Speculation: 2014 - 2015 New York Rangers :: Roster building / proposal thread Part II

[JESSEWENEEDTOCOOK]

$6.75M is a good cap number for an elite #1C. The question is: How much longer will he be an elite #1C? $6.67M looked like a bargain for Brad Richards until it was discovered that he was a 55 point center who was rapidly declining.

I tend to loathe the acquisitions of aging stars, but with one already on the roster and the team coming off of a SCF appearance, it certainly seems a little bit more palatable. However, outside of that vacuum, I have to wonder what trading Brassard would do to this team. It's a very tight group, and we saw what a big shakeup move can do to a team when we traded for Nash.

No, we saw what a team with a terrible bottom-6 (and an underperforming second line) can't do

 

[pld459666]

Yup, Brassard has more "grace" than Thornton, thus we should keep Brassard over exploring Thornton.

Seriously, what sport do you watch?

Comparing Brad Richards who had ONE season over 80 points, to Joe Thornton who has consistently been putting up at least that many for over a decade is absurd. Comparing arguably the second best pure passer in the world to Derrick Brassard and his 45-point career year is even more absurd.

I think some of you watch a different sport than I do.

Like Fletch said, the ONLY issue with trading for Thornton is the cost (in assets) to acquire him, and making sure we're able to fit him under the cap.

I shouldn't need to tell you that 6.75 for a player of his calibre is underpayment and will increasingly be so as the cap continues to increase and guys like Brooks Orpik make 5.5 mil. 1.25 mil difference between Orpik and Thornton. Anything seem off there? Jonathan Toews makes almost double Thornton's cap-hit and puts up less points.

Thornton's game has never been speed and I don't see him slowing down much over the next three seasons. He's an elite playmaker; as elite as they come.

Yet some of you want to keep a 45-point center who will make north of 5mil on any long-term deal, and Brady Skjei who's at least a year away from the AHL, not likely the NHL. Oh, but he "projects to be Staal's replacement." Who says we're replacing Staal any time soon? "Letang lite?" Are you kidding me?


An elite playmaker (probably the best pure passer in the world behind only Crosby) @ 6.75mil
versus
A 45-point 2nd line center @ ~5mil

There is no comparison. They don't belong in the same paragraph.

Richards had 2 seasons over 90. - 05-06 with Tampa and 09-10 with Dallas

Richards was also 5 years younger at the time we signed him compared to any potential deal for Jumbo Joe. with better odds to continue playing the way he (Richards) was as opposed to Thornton maintaining a similar scoring pace has kept for the last 2-3 years.

I would prefer to stay away from 35 year old players 2-3 years from retirement, but if the cost is Brassard, Kristo and a 3rd in 2016 I would do that. plucking out top prospects for a guy that close to retirement is not a bright idea.

 

[BlueshirtBlitz]

Brassard won't be a Ranger for much longer. If he does go to arbitration because he wants close to 5.5 mil, he's gone in two years.

If you can trade him for Thornton, you do it.

I don't think the Sharks are taking him for Brassard + Crap, though. Maybe Dubinsky and a 2nd .

 

[Doctyl]

Richards had 2 seasons over 90. - 05-06 with Tampa and 09-10 with Dallas

Richards was also 5 years younger at the time we signed him compared to any potential deal for Jumbo Joe. with better odds to continue playing the way he (Richards) was as opposed to Thornton maintaining a similar scoring pace has kept for the last 2-3 years.

I would prefer to stay away from 35 year old players 2-3 years from retirement, but if the cost is Brassard, Kristo and a 3rd in 2016 I would do that. plucking out top prospects for a guy that close to retirement is not a bright idea.

Not saying Joe is a good idea, but most stars fans warned us that he was a shell of himself after his concussion. We wrote them all off as being bitter, guess they were right.

Again not advocating trading for Thornton, but in retrospect I think Joe has similar if not better odds at maintaining his play than a concussed Richards.

 

[pld459666]

Does not have to be a 1C.
Has to be premium talent upgrade, whatever position(s) trade value is returned.

Yeah it does have to be a #1 center.

you don't trade your defactor #1 center in Stepan and not get a better player for the same position in return.

Brassard is no #1 center. Miller is no #2 center, at thsi point he's brealy a #3 center.

Without a replacement coming back or lined up in another deal, Stepan cannot get moved.

 

[pld459666]

I hate predicting when a star's production will fall off a cliff and I don't think shying away from every 35 year old is the greatest strategy out there, as many have played well into their mid-late 30s. That isn't a "go get Thornton at all costs" statement, it's just that I'm not as jaded on some vets as many. I believe SBOB put it well a while back...the Rangers are in a better position today for that aging vet than they were, say, in 2002. There is a more solid base with a good mix of youth and experienced youth, as well as a system that's been in place with Lundqvist in net that has worked. This isn't a broken team adding mercenaries to fill all their spots. They have a very good core that enables them to do things; just no cap wiggle room.

And for the most part I do not disagree with this post.

I just do not believe it is organizationally healthy to give away three straight 1st round picks and then follow that up with trading away MORE younger players like Brassard (Brass is still 8 years younger than Thornton) and Skjei.

If this was a situation where we could get him for Brassard and without parting with ANY top 10 prospects, then yeah, I can see the merit to that.

The more we move out prime picks and prime youth, the shorter our window to compete becomes.

 

[pld459666]

Not saying Joe is a good idea, but most stars fans warned us that he was a shell of himself after his concussion. We wrote them all off as being bitter, guess they were right.

Again not advocating trading for Thornton, but in retrospect I think Joe has similar if not better odds at maintaining his play than a concussed Richards.

with 5 additional years under his belt...I'm not so sure.

 

[TheTakedown]

It still depends on how bad Wilson wants Thornton moved... The longer we wait, given that Wilson continues to be, and get more frustrated, the lower the cost for Thornton.

Wilson's put himself in a bad spot and if he really wants Joe gone its on Joe's terms and desires.. Not what sather or another gm will pay

 

[Fletch]

And for the most part I do not disagree with this post.

I just do not believe it is organizationally healthy to give away three straight 1st round picks and then follow that up with trading away MORE younger players like Brassard (Brass is still 8 years younger than Thornton) and Skjei.

If this was a situation where we could get him for Brassard and without parting with ANY top 10 prospects, then yeah, I can see the merit to that.

The more we move out prime picks and prime youth, the shorter our window to compete becomes.

I don't really have an opinion on getting Thornton or not. Don't think I have the feel for the depth of the organization. Being out of picks and prime youth is not a situation in which I want the organization to be in. Not having 3 first round picks sucks. Further, in three years, what would be the plan to replace Thornton? A more expensive Thornton? I'm with you. I'm just responding to certain concepts, as in, he would be an improvement to Brassard (but not saying go trade for him), or that I'm not predicting his decline.

 

[Doctyl]

Joe would probably command an MSL type return

 

[pld459666]

Joe would probably command an MSL type return

You are probably right, and I would not be willing to do that.

 

[Savant]

If you can get Thornton with Brassard as the centerpiece there shouldn't even be a discussion.

 

[Zuccarello Awesome*]

You are probably right, and I would not be willing to do that.

Brassard produces as much as Cally, albeit without the fanfare for being this mystical American leader oozing with "intangibles."

Replace 1 of the 1st round picks with a prospect and I'd definitely do it.

Our 1sts are basically early 2nds if we're going to be contending anyway. There are alway ways to recoup draft picks (see: Derek friggin Dorsett got us a 3rd). There's not always a way to acquire an elite 1C.

Brassard, Kristo/Haggerty/McIlrath and a 1st?

Klein could be added / swapped in somehow if needed because he's likely a goner anyway to make the cap room needed for JT.

You're telling me some of you would say no to Joe Thornton for that deal?

 

[Fletch]

Brassard produces as much as Cally, albeit without the fanfare for being this mystical American leader oozing with "intangibles."

Replace 1 of the 1st round picks with a prospect and I'd definitely do it.

Our 1sts are basically early 2nds if we're going to be contending anyway. There are alway ways to recoup draft picks (see: Derek friggin Dorsett got us a 3rd). There's not always a way to acquire an elite 1C.

Brassard, Kristo/Haggerty/McIlrath and a 1st?

Klein could be added / swapped in somehow if needed because he's likely a goner anyway to make the cap room needed for JT.

You're telling me some of you would say no to Joe Thornton for that deal?

the first may be "early 2nds", but I wouldn't mind having one next year, and definitely won't mind having one the following season. Whenever the first round pick would be it would be about 30 slots higher than when the Rangers would be picking and I'm sure the odds favor finding the better player in the higher draft slot.

 

[BarbaraAlphanse]

Joe is a playoff under performer, relative to how he plays during the regular season.

I feel like we should have met our quota while we harbor Nash.

 

[aufheben]

Nash makes Joe Thornton look like Claude Lemieux.

 

[Zuccarello Awesome*]

the first may be "early 2nds", but I wouldn't mind having one next year, and definitely won't mind having one the following season. Whenever the first round pick would be it would be about 30 slots higher than when the Rangers would be picking and I'm sure the odds favor finding the better player in the higher draft slot.

Totally, but at the same time I wouldn't let that prevent me from bringing in an elite 1C.

The odds of the 25-30th pick ever developing into the type of player that will ever have 3 years of the production that JT would have with us are slim to none.

Maybe we get lucky and find a guy who becomes a 1C down the road the way Stepan has, but a player like Thornton puts us over the top and makes us the team to beat in the East IMO.

If the "win now" plan doesn't work within the next 2-3 years, we may have the option of trading guys like MSL, Thornton, Nash, etc either as rentals or not to recoup draft picks (including 1sts).

It's all about asset management and there's no surefire right way to build a winner. I just feel strongly that Joe Thornton on THIS Rangers team makes a huge difference. I totally agree with SBOB that this Rangers team is much better equipped to succeed with 35+ vets than the teams of 5-10-15 years ago.

 

[Zuccarello Awesome*]

Joe is a playoff under performer, relative to how he plays during the regular season.

I feel like we should have met our quota while we harbor Nash.

Nash makes Joe Thornton look like Claude Lemieux.

Simply not true.

100 playoff points says otherwise.

 

[Fletch]

Totally, but at the same time I wouldn't let that prevent me from bringing in an elite 1C.

The odds of the 25-30th pick ever developing into the type of player that will ever have 3 years of the production that JT would have with us are slim to none.

Maybe we get lucky and find a guy who becomes a 1C down the road the way Stepan has, but a player like Thornton puts us over the top and makes us the team to beat in the East IMO.

If the "win now" plan doesn't work within the next 2-3 years, we may have the option of trading guys like MSL, Thornton, Nash, etc either as rentals or not to recoup draft picks (including 1sts).

It's all about asset management and there's no surefire right way to build a winner. I just feel strongly that Joe Thornton on THIS Rangers team makes a huge difference. I totally agree with SBOB that this Rangers team is much better equipped to succeed with 35+ vets than the teams of 5-10-15 years ago.

I'm mixed on it. Three years in a row without one? That's tough. Going a fourth is tough too. And in a way, it's somewhat of a rental. Three seasons max. I don't know if the organization can afford it in the long run, and when I say I don't know, I'm saying I really don't know.

 

[Ola]

Except he isn't 34 anymore. He's 35. One year of 75 points from Thornton, if he still has that in him, is not more valuable than 4 or 5 years of 45 points from Brassard. Yeah, there are players that are effective into their late 30s. That doesn't mean there isn't increased risk in bringing in a player who has his contract for 3 years.

Truth is, if San Jose offered us Thornton for a 3rd round pick and retained half his salary, I still wouldn't do it. I don't think he fits this team or the organizational philosophy. And this is coming from someone who likes the player a lot. "Win-now" in the organization doesn't mean throwing out the baby with the bath water. There still has to be a plan for the roster. Thornton doesn't fit that plan.

Why? That sounds insane to turn down.

The type of playmaker Thornton is never ages like other types do. Oates played a SCF when he was 40 y/o.

I am sorry but Joe T seems to be one of those examples that always have people loose some judgement. He is "too good". If he had been half as good, people could picture him in a more of a 1 of the top 9 roles type of asset. But since he has been top 1-5 for several years and has some flaws, he should be disqualified?

Thornton is a lot better player than Brad Richards is. BR helped us. Joe T would help us. He is also a big center who are really strong on FOs and excellent on the PP.

Getting him and fitting him under the cap is probably impossible, sure. But — if — we could get him, he would of course help. Thinking anything else is nonsense. Pure nonsense.

 

[Zuccarello Awesome*]

I'm mixed on it. Three years in a row without one? That's tough. Going a fourth is tough too. And in a way, it's somewhat of a rental. Three seasons max. I don't know if the organization can afford it in the long run, and when I say I don't know, I'm saying I really don't know.

Yup, I hear ya.

Don't get me wrong: I have my doubts as well. I feel strongly that he'd put us over the top this year, but if the next three years unfold with ECF, SCF, SCF and we don't win the Cup, it will be looked at as a failure and the wrong move. So many factors (including bounces) involved with winning The Cup that we could even end up being the best team and still not winning it all.

When I think of no 1st for 3-4 years straight, it sounds absurd.

But when I weigh Brassard at 5-5.5 versus adding assets (prospects and picks) to Brassard to turn him into Joe Thornton at 6.75, I get excited at the possibilities. And even though it's somewhat of a rental like you said, his 3-year term is perfect in the sense that our window to win with MSL and Dan Boyle and Lundqvist at the top of his game is roughly the same span.

 

[Fletch]

Yup, I hear ya.

Don't get me wrong: I have my doubts as well. I feel strongly that he'd put us over the top this year, but if the next three years unfold with ECF, SCF, SCF and we don't win the Cup, it will be looked at as a failure and the wrong move. So many factors (including bounces) involved with winning The Cup that we could even end up being the best team and still not winning it all.

When I think of no 1st for 3-4 years straight, it sounds absurd.

But when I weigh Brassard at 5-5.5 versus adding assets (prospects and picks) to Brassard to turn him into Joe Thornton at 6.75, I get excited at the possibilities. And even though it's somewhat of a rental like you said, his 3-year term is perfect in the sense that our window to win with MSL and Dan Boyle and Lundqvist at the top of his game is roughly the same span.

If the Rangers made that trade and came out ECF, SCF and SCF without the Cup, I'd actually say that's pretty darn good. The objective is winning, but reality is getting to the ECFs is a real accomplishment, otherwise 29 teams would fail every year. Fail to win, yes, but again, you can't win every year.

 

[BarbaraAlphanse]

Simply not true.

100 playoff points says otherwise.

I did an analysis on this earlier in the season. It is absolutely true.

Amongst "elite" caliber players, Joe's performance falls drastically. If I remember correctly, he produces at like a .99 ppg clip, historically, in the regular season. That amount falls to .74ppg in the playoffs.

The only other "elite" player that has as big of a drop off from regular season to playoff performance... is Rick Nash, who produces at like a .8 ppg clip in the regular season and provides a blistering .44 ppg clip in the playoffs.

In relation, most "elite" players either overperform their regular season statistics in the playoffs (Girouz, Kane as examples), perform consistently with how they play during the regular season, or at the very worst experience about a .1-.12ppg drop off (worst case).

Thornton's .24 ppg drop off is bad. Pair that with Nash's .36ppg drop off. That's a recipe for disaster.

 

[Tawnos]

Why? That sounds insane to turn down.

The type of playmaker Thornton is never ages like other types do. Oates played a SCF when he was 40 y/o.

I am sorry but Joe T seems to be one of those examples that always have people loose some judgement. He is "too good". If he had been half as good, people could picture him in a more of a 1 of the top 9 roles type of asset. But since he has been top 1-5 for several years and has some flaws, he should be disqualified?

Thornton is a lot better player than Brad Richards is. BR helped us. Joe T would help us. He is also a big center who are really strong on FOs and excellent on the PP.

Getting him and fitting him under the cap is probably impossible, sure. But — if — we could get him, he would of course help. Thinking anything else is nonsense. Pure nonsense.

Because building a hockey team is not just a matter of getting the best players and plugging them in. I'm not saying Thornton is too good or anything you said. I'm saying I don't like the fit for this team the way the rest of it is built.

I think there's an argument to be made that Brad Richards very presence was a detriment to the team at times. Too much of the focal point of the play was on a player with diminishing offensive skills. That can be damaging to the psyche of the entire team. We were lucky with Richards that it didn't. I don't want to press that luck again.

 

[bernmeister]

$6.75M is a good cap number for an elite #1C. The question is: How much longer will he be an elite #1C? $6.67M looked like a bargain for Brad Richards until it was discovered that he was a 55 point center who was rapidly declining.

I tend to loathe the acquisitions of aging stars, but with one already on the roster and the team coming off of a SCF appearance, it certainly seems a little bit more palatable. However, outside of that vacuum, I have to wonder what trading Brassard would do to this team. It's a very tight group, and we saw what a big shakeup move can do to a team when we traded for Nash.

IMO, it is pushing it to say Thornton is an elite 1C.