Speculation: 2014 Offseason - Roster Building / Trade Speculation Thread III

[GAGLine]

But no, let us kill our depth because... hell, your argument must be better than mine. Clearly.

I have no idea who you are arguing with, but if we add someone like Grabovski, that means we can't afford to re-sign someone else, or we have to trade someone. Either way, it hurts our depth, so I have no idea what your argument is.

 

[BarbaraAlphanse]

I have no idea who you are arguing with, but if we add someone like Grabovski, that means we can't afford to re-sign someone else, or we have to trade someone. Either way, it hurts our depth, so I have no idea what your argument is.

I'm arguing with the consensus of the board that believes it's better to roll with Brassard at 2c, than find another option somehow.

I'd argue that we'd be able to get by with better results with a slightly less expensive defense (i.e trading Marc Staal) than we will if we keep him and have Brass as the 2c.

 

[rangers1314]

Yeah, Grabovski will cost too much.

To be honest, I think we should just wait it out and see what Miller looks like. If he's struggling, we'll still make the playoffs, and we can make a deal before the deadline.

I really would want to put Kreider and MSL with Miller, but that line would be an absolute abomination in the defensive zone. With our 3rd line already mediocre (at best) defensively, we can't afford another defensive ****show like that.

Kreider-Stepan-Nash
Hagelin-Miller-MSL
Poo-Brass-Zucc
Boyle/Fast-Moore-Dorsett/Fast

McD-G
Staal-Stral
Moore-Klein

If Miller ever develops into that Kesler/Dubinsky/M. Richards lite player that he was projected to become (i.e. becomes defensively responsible), I think he's the perfect center for Kreider.

I think a move high on the list should be to rid ourselves of Dors and his 1.6m hit for next season.

 

[LaffyTaffyNYR]

I'd like to see Stepan with Kreider and MSL instead of Nash. If we lose Poo then maybe put Nash in his spot with Brass and Zucc providing Brassard is the 2c. I think its time for Zucc to move up he played damn good in the playoffs against every team and line

 

[BarbaraAlphanse]

I'd like to see Stepan with Kreider and MSL instead of Nash. If we lose Poo then maybe put Nash in his spot with Brass and Zucc providing Brassard is the 2c. I think its time for Zucc to move up he played damn good in the playoffs against every team and line

Just wondering, what would then be our 3rd line? And how would it be a reflection of the team and system that led us to being so successful this year?

AV distributed his talent, leading to mismatches for many of our big time players.

When he put MSL and Nash... they were a one trick pony of a team that was almost eliminated by Pitt until Kreider came back to balance the lines again.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

I'm arguing with the consensus of the board that believes it's better to roll with Brassard at 2c, than find another option somehow.

I'd argue that we'd be able to get by with better results with a slightly less expensive defense (i.e trading Marc Staal) than we will if we keep him and have Brass as the 2c.

You really have no argument until you can tell me who you want as that top 6 center and how the Rangers would deal with the losses of the assets to get this unnamed center.

Trading Staal and then "finding a guy to play 2nd pairing LD" is not a suitable answer. Its glossing over what could become a major issue.

 

[Tawnos]

If you notice, we became consistently successful, when we started rolling out 4 lines. That took several months for AV to accomplish. Between cutting deadweight and finding successful partnerships. Now, Richards is gone, and we want to slot Brassard up... and kill the depth.

The prudent and sensible thing to do would be to, yes, obtain another 2nd line center - play Miller on the wing with Brassard, and see if Brassard is in fact needed/worth the contract he seeks, or if he should be traded.

But no, let us kill our depth because... hell, your argument must be better than mine. Clearly.

To the bolded: disagree. We started becoming consistently successful when we acquired Kevin Klein and started rolling 3 capable defensive pairings.

Having Brassard as our 3rd line C is no longer a luxury we can afford, unless you are willing to sacrifice a defenseman to do it. If we do, you're looking at a very similar situation. Instead of Miller/Lindberg on the 3rd line, you'd have McIlrath/Allen on the 3rd pair. There is no way around it. It's that simple.

So, if you were forced to choose between which is more important to the Rangers success, forward depth or defensive depth, which would you choose? I'd choose the D. The "prudent and sensible thing to do" would be to keep the D group intact.

This is the Cap world, and these choices have to be made. It's inevitable.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

To the bolded: disagree. We started becoming consistently successful when we acquired Kevin Klein and started rolling 3 capable defensive pairings.

Having Brassard as our 3rd line C is no longer a luxury we can afford, unless you are willing to sacrifice a defenseman to do it. If we do, you're looking at a very similar situation. Instead of Miller/Lindberg on the 3rd line, you'd have McIlrath/Allen on the 3rd pair. There is no way around it. It's that simple.

So, if you were forced to choose between which is more important to the Rangers success, forward depth or defensive depth, which would you choose? I'd choose the D. The "prudent and sensible thing to do" would be to keep the D group intact.

This is the Cap world, and these choices have to be made. It's inevitable.

Couldn't agree more.

Rolling 4 lines was nice, but its not like the offense outperformed past Ranger teams from a goal scoring standpoint. This was no offensive juggernaut even with the improved depth.

Goaltending and defensive depth is, and has been, the major strength of the New York Rangers. Im not interested in fooling around with that foundation.

 

[GAGLine]

I'm arguing with the consensus of the board that believes it's better to roll with Brassard at 2c, than find another option somehow.

I'd argue that we'd be able to get by with better results with a slightly less expensive defense (i.e trading Marc Staal) than we will if we keep him and have Brass as the 2c.

And I'd argue that we don't really know at this point. I'd rather go into the season with what we have and then make changes based on actual results.

 

[Tawnos]

Couldn't agree more.

Rolling 4 lines was nice, but its not like the offense outperformed past Ranger teams from a goal scoring standpoint. This was no offensive juggernaut even with the improved depth.

Goaltending and defensive depth is, and has been, the major strength of the New York Rangers. Im not interested in fooling around with that foundation.

Right. Now, the question is... what if Stralman walks anyway? There aren't a lot of RD UFAs out there. Niskanen?

 

[offdacrossbar]

defensively i think we are deeper. i think we could lose one of staal or stralman and still be ok with :

more minutes from the klein/moore pairing

conor allen stepping in and contributing this season quality 3rd pair minutes

a dylan mcilrath sighting

our centerman without brad richards on paper look downright scary. i realize beaver was pretty bad in the end, and anyone is an upgrade over that brad richards, but what we have now isnt very good.

stepan could not get nash going. im not a huge stepan guy when we have him in the 1c spot. his foot speed isnt going to allow him to be the dynamic player we need there. and rick nash scoring is the key to this team returning to the finals next season. period.

we need a centerman who is both creative and defensively responsible enough to play 1st line minutes and create for kreider and nash and shut down the opposing 1c.

until someone shows me that guy, im skeptical. no matter how strong the d is, if we cant score, we will suffer again as we did last season.

adding another 2/3 c type guy isnt going to help us even if we keep the d together.

 

[LaffyTaffyNYR]

The goaltending and D foundation has gotten us close but without all world performances by Hank (game 7 vs pitts) not good enough to win the whole thing. U have to at some point put the puck in the net and the more offensive firepower the better the chance

 

[BarbaraAlphanse]

You really have no argument until you can tell me who you want as that top 6 center and how the Rangers would deal with the losses of the assets to get this unnamed center.

Trading Staal and then "finding a guy to play 2nd pairing LD" is not a suitable answer. Its glossing over what could become a major issue.

Who I want is not necessarily available. There have been some rumblings that the Wild are willing to part with one of their young players (namely either Coyle or Granlund) to get a more veteran defender back in return. From what I've heard, they're trying to pair that veteran defender with Dumba so it allows him to grow and allows the team to have a more solid defense than they went into the playoffs with this year.

So ideally, I'd try and swing a trade centered around Staal and Gralund. Obviously, we would be entitled to more, such as a 2nd round draft pick or a B level prospect, considering that Granlund has only played 60 somewhat games in the NHL and Staal is a much more proven and dominant commodity.

The one year rental thing is justified, but then again Minnesota is a team that has had excellent success attracting and retaining high-end players.

Ideally, I'm targeting something similar to what you were advocating for earlier in the year - young, cost controllable, talented players for guys that are getting older and unaffordable.

Staal creates a hole, sure. That hole could still be evident next year. He's going to want 5.5+, by all accounts. Is that a good allocation of funds in cap-run league? 5.5+ for a 2nd line player? 4.5+ for a 3rd line player in Brassard. No matter how dominant those players are, is that really proper value? And if the Rangers determine that its not good value for Staal, they can either lose him for nothing at the end of the season while he walks, or they can trade him at a highly diminished value because he'll change from an 82 game rental to a 15 game one.

Personally, i'd try and trade Staal for either Granlund or ROR, the latter being the more unappealing to me. Hell, I'd even be willing to trade Staal for someone like Mantha in an attempt to add size to the wing in place of Poo.

Maximize value. That hole might still be there in one year's time, even if we don't trade Staal.

 

[Blue Blooded]

Right. Now, the question is... what if Stralman walks anyway? There aren't a lot of RD UFAs out there. Niskanen?

Niskanen will be too expensive, but Tom Gilbert is a great option. Hugely underrated.

 

[LaffyTaffyNYR]

How can we afford Staal next year? If we cant we need to trade him.

 

[Tawnos]

ODC, you triggered a good thought about ice time. Richards was our #1 center, in terms of ES TOI/G last season. Close to 15 minutes. Stepan was at 14:11, Brassard at 13:14. Two years ago, Stepan was getting close to 16 minutes of ice time. He put up 30 ES points in 48 games that season, comparied with 36 ES points in 82 games this past season. Can Stepan duplicate that kind of success if he gets that kind of ice time again? It's a really good question. I would not be surprised if 2 minutes more of ES ice time for Stepan resulted in 10 more points.

 

[BarbaraAlphanse]

To the bolded: disagree. We started becoming consistently successful when we acquired Kevin Klein and started rolling 3 capable defensive pairings.

Having Brassard as our 3rd line C is no longer a luxury we can afford, unless you are willing to sacrifice a defenseman to do it. If we do, you're looking at a very similar situation. Instead of Miller/Lindberg on the 3rd line, you'd have McIlrath/Allen on the 3rd pair. There is no way around it. It's that simple.

So, if you were forced to choose between which is more important to the Rangers success, forward depth or defensive depth, which would you choose? I'd choose the D. The "prudent and sensible thing to do" would be to keep the D group intact.

This is the Cap world, and these choices have to be made. It's inevitable.

You'd be substituting 1 defender - Staal. A guy who may or may not actually be regressing in this system. By all accounts, the line about who was carrying who on his pairing, has definitely been muddied. Before, it was absolutely him holding up Stralman... now it seems that Stralman may actually have been holding him up and in that case, the argument can be made that maybe Stralman could be performing even better with someone other than Staal.

Klein and Moore can continue being our 3rd pairing. Personally, I think Allen can fill in for Staal quite adequately. He limits his mistakes pretty damn well so there won't be much difference there, is much more mobile, will provide similar offense.

I think the hole on the 2nd pairing defensive pairing will still happen, even if we don't trade him.

 

[offdacrossbar]

The goaltending and D foundation has gotten us close but without all world performances by Hank (game 7 vs pitts) not good enough to win the whole thing. U have to at some point put the puck in the net and the more offensive firepower the better the chance

there ya go.

if hank doesnt play out of his mind, offensively and with our pathetic pp, we arent nearly good enough.

goal scoring is the key. im sure hank would appreciate that as well. winning games 2-1 might be fun to watch but it isnt a long term plan. our d is still strong enough with hank to lose onv of staal or stral.



goals = wins.

offense = goals

skill = offense

centerman who can skate and create = skill

improve up the middle and the rest falls into place.

stasny
stepan
brass
moore


move one of staal or stralman- prefer to keep stralman, and clear some cap, sign our fa's and paul stasny and away we go. oh and let boyle walk and replace with jt miller.

 

[Tawnos]

Klein and Moore can continue being our 3rd pairing. Personally, I think Allen can fill in for Staal quite adequately. He limits his mistakes pretty damn well so there won't be much difference there, is much more mobile, will provide similar offense.

See, I don't know if I agree with this, but it raises the question. Do you have more faith in Allen's ability to play 2LD for 18 minutes per night at ES, or even 15-16 if you give Moore-Klein more ice, than Miller or Lindberg being ready to handle 3C duties at 11-12 ES minutes per night?

Personally, I think we'd be crazy to make that trade off.

 

[BarbaraAlphanse]

there ya go.

if hank doesnt play out of his mind, offensively and with our pathetic pp, we arent nearly good enough.

goal scoring is the key. im sure hank would appreciate that as well. winning games 2-1 might be fun to watch but it isnt a long term plan. our d is still strong enough with hank to lose onv of staal or stral.



goals = wins.

offense = goals

skill = offense

centerman who can skate and create = skill

improve up the middle and the rest falls into place.

stasny
stepan
brass
moore


move one of staal or stralman- prefer to keep stralman, and clear some cap, sign our fa's and paul stasny and away we go. oh and let boyle walk and replace with jt miller.

I agree with what you're preaching. Stastny wouldn't really be my choice, but he seems like the most likely option.

Even if it was Stastny, I'd still maximize value on Staal.

Staal for Mantha + Detroits 2nd?

Kreider-Stepan-Nash
Hagelin-Stastny-MSL
Mantha-Brass-Zucc
Miller-Moore-Dorsett

McD-G
Allen-Stralman
Moore-Klein

If Miller improves and can take over the 3c, you can look to trade Brassard for a 2nd pairing defender at the deadline.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

You'd be substituting 1 defender - Staal. A guy who may or may not actually be regressing in this system. By all accounts, the line about who was carrying who on his pairing, has definitely been muddied. Before, it was absolutely him holding up Stralman... now it seems that Stralman may actually have been holding him up and in that case, the argument can be made that maybe Stralman could be performing even better with someone other than Staal.

Klein and Moore can continue being our 3rd pairing. Personally, I think Allen can fill in for Staal quite adequately. He limits his mistakes pretty damn well so there won't be much difference there, is much more mobile, will provide similar offense.

I think the hole on the 2nd pairing defensive pairing will still happen, even if we don't trade him.

Thats insane.

And if you really believe that, theres no reasoning with you on the subject.

 

[RangerBoy]

Stastny wants $7 MILLION per

 

[Off Sides]

Can a CBA person clarify a couple things?

Both Brassard and Zucc are arbitration eligible?

Since both are a year from UFA status, if the Rangers take them to it, and they go through with it, the players get to elect the term, a one or two year contract?

Also, is Kreider arbitration eligible?

 

[Ail]

How is Stastny a likely option? He is out of their price range, now and going forward. I doubt Detroit trades Mantha for Staal either.

 

[BarbaraAlphanse]

See, I don't know if I agree with this, but it raises the question. Do you have more faith in Allen's ability to play 2LD for 18 minutes per night at ES, or even 15-16 if you give Moore-Klein more ice, than Miller or Lindberg being ready to handle 3C duties at 11-12 ES minutes per night?

Personally, I think we'd be crazy to make that trade off.

No, I think what you're saying is on point, Tawnos.

But, I don't think that its an excuse to not maximize value on an asset that could very conceivably leave in one year's time.

Skjei could be ready by then. Staal could get injured and still want big time money. Even if he plays at the same level he played this year and doesn't get injured... 6 million is too damn much for a secondary player!

That's going to be a hole regardless. Did we think that it would be a hard offseason because we'd have to waive goodbye to Richards? No.

I think this is the biggest move of the offseason and could define the success of our team for many years to come if we target a young player that could become a part of our core.