Toggle sidebar

McDonagh trade

  • Xenforo Cloud will be upgrading us to version 2.3.5 on March 3rd at 12 AM GMT. This version has increased stability and fixes several bugs. We expect downtime for the duration of the update. The admin team will continue to work on existing issues, templates and upgrade all necessary available addons to minimize impact of this new version. Click Here for Updates
Kakko Schmakko said:
will Lundkvist at his prime be better than McDonagh at his prime?
Click to expand...

The odds say no but who knows? But he was drafted at #28. If he was that high on Rangers radar, why did they not use the #10 pick to draft him?
Its not like Rangers traded for Lundkvist. They traded McDonagh for a late pick. Some of the late picks becomes key players, but the far majority does not.
 
I feel confident stating Lundkvist will clearly be a better player than McDonagh in his prime and it won't be close. McDonagh does not have much of an offensive game. He had that one fluke offensive run in the long playoff run the Rangers had. That was it. Lundkvist from a scouting report I read also can lay some pretty good hits. If he can keep his speed and bulk up to about 190-195, he should be a two way force out there. The kid is going to be special. Where he was drafted in the first round doesn't matter. Look at the 2015 draft for example. How the heck did Kyle Connor slip to 17? What were scouts looking at? The fact is that the Rangers used that pick from the McDonagh deal to steal this kid at 28.

As far as Miller. He was easily one of the worst playoff players in a Rangers uniform I've ever seen. 41 playoff games, 1 g and 16 points. That sucks beyond belief. The Rangers were a team that was making the playoffs every year there for a while. Miller was a playoff liability and he wanted a huge raise. No thanks. One poster who wanted to not make draft picks a part of this deal, that is beyond absurd. They are a huge part of the trade. In the end it's how many good players the Rangers got back in this deal and what some of them might bring in return if they are dealt. It's who eventually will get the best player. I believe the Rangers got the best player in this deal in Lundkvist. One, because of how many years left they will have him. Two, because they will have him for cheap for a while. Three, because his talent level and level of play will be greater than McDonagh's or Miller's in the long term. It's a matter of whether you believe Lundkvist will be that good or not. Howden has a chance to be a pretty good role player. Hajek has a chance to be a good NHL defenseman or at least a piece to bring in a good player. Gorton got rid of 2 players who simply weren't worth the money they were asking. McDonagh because of his age and minimal offensive skills. Miller because of his bonehead plays, terrible playoff performances and his ability to not handle playing in a city with a lot going on.

People who dump on Howden need to remember this. Nobody was kissing Stephane Matteau's butt in the Rangers fan base. A 6'3+, 220 lb role player who was basically a 30 point forward. In 1994 to now, they kiss his butt and we all know why. Howeden doesn't have to be 50 point guy. Those 6'3, hard to play against role players who drive the net have a way of making big plays in the biggest games of the season.
 
Livingstone said:
The odds say no but who knows? But he was drafted at #28. If he was that high on Rangers radar, why did they not use the #10 pick to draft him?
Its not like Rangers traded for Lundkvist. They traded McDonagh for a late pick. Some of the late picks becomes key players, but the far majority does not.
Click to expand...

I don't follow the logic. If Rangers let's say had Kravtsov ranked #7, and Miller # 12 and Lundkvist #13, why should they have drafted Lundkvist @#9?
 
usekakkorightquinn said:
I feel confident stating Lundkvist will clearly be a better player than McDonagh in his prime and it won't be close. McDonagh does not have much of an offensive game. He had that one fluke offensive run in the long playoff run the Rangers had. That was it. Lundkvist from a scouting report I read also can lay some pretty good hits. If he can keep his speed and bulk up to about 190-195, he should be a two way force out there. The kid is going to be special. Where he was drafted in the first round doesn't matter. Look at the 2015 draft for example. How the heck did Kyle Connor slip to 17? What were scouts looking at? The fact is that the Rangers used that pick from the McDonagh deal to steal this kid at 28.

As far as Miller. He was easily one of the worst playoff players in a Rangers uniform I've ever seen. 41 playoff games, 1 g and 16 points. That sucks beyond belief. The Rangers were a team that was making the playoffs every year there for a while. Miller was a playoff liability and he wanted a huge raise. No thanks. One poster who wanted to not make draft picks a part of this deal, that is beyond absurd. They are a huge part of the trade. In the end it's how many good players the Rangers got back in this deal and what some of them might bring in return if they are dealt. It's who eventually will get the best player. I believe the Rangers got the best player in this deal in Lundkvist. One, because of how many years left they will have him. Two, because they will have him for cheap for a while. Three, because his talent level and level of play will be greater than McDonagh's or Miller's in the long term. It's a matter of whether you believe Lundkvist will be that good or not. Howden has a chance to be a pretty good role player. Hajek has a chance to be a good NHL defenseman or at least a piece to bring in a good player. Gorton got rid of 2 players who simply weren't worth the money they were asking. McDonagh because of his age and minimal offensive skills. Miller because of his bonehead plays, terrible playoff performances and his ability to not handle playing in a city with a lot going on.

People who dump on Howden need to remember this. Nobody was kissing Stephane Matteau's butt in the Rangers fan base. A 6'3+, 220 lb role player who was basically a 30 point forward. In 1994 to now, they kiss his butt and we all know why. Howeden doesn't have to be 50 point guy. Those 6'3, hard to play against role players who drive the net have a way of making big plays in the biggest games of the season.
Click to expand...

Wasn't Lundkvist drafted for his defensive play and hockey sense and has turned it up offensively since the draft?

in his 3 best seasons McD scored 131 points in 236 games which is about 45.5 points over 82 games and was 210-215 pound and also used to be able to throw hits.

Miller did not have good success in the playoffs, but he was very good in regular season.
 
Livingstone said:
I dont understand this. You honestly believe that the McDonagh trade was better than the Stepan trade?
Click to expand...

With hindsight? No, its not even close as DeAngelo is clearly the best player to come out of either trade.

At the time the deals were made? Yes. Despite the pending NTC Step had, he still had a ton of terms and hadn't really shown signs of slowing down. He obviously has since but they got a high 1st in a shallow draft and a high risk, high reward prospect who probably was at the bottom half of Arizona's top 5 at the time for him AND Raanta, who was far from a throw in.

Again the point comes down to this - If you don't want to count Lundkvist and Henriksson as pieces from the Tampa trade, then you can't look at Howden and Hajek as what they are now instead of what they were at the time they were moved, thats all.
 
GoAwayStaal said:
With hindsight? No, its not even close as DeAngelo is clearly the best player to come out of either trade.

At the time the deals were made? Yes. Despite the pending NTC Step had, he still had a ton of terms and hadn't really shown signs of slowing down. He obviously has since but they got a high 1st in a shallow draft and a high risk, high reward prospect who probably was at the bottom half of Arizona's top 5 at the time for him AND Raanta, who was far from a throw in.

Again the point comes down to this - If you don't want to count Lundkvist and Henriksson as pieces from the Tampa trade, then you can't look at Howden and Hajek as what they are now instead of what they were at the time they were moved, thats all.
Click to expand...

But this is exactly my point. I dont look at it in hindsight . The trade was for a late first, a conditional 2nd and two prospects. One late first rounder and one 2nd rounder. None of those two were regarded as the best prospects in the Tampa organisation. At least by people on this forum who seems to know a little bit about this. There were no high pick or high drafted player. And for your most valuable player there should have been a more valuable piece coming back.
 
Livingstone said:
But this is exactly my point. I dont look at it in hindsight . The trade was for a late first, a conditional 2nd and two prospects. One late first rounder and one 2nd rounder. None of those two were regarded as the best prospects in the Tampa organisation. At least by people on this forum who seems to know a little bit about this. There were no high pick or high drafted player. And for your most valuable player there should have been a more valuable piece coming back.
Click to expand...

They were both top 5 prospects in their system at the time.
 
You also have to look at McDonagh was about enter into a decline with his age and a lot of playoff miles on him. He also quite hurt quite a bit. Miller can't play in the playoffs and wanted big money. So, getting a 1st, 2nd, and two good prospects in Howden and Hajek was a good haul. People are giving up on Howden and Hajek way too early. All Howden needs to do to become a very good asset is become a 30 - 40 point, 52-55% faceoff guy who kills penalties and can play well in the playoffs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chytilmania
My issue with the trade isn't McDonagh--it's the Miller part. He's just a much better player than Namestnikov. But if we're looking at where we were then to where we are now we're in a much better place now. Miller did bust out last year. 72 points in 69 games led the Canucks. The talent was there---he just never reached it before.
 
eco's bones said:
My issue with the trade isn't McDonagh--it's the Miller part. He's just a much better player than Namestnikov. But if we're looking at where we were then to where we are now we're in a much better place now. Miller did bust out last year. 72 points in 69 games led the Canucks. The talent was there---he just never reached it before.
Click to expand...

If what we’ve heard about how he acted off the ice are to be believed, the team may have viewed him as a net negative, specifically for a rebuilding team, despite his on ice production. You don’t want that kind of unstable element infecting your younger, ultimately more important, guys coming in. On a team further along in that process, or contending like the Bolts, it’s not as big of a deal as it is for a team at the very beginning of it. Sort of the opposite phenomenon of keeping Staal in the lineup and around the team.

I don’t know for sure that this is really the case, but it’s a decent theory regarding the team’s thinking.
 
  • Like
Reactions: eco's bones
Tawnos said:
If what we’ve heard about how he acted off the ice are to be believed, the team may have viewed him as a net negative, specifically for a rebuilding team, despite his on ice production. You don’t want that kind of unstable element infecting your younger, ultimately more important, guys coming in. On a team further along in that process, or contending like the Bolts, it’s not as big of a deal as it is for a team at the very beginning of it. Sort of the opposite phenomenon of keeping Staal in the lineup and around the team.

I don’t know for sure that this is really the case, but it’s a decent theory regarding the team’s thinking.
Click to expand...

I think J. T. had some maturity issues he had to get over but it was hardly like he was a grizzled vet when we moved him. Truth is if we had hung on to him we might not have had the cap space to be able to hang on to Kreider. So there's that. In the end we're better off doing that trade even if we come out of it on the short end of value.

As for value a lot is going to depend on Nils Lundkvist--Howden's a bottom 6'er, Hajek has a decent chance of becoming an NHL'er and we have a 4th rounder from Ottawa for Namestnikov. Lundkvist does look like he's going to be really good though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tawnos
eco's bones said:
I think J. T. had some maturity issues he had to get over but it was hardly like he was a grizzled vet when we moved him. Truth is if we had hung on to him we might not have had the cap space to be able to hang on to Kreider. So there's that. In the end we're better off doing that trade even if we come out of it on the short end of value.

As for value a lot is going to depend on Nils Lundkvist--Howden's a bottom 6'er, Hajek has a decent chance of becoming an NHL'er and we have a 4th rounder from Ottawa for Namestnikov. Lundkvist does look like he's going to be really good though.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I didn't mean to imply he was older or anything. Just that they didn't him around the kids.
 
I think Miller's next playoff performance might go a long way in deciding how he's valued around the league.

There's already a bit of a perception (outside of Vancouver) that he's a "good" player, with some notable deficiencies, who currently finds himself in a "great" situation.

But there's also lingering questions as to whether he can help you win in the spring. And if he continues to transform into the invisible man, he's going to run the risk of becoming one of those guys you move at the TDL to get pieces that get you over the hump.
 
eco's bones said:
I think J. T. had some maturity issues he had to get over but it was hardly like he was a grizzled vet when we moved him. Truth is if we had hung on to him we might not have had the cap space to be able to hang on to Kreider. So there's that. In the end we're better off doing that trade even if we come out of it on the short end of value.

As for value a lot is going to depend on Nils Lundkvist--Howden's a bottom 6'er, Hajek has a decent chance of becoming an NHL'er and we have a 4th rounder from Ottawa for Namestnikov. Lundkvist does look like he's going to be really good though.
Click to expand...

Part of the challenge too is that Namestnikov was as much a bad fit for the Rangers as Miller has subsequently been a good fit for the Canucks.

Outside of NY, Namestnikov has shown he can be in that 15-20 goal, 40-45 point range. Outside of Vancouver, Miller has shown to be in the 20-25 goal, 50-55 point range. So the offensive gap, in many ways, really wasn't a canyon. It's just more pronounced when comparing the two extremes.
 
Last edited:
Edge said:
Part of the challenge too is that Namestnikov was as much a bad fit for the Rangers as Miller has subsequently been a good fit for the Canucks.

Outside of NY, Namestnikov has shown he can be in that 15-20 goal, 40-45 point range. Outside of Vancouver, Miller has shown to be in the 20-25 goal, 50-55 point range. So the offensive gap, in many ways, really wasn't a canyon. It's just more pronounced when comparing the two extremes.
Click to expand...

It's a curious thing---sometimes players find their selves in one place and lose their selves in another. Players don't always fit in with a new team.
 
1) I'm going to ask again....do the Rangers sign Panarin if we gave McDonagh a contract?
2) If the Lightning won the Cup and we got a 1st with a shot at Suzuki/Beecher then how would it look? (I know hypothetical but we had a great shot at another 1st)
 
GoAwayStaal said:
Point? He was already with the team and wasnt going anywhere.

But that doesn't change the fact that they were top 5 prospects with them at the time.
Click to expand...

No it was not Point. Could it have been Darren Raddysh brother Taylor?

I am not saying Howden and Hajek were bad prospects. But when I read here on this forum I got the impression that there were two prospects who at the time were rated above the rest.
 
This was posted in:
Confirmed with Link: McDonagh + Miller to Tampa Bay for Namestnikov + Howden + Hajek + 2018 1st + conditional 2019 1st



"Howden or Hajek were nowhere near the top 50 affiliated prospects TSN released earlier this month.

Foote, Katchouk and Raddysh were though."

So I got it wrong. It was not a center. Both Katchouk and Raddysh were wingers.

Funny to read a couple of pages in that old tread. The reactions to the trade was mixed to put it mildly.. Some very disappointed, some were OK with it.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom