I find your assessment of our defensive prospect depth to be unnecessarily negative to the point of borderline dishonesty. Our defensive prospect pool is “meh”? Yeah, after you write off the top 6 prospects in it.
We have the envy of the league in terms of defensive system depth, and we already have 4 under-25 D men ON THE ROSTER. You project Trouba to decline, DeAngelo to bolt in free agency as he’s unaffordable, Fox to demand a massive contract, Rykov and Reunanen to leave because they are blocked from making the team (how? If DeAngelo leaves and Trouba declines they aren’t blocked) and have Zach Jones taking four more years to develop.
Not only are all of these scenarios worst case and tremendously unlikely, in the aggregate, there is about a zero percent chance it all happens in the negative light you are projecting.
It is far more likely Trouba stays around the majority of his contract as a positive defender, Fox becomes a stud, DeAngelo is not let go or traded any time soon (unless for a stud forward - which I’ve also been told is taboo on this board!), and too many of our prospects become NHL ready and HAVE to be traded (which we will do, rather than let them walk away for nothing).
If we are talking negative hypotheticals, what if Strome regresses, Buch is never more than he is now, Zibanejad becomes injury prone, Kravtsov doesn’t develop, and Kakko is something less than a superstar?
We are WAY more thin at forward, and that’s the position that has to be reinforced.
On defense the eventual likelihood is that we have way more than we need. You have to stop clutching your prospects and consolidate into something you will be able to use at some point.
Okay, this is the last post I will be discussing with you on this topic. We obviously don't agree with each other....
There is always scenarios where a player could develop nicely or digress drastically. Everything is speculation, none of us (actually some of us) have factual insight from the Rangers themselves on this board site. Sure, Trouba could be the best defenseman the Rangers have ever had, DeAngelo could sign another bridge deal and become the next best offensive defender in the league, your trade scenario works out with NYR as the biggest winners of deal. Lundkvist/Miller don't pan out in Buffalo or Florida, the two first round picks they sent turn busts and Buch jumps to the KHL because he was sat all the time.
But in reality, there is a salary cap, there are three sides to trade negotiations and there is a plan the Rangers have been sticking to since the note. Their prospect depth is good.... AT THE MOMENT. This will deplete over time because of the development curves. Some will pan out. Some will not. Some will pan out with other teams. You should not sell the team's best prospects for a push now, when all the parts aren't fully developed yet and again THERE IS A SALARY CAP. It's progressing, but not there yet. Who has ever said that the league envies their depth, especially when you
JUST SAID THEIR FORWARDS ARE THIN?
The rumor is that the salary cap will remain the same next season, a big drop from the projected $4-$8M more from the league. This will put the Rangers in cap trouble because they don't have enough to sign their RFA's Strome and DeAngelo. So in essence, yes, they would be traded if they can't get them signed, which in turn opens a spot for the prospects to become full-time roster players. But they would be traded for salary purposes, which lowers their value on the market and would essentially not work to your trade conditions. Where would they fit Eichel or Barkov? It's wishful thinking.
I have never said their prospect pool is "meh". Don't put words in my mouth!! Some of the Ranger prospects have limited time to make it to the NHL based on their current contract structure. Rykov has this coming year as his last via his ELC (which has an EOC attachment to terminate the contract if he doesn't make the Rangers and decides to go back to the KHL. Was also injury riddled this past year) and Hajek, too, will potentially have this last year to make the Rangers as he is most likely to be exposed in the expansion draft for Seattle. Reunanen, also, has loan capability to his deal if he doesn't make the Rangers roster (he has two years left and a non-option if he heads overseas), Jones will most likely be in the NCAA for all four years so he's a non-option right now. Let him cook. Robertson will be a No. 1 in juniors and will most likely take one or two years to develop in Hartford after. The only ones who you could really see make a potential impact next season or the season after is Miller and/or Lundkvist. Again a lot could happen in just one season. The team will go from "best defensive pool" to "in need" really quickly. At the end of next season, you could see about 2-3 defensemen out of the organization.
Rykov, Hajek, Reunanen.... those are prospects you, if necessary, trade due to their small window. If they're so good that the Rangers have the best depth defensively, wouldn't teams be calling for their services? For the last time trading Buch, two first rounders and one of Miller or Lundkvist is asinine for someone that the Rangers can't fit in their current cap, especially when they could sign a serviceable one until their draft picks develop, ala Strome and Chytil.
Your trade proposal does not make sense for this team now. It's not me being negative and further from dishonest. If your offended by this debate that's on you....
haha. Now I have to apologize to myself. SHIT
