youngish players got us to the 2nd round with little help from vets (Richards) so tweak the roster a bit and get back at it.

If you can add a solid piece by all means do it, but if you buy out Richards don't turn around and sign another supposed 1c or a guy like Ribiero.

 

[SingnBluesOnBroadway]

Frankly, I'm not interested in building a team with the goal of keeping Lundqvist in NY. I want to build a team that can compete for the next 5+ years.

Which should be enough to keep Lundqvist.

 

[NikC]

The last 3 years they've signed a UFA with no knees in Frolov, handed out a massive UFA contract to Richards, traded a chunk of their youth for Nash, and then dealt another recent UFA signing for more kids who have played excellent hockey for us. The Rangers have been trying to "finish this with a couple pieces" for years now and it hasn't worked.

Frankly, I'm not interested in building a team with the goal of keeping Lundqvist in NY. I want to build a team that can compete for the next 5+ years.

They signed Frolov for a 1year deal. He suffered a torn ACL when a player fell over his leg....
There were no congenital defects with Frolov.

 

[Trxjw]

Perhaps me being cynical and not thinking our youth is very good (championship caliber) plays a role into my thinking.

Im just not sure I can fully endorse a team-building strategy of "let the kids play" when you have the best goaltender in the world behind you. You've got a pretty damn big piece of that "prolonged success" sitting there in Hank right now.

Maybe Im misunderstanding, but to go full throttle on what you're seemingly endorsing, the Rangers should trade Lundqvist.

It's a gamble. I'm certainly not trying to imply that our kids are a guarantee, but I'd like to stick with the people who really come through for us on a regular basis. It's always been my belief that players you develop from within have an intangible quality that you just don't get with free agents -- older ones in particular. If you gave a kid his first shot in the NHL, he can give you an extra gear that many other players cannot reach deep enough for. It's not quantifiable, but it's there.

I'm not advocating the nuclear option of trading Lundqvist, at least not yet. What I'm saying is that bringing in talent from the outside hasn't been as effective as what we've done from within. I'd like to stick with that strategy, for the most part at least, this summer. If Hank says he doesn't buy into it and wants out, then trade him. That's his prerogative.

I don't think this team is that far away. Perhaps it's me holding our prospects in higher regard than they deserve, but I think we're close. If you trade Del Zotto for a scoring forward, that gives us 3 top-six forwards in Nash, Callahan, and "player X." Between Hrivik, Kreider and Fast, we should be able to get at least one scoring forward from that group for the 4th top-six winger. Between Miller and Lindberg, I think one of them should win the 3rd line center spot this fall. I think a RH, offensive defender can be attained from a group that includes McBain, Ellis, Elliot, Barrie, Murphy, Vatanen, etc. Two shrewd trades and two kids making it out of camp isn't a monumental mountain to climb. If it works, I think this team can be just as successful next season as it was this season, but more importantly, it would have the potential to continue to grow together as a unit, and not a collection of individuals.

Maybe I've been let down so many times by this franchise and I'm so ready for change that I'm being overly optimistic; but I just think we're ready for this kind of thinking. Ready to give the youth a real shot. The UFA market is garbage. Let the kids play.

 

[HFsNumber1Heel]

If you promote them (the Swedes) he will stay (Henrik)

 

[Kwayry]

you think we are just better off adding a depth player like a solid 3rd liner? would you move dz and if so for what?

I wouldn't move DZ yet.
I wouldn't move any of the prospects either.
until we know the new system and how the pieces would fit.
Or until we know what we have in the prospects.
Adding a depth 3rd line winger with size if needed is what i'd do.

Allows the team to gel, these roster upheavals every year are not conductive to building that chemistry.
Look how long the teams in contention have been together for.

Kreider - Stepan - Nash
Clowe - Brass - Callahan
Hagelin - Lindberg - Fast/Miller/Stalberg

Stalberg if Miller and Fast are not ready.
or

Kreider - Stepan - Nash
Hagelin- Brass - Callahan
Clowe- Lindberg - Zuke

Looks good enough for me.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

It's a gamble. I'm certainly not trying to imply that our kids are a guarantee, but I'd like to stick with the people who really come through for us on a regular basis. It's always been my belief that players you develop from within have an intangible quality that you just don't get with free agents -- older ones in particular. If you gave a kid his first shot in the NHL, he can give you an extra gear that many other players cannot reach deep enough for. It's not quantifiable, but it's there.

I'm not advocating the nuclear option of trading Lundqvist, at least not yet. What I'm saying is that bringing in talent from the outside hasn't been as effective as what we've done from within. I'd like to stick with that strategy, for the most part at least, this summer. If Hank says he doesn't buy into it and wants out, then trade him. That's his prerogative.

I don't think this team is that far away. Perhaps it's me holding our prospects in higher regard than they deserve, but I think we're close. If you trade Del Zotto for a scoring forward, that gives us 3 top-six forwards in Nash, Callahan, and "player X." Between Hrivik, Kreider and Fast, we should be able to get at least one scoring forward from that group for the 4th top-six winger. Between Miller and Lindberg, I think one of them should win the 3rd line center spot this fall. I think a RH, offensive defender can be attained from a group that includes McBain, Ellis, Elliot, Barrie, Murphy, Vatanen, etc. Two shrewd trades and two kids making it out of camp isn't a monumental mountain to climb. If it works, I think this team can be just as successful next season as it was this season, but more importantly, it would have the potential to continue to grow together as a unit, and not a collection of individuals.

Maybe I've been let down so many times by this franchise and I'm so ready for change that I'm being overly optimistic; but I just think we're ready for this kind of thinking. Ready to give the youth a real shot. The UFA market is garbage. Let the kids play.

Good post, and I agree for the most part.

Whats sad is, after all this time, I dont even really have a strong preference for how the organization should go about their roster construction. I just want them to pick an approach, commit to it, and see it through.

So many things have been done half-assed under Sather's tenure.

 

[Kwayry]

Play the youth. Deal with the growing pains. Bring in a coach who is willing to develop a team. Each year, who are the people who really make a positive impact on this team? It's the players who developed within the organization.

Agreed. You know where these homegrown players hearts are.
I am willing to be patient if i know this team is built the right way.

McLeod @ 1.15 or Nystrom @ 1.5-1.8?

If they can move Powe AND add McLeod I would be totally fine with that being the move. Considering McLeod and Dorsett will be PKing in that scenario they should be fine. Although I like Nystrom quite a bit.

I still prefer Nystrom. But if you are telling me to replace Powe with McLeod, which means we have both, then sure. I am not a big fan of Powe, great pk'er but stone hands, not sure how many open nets he missed.

Isn't Ruutu injury prone?

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

From what I can gather, the organization's approach to team building involves attempting to build up strong depth from within, and importing the top-line players.

Both aspects of this approach have failed. The team, while possessing some solid young players, is anything but flush with depth down the lineup. The guys chosen to fill in the top-line holes have been spotty at best, with Richards being a complete disaster last season. Its not working.

 

[Kwayry]

If you promote them (the Swedes) he will stay (Henrik)

Hank will stay because he was tired of 2-1 games where he has to stand on his head to get the win. I don't think he was fond of the collapsing defense either.

 

[Chief]

Play the youth. Deal with the growing pains. Bring in a coach who is willing to develop a team. Each year, who are the people who really make a positive impact on this team? It's the players who developed within the organization.

Maybe I missed part of this conversation because history contradicts your "positive impact" comment. How far back should we go? Back in '94 we had all the Edmonton vets and guys like Larmer, Matteau and Kocur who certainly had a positive impact on the Rangers. Ditto for Jagr and the rest of his Czech National Teammates. And there's no way the Rangers have their most successful season in decades in 2011-12 without Gaborik scoring 41 goals and Richards getting hot at the end of the season and leading the team in scoring in the playoffs.

The fact of the matter is that if you get the "right" players then it doesn't matter how you get them. A successful team looks at all avenaues available to them to acquire talent. Cutting off an avenue because a player or players didn't work out is not how you build a championship team.

 

[Kwayry]

From what I can gather, the organization's approach to team building involves attempting to build up strong depth from within, and importing the top-line players.

Both aspects of this approach have failed. The team, while possessing some solid young players, is anything but flush with depth down the lineup. The guys chosen to fill in the top-line holes have been spotty at best, with Richards being a complete disaster last season. Its not working.

Gaborik was a success. Not only he scored 100+ goals during his stay here, but he returned Brass, Moore and Dorsett.
Nash is still a success for me. He had a disappointing Playoffs, but he was a pretty good in the regular season.

 

[Inferno]

before you can make any roster moves, you really must gauge what the identity of this team is going to be.

 

[NYR Viper]

Agreed. You know where these homegrown players hearts are.
I am willing to be patient if i know this team is built the right way.



I still prefer Nystrom. But if you are telling me to replace Powe with McLeod, which means we have both, then sure. I am not a big fan of Powe, great pk'er but stone hands, not sure how many open nets he missed.

Isn't Ruutu injury prone?

A bit. I like the addition of McLeod and Nystrom as bottom-6ers.

From what I can gather, the organization's approach to team building involves attempting to build up strong depth from within, and importing the top-line players.

Both aspects of this approach have failed. The team, while possessing some solid young players, is anything but flush with depth down the lineup. The guys chosen to fill in the top-line holes have been spotty at best, with Richards being a complete disaster last season. Its not working.

The theory behind it is a decent one, IMO. They just haven't chosen the right players. Gaborik was a success as Kwayry below stated.

Gaborik was a success. Not only he scored 100+ goals during his stay here, but he returned Brass, Moore and Dorsett.
Nash is still a success for me. He had a disappointing Playoffs, but he was a pretty good in the regular season.

Agreed. I like Nash, I think he will be fine.

before you can make any roster moves, you really must gauge what the identity of this team is going to be.

Exactly. I am hoping speed, size and tenacity. Makes sense with the wings they have and the defense they have been molding. Skilled 2-way centers with speedy physical wingers.

 

[SingnBluesOnBroadway]

before you can make any roster moves, you really must gauge what the identity of this team is going to be.

And before you can do that, you need a coach!

 

[Trxjw]

Maybe I missed part of this conversation because history contradicts your "positive impact" comment. How far back should we go? Back in '94 we had all the Edmonton vets and guys like Larmer, Matteau and Kocur who certainly had a positive impact on the Rangers. Ditto for Jagr and the rest of his Czech National Teammates. And there's no way the Rangers have their most successful season in decades in 2011-12 without Gaborik scoring 41 goals and Richards getting hot at the end of the season and leading the team in scoring in the playoffs.

The fact of the matter is that if you get the "right" players then it doesn't matter how you get them. A successful team looks at all avenaues available to them to acquire talent. Cutting off an avenue because a player or players didn't work out is not how you build a championship team.

Going back to a pre-cap, pre-Sather era isn't something I consider to be relevant, so I'm not going to go there. However, I didn't say that haven't had success at bringing in players from the outside. I simply said that year after year it's the players we've developed from within who have the most impact, and the players we signed who come and go. If you look at it from a "favorable season" perspective, then yes, Gaborik and Richards were both very important to last years success. However, one of them is now gone and the other is almost assuredly going to be following him out the door. You don't build winning teams on small samples of positive impact. Gaborik had two very successful seasons with us, but he also fought several injuries and often disappeared when the team needed him most.

You absolutely can get the right players from free agency. However, this team has not shown consistent ability to add those players. Skipping one summer of lousy free agents isn't going to sink the ship. Especially if you can pursue alternate avenues of improving the team, which I think is entirely possible.