Toggle sidebar

Rebuilding On The Fly

  • Xenforo Cloud has upgraded us to version 2.3.6. Please report any issues you experience.
Beacon

Beacon

Embrace the tank
May 28, 2007
13,676
1,454
It is obvious that rebuilding on the fly is not as effective as a real rebuild. A #1 or even #3 overall pick is much more likely to turn into something real than #21. Denying that tanking works is denying that a #1 is very likely to be better than #21.

Obviously getting a single top prospect won't turn around a team since he'll be 1 of 20 guys getting dressed, not to mention that he may be a bust like Nail or only an ok top-6 player like RNH. But long term, getting 3-4 top-3 guys will likely lead to getting at least 1 star and a couple good players, and maybe a superstar.

People like the idea of a rebuild on the fly because it makes it look like you can have your cake and eat it too: never be bad and achieve the same outcome as teams drafting in the top 3.

There's one exception to this: decent teams have real assets to trade for youth. We traded our 2 top-6 centers
(Brass and Step) for Mika and 2 top prospects. We got lucky with Hayes and Vesey.

However, there's no way this competes with a bunch of top-5 picks of a rebuilding team. The obvious targets are Nash and Zuccarello. But any time there's a suggestion to move guys in their prime (more Zucc than Nash), people get angry about the team taking a step back. This is true for all teams, which is why rebuilds on the fly rarely work.

Maybe trade Nash and hope you can use his money (and maybe buyout Staal) to sign Tavares. That may fail, however, as the plan to sign Stamkos failed. Regardless of anything, a team rebuilding, full-on or on the fly, must be willing to take a step back to acquire youth, either via top picks or by trading away top vets in their prime.

You will almost certainly take a step back unless you get lucky signing a star to replace your traded vet. This is not predictable, so a GM must decide if he's truly willing to set the team back for a few years to avhieve superior long term results.
Click to read more...
 
This is the next best thing and Dolan probably cares more about making the playoffs and making money then going full rebuild route. A true rebuild is likely 5 solid years of being terrible, then 2-3 years of being a bubble team. All so called rebuilding teams have plenty of top 5 picks not materialize to anything, it look Edmonton how long to luck out with McDavid? Now you have ever harder chance of landing that coveted 1 oa slot. So I can understand not wanting to stomach a rebuild yet with so many younger core players still on the team. If you look at the last few cup winners, and teams that made the final, they all had major flaws.

Even with the so called rebuild on the fly, I expect JG to move vets like Nash, Grabner, who have one year remaining at some point this season if the price is right. Likely Holden too. So he can realistically add another first for Nash in 2018 or 19, a prospect too, a 2nd for Grabner if he continues shooting at 20%. So I expect the prospect pool to look even better next summer after the draft.
 
Beacon said:
It is obvious that rebuilding on the fly is not as effective as a real rebuild. A #1 or even #3 overall pick is much more likely to turn into something real than #21. Denying that tanking works is denying that a #1 is very likely to be better than #21.
Click to expand...

Very few teams try to lose for a full season (tank). Way less try to throw away (tank) season after season purposefully. With that said I will play along. How many more cups did the following "tanking" teams win in the last 10 seasons than we did? Islanders? Jets? Coyotes? Hurricanes? Sabres? AVs? Panthers? Calgary? Toronto? Edmonton? Ottawa?

The irony here is we just drafted #7 overall without teaching our younger players that they should lose (tank).
 
"Unless you get lucky and sign a star"

And getting a superstar talent first overall isn't lucky? Many top picks are underwhelming.

Pittsburgh and Edmonton weren't even the worst team when they got Crosby and McDavid. They "won" a lottery. (*cough* fixed *cough*) That's not lucky?
 
Man-Defends-Himself-Against-Giant-Fly-Optical-illusion.png


Like this?
Rebuild ON The Fly
 
I don't know how people keep missing the "on the fly" part about rebuilding on the fly.

Rebuilding on the fly involves no tanking or tearing down. It involves swapping out pieces that constitute wholesale change while still trying to win. The other alternative are status quo, and "going all in."

This is not the Rangers going all in... partially because they tried that and it didn't work, partially because they have no assets to cash in. But it was also obvious that status quo wasn't going to work either.

So we could either tear everything down, sell off assets for minor league prospects and picks and essentially tank.... or we could "rebuild on the fly." Maybe a more accurate term for this would be reload, not rebuild.

There are circumstances where I'd support a complete tear down. But with a nucleus of under 26 year old guys like Kreider, Hayes, Miller, Zib, Buch, Vesey, and Skjei, you'd have to do an awful lot of selling to get into the top 3 of a draft.

In fact with all that talent, why even bother tearing down? Those are the kind of guys -- young and talented -- you'd be hoping to acquire. Sure, we lack an elite #1 center, but the rest of a next run core is pretty much in place. The Rangers chose to reload/rebuild on the fly by shipping out the pieces that weren't working for them. They need a stroke of luck, but they aren't far away from being the best team in the conference again if they get it.
 
mschmidt64 said:
There are circumstances where I'd support a complete tear down. But with a nucleus of under 26 year old guys like Kreider, Hayes, Miller, Zib, Buch, Vesey, and Skjei, you'd have to do an awful lot of selling to get into the top 3 of a draft.

In fact with all that talent, why even bother tearing down? Those are the kind of guys -- young and talented -- you'd be hoping to acquire. Sure, we lack an elite #1 center, but the rest of a next run core is pretty much in place. The Rangers chose to reload/rebuild on the fly by shipping out the pieces that weren't working for them. They need a stroke of luck, but they aren't far away from being the best team in the conference again if they get it.
Click to expand...


This.

With that young nucleus how do you tear down? Probably no stars there but alot of very good hockey players with most yet to enter their prime.
 
I'm very skeptical of this rebuild on the fly stuff, but I'm curious about something. Has the cap and the league wide parity ended the "proper" rebuild?

The reason why I ask is, it seems to me like talented, but not yet fully proven players are more valuable than established star players nowadays. Trades of top prospects for proven stars used to be commonplace, but I feel like you don't see it happen as often anymore because the lower price tag associated with the young guy has increased his value.

Overall though, like most things in life, winning the Cup had a giant element of luck attached to it. Whether that luck comes in the form of good bounces on the ice, or good bounces of draft lottery balls, doesn't matter. There is no foolproof, X, Y, Z recipe to building a team that ultimately wins it all.
 
Don't know exactly what the point of this is. We should do a complete self off of everyone from the age of Miller on up for prospects and draft picks--and bomb the entire season?

The Rangers don't have elite players--they've worked to create a very good team out of a plethora of very good players. It's true that they don't have enough killer instinct--something elite players really do have and can give to the teams they play on---so we've been caught between a rock and a hard place. Sometimes it takes years of tanking to put together enough elements to make a great team and I have doubts that a lot of posters here would have the stomach for even a couple let alone several or a decade of seasons of absolute futility--and sometimes years of tanking doesn't do **** but create a losing culture.

Trying to win is better than not trying to win.
 
I've been questioning the 'rebuild on the fly' strategy since JG said it, but with the signings at D he has made, this D is now top 5 in the NHL. The problem is there is a glaring hole at center. If and this is a big if, if you are able to somehow in some crazy way land a big time center for the first or even second line (if you think Zib can handle the top slot) I think this team can KO Pittsburgh. But until that is addressed, I am not positive.
 
eco's bones said:
Don't know exactly what the point of this is.
Click to expand...

It was a free thinking exercise because I am not even sure what to think of it all. Was trying to spark a conversation to get various perspectives so I could figure it out for myself.

Tanking is not an option for us because we have too much young talent. (That said, when it becomes an option for a team, they don't need to tell players to lose because they can/should just trade away all the vets.)

However, trading Nash and Grabner before they hit UFA seems to be a must even for an on-the-fly reload. Trading the 30 year old MZA before he gets old or leaves via UFA likewise seems necessary.

Repeat Brass for Mika+#2 with MZA. Trade Nash for a high end young third liner. Grabner for a young 4th liner like Fast, but a few years younger. This adds a young player to the second, third and fourth lines.

Add to that Mika, Hayes, Vesey, Kreider, Miller, Butcher, Fast, Nieves, and hopefully the 2 first rounders, and the team has a lot of depth.

Still no stars... now what... honest question.
 
I was pretty frustrated with the team in general right after the draft. But here's a hard truth:

The Rangers do a bolt off rebuild maybe once in a generation. It just almost never happens.

You got seven pretty decent forwards 26 or younger, two more on the D. Not too bad. The Shattenkirk signing turned out about as well a guy who hates long term, bloated contracts can possibly expect. The D and PP has a chance to be pretty good next year... we will see.

I still have concerns about the teams competitive edge. Some how that has to be improved...and I'm not sure how the team takes it's mental edge to another level.
 
Beacon said:
It was a free thinking exercise because I am not even sure what to think of it all. Was trying to spark a conversation to get various perspectives so I could figure it out for myself.

Tanking is not an option for us because we have too much young talent. (That said, when it becomes an option for a team, they don't need to tell players to lose because they can/should just trade away all the vets.)

However, trading Nash and Grabner before they hit UFA seems to be a must even for an on-the-fly reload. Trading the 30 year old MZA before he gets old or leaves via UFA likewise seems necessary.

Repeat Brass for Mika+#2 with MZA. Trade Nash for a high end young third liner. Grabner for a young 4th liner like Fast, but a few years younger. This adds a young player to the second, third and fourth lines.

Add to that Mika, Hayes, Vesey, Kreider, Miller, Butcher, Fast, Nieves, and hopefully the 2 first rounders, and the team has a lot of depth.

Still no stars... now what... honest question.
Click to expand...

1.Zucc leaving as an ufa is highly unlikely.
2. What do you think Zucc should be traded for? Give me an example? What trade is out there that makes it worth it? No team is giving up a NHL ready player with enough potential that makes the trade worth it for us. Draft picks? Thats a huge gamble, specially when we have a team that is as good as it is now and Zucc is a huge part of our team beeing that good aswell.
 
WesMcCauley said:
What do you think Zucc should be traded for? Give me an example? What trade is out there that makes it worth it? No team is giving up a NHL ready player with enough potential that makes the trade worth it for us. Draft picks? Thats a huge gamble, specially when we have a team that is as good as it is now and Zucc is a huge part of our team beeing that good aswell.
Click to expand...

There's no reason why Zucc should bring back less than Brassard. That trade was generally seen as fair at the time. Zucc is a better player on a lesser contract.

Asking me what trade is available is ridiculous. I am not the team's GM, how would I know that? But looking around at what similar players brought back, certainly getting a young second liner is very reasonable. Who that second liner would be is not something any non-GM could possibly know. That's particularly so with Gorton as the GM because he keeps things very secret. A minute before Brass was traded, nobody knew who he could possibly bring back.
 
Pavel Buchnevich said:
Our young players are not good.

All fans overrate their own players.

Here's a thread I made last year that helps illustrate to Ranger fans where we rank.

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=2082041&highlight=
Click to expand...

It's a funny one isn't it? Our young players (most of whom are forwards) are not good, yet they managed to be be 4th in GF (unless Nash is a LOT better than people give him credit for). We've also moved some older D men for younger D men and our D corps looks to have become stronger...
 
I would add that there's no long-term All In option anymore. Not in a salary capped system. Can't keep all the vets together these days. So it's a constant state of churn.
 
mike14 said:
It's a funny one isn't it? Our young players (most of whom are forwards) are not good, yet they managed to be be 4th in GF (unless Nash is a LOT better than people give him credit for). We've also moved some older D men for younger D men and our D corps looks to have become stronger...
Click to expand...

What is considered young to you?

To me, its around 25 and younger. They say that 23, 24 is around when a forward reaches their prime, so I can't think that those who are like 26, 27, 28 are really young anymore for a hockey player.

This is who our under 25 core comprises of.

DeAngelo-21
Buchnevich-22
Skjei-23
Miller-24
Zibanejad-24
Vesey-24

Those are some fine players. I'm not claiming we don't have any good young players. What I am saying is that our group of young players compared to other teams is weak. It has a lack of difference makers. And by difference makers, I don't mean guys who will be the best player on their team eventually or score 60 points, I mean guys who will be among the best in the league at their position, players who will be up for the major awards, players who can carry a team in the playoffs, players who carry the designation of 1D, 1C, 1W. We don't have those players, we have some nice depth players to compliment a lack of a 1D, 1C, 1W.
 
Wait older then 25 is not young? Sorry that's silly. While some of the best statistical seasons are around that age players are better all around with solid production into their late 20s.
 
Pavel Buchnevich said:
What is considered young to you?

To me, its around 25 and younger. They say that 23, 24 is around when a forward reaches their prime, so I can't think that those who are like 26, 27, 28 are really young anymore for a hockey player.

This is who our under 25 core comprises of.

DeAngelo-21
Buchnevich-22
Skjei-23
Miller-24
Zibanejad-24
Vesey-24

Those are some fine players. I'm not claiming we don't have any good young players. What I am saying is that our group of young players compared to other teams is weak. It has a lack of difference makers. And by difference makers, I don't mean guys who will be the best player on their team eventually or score 60 points, I mean guys who will be among the best in the league at their position, players who will be up for the major awards, players who can carry a team in the playoffs, players who carry the designation of 1D, 1C, 1W. We don't have those players, we have some nice depth players to compliment a lack of a 1D, 1C, 1W.
Click to expand...

So you saying "our young players are not good" is not you claiming that they aren't good?

Based on last year's roster I would have said that among forwards Grabner, Glass, Nash and Zucc were 'old'; which means that our younger guys must be doing something ok to have 4th in GF.
Yes it has a lack of high-end talent, that's generally what happens when you don't pick in the top 5, but doesn't make it no good; nor does it necessarily mean that we are weak compared to other teams. Yes, our top end, 1st tier young talent may be less than others, but perhaps we make up for by having more in the 2nd tier.
I don't think there's anyone on this board who wouldn't like to see us have more top end young talent, and a true, game-breaking 75+ point scorer, but not having one and being able to produce the results we have is still pretty damn good, and the 'youth' are a big part of making that result happen.

Edit - and to answer your question about what I consider 'young': for hockey players I'd say between 26-28 would be the upper limit
 
Last edited:
I'm happy with the direction the team is heading. I like the moves that have been made and anticipate a few more. I definitely believe the team can contend and don't think we need to "blow it up" in any way, shape, or form. If they can acquire another solid second line-caliber player and another bottom six guy, I will again really like our depth. We'd have plenty of quality depth up front, a potentially great defense and depending on Lundqvist, will be anywhere from average to terrific in goal.

I'd love nothing more than an elite 1C but see no way of that happening, and even a full rebuild does not guarantee you find one, even over multiple drafts. There's too much talent within the core to blow it up. Instead, we tweak what we have and make a run. I do believe that the roster we end up icing come October will be capable of contending, or that any significant deficiencies identified during the season will be dealt with through acquisitions during the season.

I like where we're at and have no qualms with how we've gotten to the point we're at.
 
Rebuild on the fly is trading 29 year old Brassard for 23 year old Zibanejad. Trading 27 year old Stepan for 19 year old Andersson. The Rangers should cash in on soon to be 30 year old Zuccarello with 2 years remaining on the contract. Stepan isn't an old guy but they were concerned about his skating as he gets older. Stepan had a full NTC for the next 2 years. Keep your draft picks when a good majority of this board wanted to trade the pick for a rental or to have Vegas take on Staal or Girardi. Filip Chytil has the possibility of becoming a top player. I was reading a few things yesterday. In a few years,people will look at the 2017 draft and say Chytil should have gone in the top 10 picks and how did the Rangers get him at #21. The Rangers had two #1 picks because they realize how important the draft is and the Rangers need more out of their drafts. They also want to remain competitive. I don't think the Garden is against "rebuilding". Look at the Knicks. They generate more revenue than the Rangers. The Rangers are facing cap issues again. They don't have many young options on ELC's ready to step into the lineup. The years of trading draft picks has caught up to them. They went for it and didn't win. They can't keep going for it. Rebuild on the fly.
 
I don't even want to hear Oilers being mentioned. First they tanked and tanked and tanked, ruining in a process development of a bunch of good players. Well, they finally struck the oil (pun intended) but before they have had a chance to even build anything lasting more than a season - all the talk now is about breaking it up because of a cap, instead of what should've been a talk about building a lasting dynasty.

My point - because of a parity in the league in the new cap era it is as good of a strategy to be in the mix year after year with rebuild on the fly instead of a taking a chance with tanking.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom