Rangers Trading Players at Their Lowest Value

[SnowblindNYR]

The Hawks need to trade Kane, Toews, Hossa, and Keith at the top of their values people!

 

[Radek27]

Not to bring up a sidebar, but has any type of gossip/update come up about Sauer?

Yeah he retired

 

[AlternateSideParking]

The OP has a point. Quebec traded Sundin in 1994 and Nolan in 1995 and Thibeault in 1996 -- there were zero reasons to trade two former 1st overall picks who were under 25 and playing like all stars. Thibeault was one of the better young goalies in hockey after Brodeur.

Those trades helped make the Avs Cup Champions. Chances are they would have won Cups anyway with Sundin and Nolan rather than Ozolinsh and Clark (who became Lemieux), but the boldness of those trades should not be overlooked.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

To counteract this phenomenon, the Rangers should trade McDonagh, Zuccarello, and Kreider.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

The OP has a point. Quebec traded Sundin in 1994 and Nolan in 1995 and Thibeault in 1996 -- there were zero reasons to trade two former 1st overall picks who were under 25 and playing like all stars. Thibeault was one of the better young goalies in hockey after Brodeur.

Those trades helped make the Avs Cup Champions. Chances are they would have won Cups anyway with Sundin and Nolan rather than Ozolinsh and Clark (who became Lemieux), but the boldness of those trades should not be overlooked.

Except, I'm sure you can find trades in that situation that didn't work.

 

[slipknottin]

The Hawks need to trade Kane, Toews, Hossa, and Keith at the top of their values people!

I think you are missing the point completely.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

I think you are missing the point completely.

What point am I missing? They could have traded him earlier, I agree, but maybe they couldn't find a suitor. Trading him 11-12 would have been silly. Depth like that on defense is a great luxury and one of the biggest reasons we had our best season in 15 years.

 

[Thirty One]

Except, I'm sure you can find trades in that situation that didn't work.

And who's to say Colorado wouldn't have won the Cup with Sundin and Nolan?

And Thibeault's situation is different. You would never get one of the top goalies in the league for a package centering around a struggling player.

 

[Trxjw]

Trades aside, the evaluation of players at the NHL level has been quite poor for a number of years. This franchise has shown little ability to project the success of NHL talent, both on our team and on others, and really determine the impact the addition and subtraction of players can have on a roster. They've had very little success adding any meaningful players to this roster via any means other than amateur talent.

 

[OverTheCap]

Trades aside, the evaluation of players at the NHL level has been quite poor for a number of years. This franchise has shown little ability to project the success of NHL talent, both on our team and on others, and really determine the impact the addition and subtraction of players can have on a roster. They've had very little success adding any meaningful players to this roster via any means other than amateur talent.

This is a good point. After Renney was fired, he said he wished he pushed Slats harder to re-sign at least one of Jagr or Shanahan, because it left a leadership void and some of the younger players had trouble transitioning as a result. And clearly the loss of so many character guys since 2012 has negatively impacted the mentality of this team, they are more fragile than they once were.

Not only do the Rangers have to improve talent evaluation, but they really need to have a better gauge on the locker room dynamic. Constantly overhauling the roster doesn't help matters either, there are so many new faces year after year.

 

[LORDE]

Trades aside, the evaluation of players at the NHL level has been quite poor for a number of years. This franchise has shown little ability to project the success of NHL talent, both on our team and on others, and really determine the impact the addition and subtraction of players can have on a roster. They've had very little success adding any meaningful players to this roster via any means other than amateur talent.

Nailed it.

 

[Samuel Culper III]

The point, I think, was not that you should trade players because their value is high but that a good GM is going to actively seek an opportunity to improve his team by, occasionally, taking the chance on dealing players who are playing well for you and, therefore have strong value, to acquire a piece that fills a more specific need.

An example would be packaging something like Miller, Hagelin and a 2nd for Evander Kane. People will scream "overpayment" and remind me how important Hagelin's speed is and how Miller looks like he could develop into our Kesler-lite someday, but the reality is that we are never going to acquire a player like Kane, in his prime, with his high end skill set, without making that kind of trade. Now I'm not saying Hags or Miller is going to take a downward turn, but if Miller never becomes better than Anisimov and Kane grows into a 35g 60pt power forward, is it not a trade we'd have made looking back?

You can't only make moves after (for example) Miller turns out not to pan out and it's two years from now, no teams are interested in him as more than a project and he's nothing more than a gritty 15g 30pt player. That's what we're doing with Del Zotto, in essence. Of course you can't predict how these guys are going to develop, but we knew we were loaded on the left side, especially once we acquired Moore (and have Skej and Allen as guys who should at least be capable 5-6s) and we could have packaged Del Zotto with a pick or prospect this summer when there would have been much more interest and his value was strong. We didn't know he was going to implode, but we did like the way Moore had looked and could have dealt DZ to address an area of need. It would have been a small gamble; what if DZ blossomed, right? But now we're going to end up selling low on him and he still might blossom once he is elsewhere.

Which is worse? Packaging DZ and a 2014 2nd this summer for a young, middle pairing RHD or yound second liner? Or settling for the kind of return we're now likely to get and watching DZ play 16 minutes a night somewhere and turn into a 35-40pt dman?

No one is suggesting you sell players when their value is high just to sell. The idea is, occasionally you actually have to make a PROactive trade rather than a REactive trade. We always seemed to be dealing in reaction to a player's struggles.

 

[McD27]

We traded Gomez at his lowest value and it worked out ok.

 

[Trxjw]

We traded Gomez at his lowest value and it worked out ok.

Even if you completely ignore the fact that his value got exponentially worse after he was dealt to Montreal, that deal is an outlier.

 

[KingStian]

The point, I think, was not that you should trade players because their value is high but that a good GM is going to actively seek an opportunity to improve his team by, occasionally, taking the chance on dealing players who are playing well for you and, therefore have strong value, to acquire a piece that fills a more specific need.

An example would be packaging something like Miller, Hagelin and a 2nd for Evander Kane. People will scream "overpayment" and remind me how important Hagelin's speed is and how Miller looks like he could develop into our Kesler-lite someday, but the reality is that we are never going to acquire a player like Kane, in his prime, with his high end skill set, without making that kind of trade. Now I'm not saying Hags or Miller is going to take a downward turn, but if Miller never becomes better than Anisimov and Kane grows into a 35g 60pt power forward, is it not a trade we'd have made looking back?

You can't only make moves after (for example) Miller turns out not to pan out and it's two years from now, no teams are interested in him as more than a project and he's nothing more than a gritty 15g 30pt player. That's what we're doing with Del Zotto, in essence. Of course you can't predict how these guys are going to develop, but we knew we were loaded on the left side, especially once we acquired Moore (and have Skej and Allen as guys who should at least be capable 5-6s) and we could have packaged Del Zotto with a pick or prospect this summer when there would have been much more interest and his value was strong. We didn't know he was going to implode, but we did like the way Moore had looked and could have dealt DZ to address an area of need. It would have been a small gamble; what if DZ blossomed, right? But now we're going to end up selling low on him and he still might blossom once he is elsewhere.

Which is worse? Packaging DZ and a 2014 2nd this summer for a young, middle pairing RHD or yound second liner? Or settling for the kind of return we're now likely to get and watching DZ play 16 minutes a night somewhere and turn into a 35-40pt dman?

No one is suggesting you sell players when their value is high just to sell. The idea is, occasionally you actually have to make a PROactive trade rather than a REactive trade. We always seemed to be dealing in reaction to a player's struggles.

And if we didn't have the coaching change in the off season Del Zotto might have been dealt then. I'm sure AV wanted some time to make up his mind on the roster before sending players off elsewhere. But I'm not disagreeing with you. If the right deal is there you pull the trigger.

 

[HatTrick Swayze]

Trades aside, the evaluation of players at the NHL level has been quite poor for a number of years. This franchise has shown little ability to project the success of NHL talent, both on our team and on others, and really determine the impact the addition and subtraction of players can have on a roster. They've had very little success adding any meaningful players to this roster via any means other than amateur talent.

This. The pro scouting has been abysmal. It's not about "always selling low". It is about not recognizing when to sell high. Not recognizing when an emerging asset should be swapped for a similar asset in terms of value.

Schenn for JVR. Goligoski for Neal. When was the last time the Rangers made a deal like that? Korpikoski for Lisin? Tyutin for Zherdev? I rest my case. It's like those deals scared them into sitting on their hands and "letting the kids develop" without any semblance of projection or addressing organizational deficiencies.

 

[HatTrick Swayze]

The point, I think, was not that you should trade players because their value is high but that a good GM is going to actively seek an opportunity to improve his team by, occasionally, taking the chance on dealing players who are playing well for you and, therefore have strong value, to acquire a piece that fills a more specific need.

An example would be packaging something like Miller, Hagelin and a 2nd for Evander Kane. People will scream "overpayment" and remind me how important Hagelin's speed is and how Miller looks like he could develop into our Kesler-lite someday, but the reality is that we are never going to acquire a player like Kane, in his prime, with his high end skill set, without making that kind of trade. Now I'm not saying Hags or Miller is going to take a downward turn, but if Miller never becomes better than Anisimov and Kane grows into a 35g 60pt power forward, is it not a trade we'd have made looking back?

You can't only make moves after (for example) Miller turns out not to pan out and it's two years from now, no teams are interested in him as more than a project and he's nothing more than a gritty 15g 30pt player. That's what we're doing with Del Zotto, in essence. Of course you can't predict how these guys are going to develop, but we knew we were loaded on the left side, especially once we acquired Moore (and have Skej and Allen as guys who should at least be capable 5-6s) and we could have packaged Del Zotto with a pick or prospect this summer when there would have been much more interest and his value was strong. We didn't know he was going to implode, but we did like the way Moore had looked and could have dealt DZ to address an area of need. It would have been a small gamble; what if DZ blossomed, right? But now we're going to end up selling low on him and he still might blossom once he is elsewhere.

Which is worse? Packaging DZ and a 2014 2nd this summer for a young, middle pairing RHD or yound second liner? Or settling for the kind of return we're now likely to get and watching DZ play 16 minutes a night somewhere and turn into a 35-40pt dman?

No one is suggesting you sell players when their value is high just to sell. The idea is, occasionally you actually have to make a PROactive trade rather than a REactive trade. We always seemed to be dealing in reaction to a player's struggles.

Perfectly said. Especially the bold. I would rather it be a C than Kane but your point is spot on.

 

[MetalGodAOD*]

Please tell me an example of a team recently trading one of their players while their value was highest?

Miller, Hagelin and a 2nd for Evander Kane

Actually no one would scream overpayment because the Jets would never do that. Classic case of us over-valuing our players.

 

[Samuel Culper III]

And if we didn't have the coaching change in the off season Del Zotto might have been dealt then. I'm sure AV wanted some time to make up his mind on the roster before sending players off elsewhere. But I'm not disagreeing with you. If the right deal is there you pull the trigger.

That may be, but the point remains that we knew we were loaded on the left and needed a good RH shot or some offensive punch up front. Making one smart hockey trade in the offseason wouldn't have really messed up AV's chance to see what he had in camp but could have addressed a need for us when we were in a position to deal from strength, rather than now, where dealing the player is virtually necessity.

 

[Barnaby]

The point, I think, was not that you should trade players because their value is high but that a good GM is going to actively seek an opportunity to improve his team by, occasionally, taking the chance on dealing players who are playing well for you and, therefore have strong value, to acquire a piece that fills a more specific need.

An example would be packaging something like Miller, Hagelin and a 2nd for Evander Kane. People will scream "overpayment" and remind me how important Hagelin's speed is and how Miller looks like he could develop into our Kesler-lite someday, but the reality is that we are never going to acquire a player like Kane, in his prime, with his high end skill set, without making that kind of trade. Now I'm not saying Hags or Miller is going to take a downward turn, but if Miller never becomes better than Anisimov and Kane grows into a 35g 60pt power forward, is it not a trade we'd have made looking back?

You can't only make moves after (for example) Miller turns out not to pan out and it's two years from now, no teams are interested in him as more than a project and he's nothing more than a gritty 15g 30pt player. That's what we're doing with Del Zotto, in essence. Of course you can't predict how these guys are going to develop, but we knew we were loaded on the left side, especially once we acquired Moore (and have Skej and Allen as guys who should at least be capable 5-6s) and we could have packaged Del Zotto with a pick or prospect this summer when there would have been much more interest and his value was strong. We didn't know he was going to implode, but we did like the way Moore had looked and could have dealt DZ to address an area of need. It would have been a small gamble; what if DZ blossomed, right? But now we're going to end up selling low on him and he still might blossom once he is elsewhere.

Which is worse? Packaging DZ and a 2014 2nd this summer for a young, middle pairing RHD or yound second liner? Or settling for the kind of return we're now likely to get and watching DZ play 16 minutes a night somewhere and turn into a 35-40pt dman?

No one is suggesting you sell players when their value is high just to sell. The idea is, occasionally you actually have to make a PROactive trade rather than a REactive trade. We always seemed to be dealing in reaction to a player's struggles.

That's a good thought, but it sort of goes out the window when you make an offer that would never in a million years get EKane... A good player, a solid prospect, and a 2nd round pick doesn't get you that player...

 

[Samuel Culper III]

Please tell me an example of a team recently trading one of their players while their value was highest?



Actually no one would scream overpayment because the Jets would never do that. Classic case of us over-valuing our players.

I just used it as an example. I felt it wouldn't get the job done for Kane either, but if I upped the offer other posters here really would be yelling overpayment at me and calling it a horrible deal for the Rangers. Which still goes hand in hand with the point I was making. You can move a couple of guys who are playing well and have high value for an individual player who is an upgrade. Was Eriksson playing badly when Dallas decided to package him for Seguin? No, the chance to acquire an elite talent was there and they jumped on it. It's looking good for both teams now.

If we had given up Callahan, Moore, Miller, Fasth (Eriksson, Morrow, Reilly, Fraser - keep in mind, no one knew Reilly would be playing like he has for Boston) for Seguin, Button and Camper (I believe that was the full deal) our fans would have rioted but it would have been the best acquisition our club has made since dumb luck landed McDonagh.

 

[Trxjw]

Please tell me an example of a team recently trading one of their players while their value was highest?

Conacher from Tampa Bay. Goligoski from Pittsburgh. Schenn from Toronto. Looking like Jordan Staal might be another one.

 

[SML]

Please tell me an example of a team recently trading one of their players while their value was highest?



Actually no one would scream overpayment because the Jets would never do that. Classic case of us over-valuing our players.

Mike York. FLY line hype. Olympic team hype. Traded. Wheels fall off. This fanbase still gripes about it when we were lucky to get anything for that mushy little guy.
Hey, just for kicks, can we wait until there's a trade before we start griping about it? I don't want to spoil the fun, but call me old school I guess. I at least wait until Monday to armchair QB Sunday's game.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

Conacher from Tampa Bay. Goligoski from Pittsburgh. Schenn from Toronto. Looking like Jordan Staal might be another one.

Without knowing what kind of offers our guys at the top of their value would have gotten you can't compare the situations.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

Please tell me an example of a team recently trading one of their players while their value was highest?



Actually no one would scream overpayment because the Jets would never do that. Classic case of us over-valuing our players.

The guy hasn't been on pace for more than 60 points since 2 seasons ago. I think you're overvaluing Kane if you think that package is ridiculous. I think a guy that is probably more of a good 2nd line winger for ideally a 3rd line winger, a good 3rd line center prospect, and a mid 2nd round pick, is not a ridiculous trade, IMO.