A Guentzel or Buch would absolutely make this team better and deeper.
Kane didn't make the team better last year.
I don't think Guentzel is a great fit.
I would actually prefer Buch because he is signed through next year.
Agree, I'd rather a player with term at least. I feel like Buch has pre-existing chemistry with Kreder and Mika and you know that's where they will play him. I feel like the "total bust," quotient of Buch is lower than that of Guentzel who I could absolutely see getting zero traction here and walking in free agency after our early playoff exit.
Saving your nickels and dimes also means you miss an opportunity this year and then the core is a year older next year and you never know what happens with injuries and such.
You never know with anything. You never know what happens this year. You could pay through the nose and then Fox or Shesterkin could go out with a season ending injury.
That's why winning value exchanges is so important. Forget the year. Get the most assets. Parlaying them into the greatest talent multiplied by term of service is how you turn your team into an every-year contender.
Not concerned about the core. It's comprised of a handful of players we would be better off moving out and upgrading (Mika, Trouba, Lindgren) and a few others who are defying time (Panarin, Kreider).
Again, in a hypothetical scenario, if you could move Mika out for assets, Trouba out for cap relief, and Lindgren for picks, you could go into the offseason with tons of assets and tons of cap space. You could go big game hunting for a 1C and a first pair D (I'm not saying you are trying to trade for Nathan MacKinnon but there will be guys who come on the market).
You find that and you just eliminated any concerns about your window.
Also long term assets will give you 3, 5, 10 chances over a decade of runs. Giving up four first round picks for a player who will be here a decade is way better than four first rounds spent on a player who has to get up to speed every deadline and may not be able to integrate, and then walks every offseason.
Teams like Buffalo and Ottawa have been rebuilding for forever. It's not that simple.
And some teams never advance past middling playoff contenders despite always renting.
The Buffalo and Ottawa bogeymen are unpersuasive. Those are festering franchises with cheap or incompetent ownership and small markets.
The Rangers have a built in advantage because they have all the money in the world, an owner who, while dumb, is willing to spend, and a market that many players want to flock to.
We have no risk of being a forever rebuilding team. We are never more than the next impact free agent away from being a playoff team. We have too many assets to bottom out for a decade. Even the "dark ages," lasted just like 6 years.
What we never do is take the long term approach. It's time to risk it.
