Speculation: Roster Building Frenzy Part XX

[NYR Viper]

But is he better than Reaves?

They serve different roles. As far as a physical presence, Reaves is the more effective player. Offensively and on the PP, it's Ritchie.

 

[Raspewtin]

All of these guys would be fine on $800k-$1m short term deals as a depth d-man though.

I think that's the point

no. there's never a good reason to sign bad players. for depth or otherwise.

there's tons of good enough d-men that can be a #7 over a trashbag on skates like Gudbranson

 

[Thirty One]

How is Gudbranson only 29?

Gallant did seem to love him in Florida. Trading him was seen as a big swing in their civil war between the nerds and the jocks.

 

[GoAwayPanarin]

I am ready for Eichel to be traded to another team so we can all put our stethoscopes and scrubs away.

I actually rather enjoyed reading people try to use anecdotal evidence of entirely different injuries to try to push a doomsday narrative.

Nothing was better than a poster referencing a GP friend in Eichel's treatment options though. Thats like asking a podiatrist on how to treat a head injury.

 

[duhmetreE]

How is Gudbranson only 29?

Gallant did seem to love him in Florida. Trading him was seen as a big swing in their civil war between the nerds and the jocks.

Because he was born in 1992.

 

[jay from jersey]

no. there's never a good reason to sign bad players. for depth or otherwise.

there's tons of good enough d-men that can be a #7 over a trashbag on skates like Gudbranson

Agreed. If he does sign here it’s likely Tinordi is Hartford bound and Guds would assume the 7th D position. I don’t want too many of Gallants “favs” because then he’ll be enticed to use them more. There are better overall players then Guds and the team is pretty tough now as it is. Guds must be a great locker room guy if they would specifically go after him instead of better overall players.
The only thing I know about him is that Ducks fans said he was serviceable there in a bottom pair role, but a lot of others say he just flat out sucks. Frankly don’t know who to believe

 

[Tob]

More like Erik Badbranson

 

[Savant]

They serve different roles. As far as a physical presence, Reaves is the more effective player. Offensively and on the PP, it's Ritchie.

How is Reaves the more effective player?

read this wrong but Reaves is a better fighter, but Ritchie is no slouch physically either, and he adds more, and he wouldn’t have cost an asset to add.

 

[Savant]

All of these guys would be fine on $800k-$1m short term deals as a depth d-man though.

I think that's the point

No. The point is these are replacement level players at best, and are not worth the assets.

 

[NYR Viper]

How is Reaves the more effective player?

read this wrong but Reaves is a better fighter, but Ritchie is no slouch physically either, and he adds more, and he wouldn’t have cost an asset to add.

We'll just agree to disagree here I think

 

[RangerBoy]

I’d like to think that the Rangers scouted the hell out of LA’s prospects this year in anticipation of a possible trade. I don’t know how the feel about those players today but between their pro experience and previous pre draft looks, they should have a pretty good book on who they like and can visualize as a Rangers. I’m all for a value for value trade.

Jack Eichel can't be the Rangers only way of improving in the middle. There are other players besides Eichel.

Drury and Blake were teammates in Colorado. They won a Cup together in 2001. Maybe they make a deal at some point.

 

[Savant]

Getting worse how? Blais and Goodrow can play and Ill take Blais, Goodrow, Nemeth, and sometimes Reaves over Hajek, Howden, Richie, Blackmen any day.

Ok. I’ll take Buchnevich over Blais and Goodrow.

Here’s the bottom line. If the Rangers get better it will because that Lafreniere, Kakko, Kravtsov, Chytil group takes a leap. If not, they have lost too much offense. The Rangers will not be better because of Blais or Goodrow. They’ll check harder, but it’s not raising the ceiling of the team.

 

[Raspewtin]

How is Reaves the more effective player?

read this wrong but Reaves is a better fighter, but Ritchie is no slouch physically either, and he adds more, and he wouldn’t have cost an asset to add.

Ritchie has lazy streaks with his physicality whereas Reaves doesn't, he's remarkably consistent with his hits from my observations. But Ritchie is very good around the net offensively which I feel we lack way more than what Reaves brings.

 

[Levitate]

Ok. I’ll take Buchnevich over Blais and Goodrow.

Here’s the bottom line. If the Rangers get better it will because that Lafreniere, Kakko, Kravtsov, Chytil group takes a leap. If not, they have lost too much offense. The Rangers will not be better because of Blais or Goodrow. They’ll check harder, but it’s not raising the ceiling of the team.

I think it's more complicated than that but the success of this team in the future was always going to rely on how Lafreniere, Kakko, Kravtsov, etc develop, not on Buchnevich

 

[Ruggs225]

Ok. I’ll take Buchnevich over Blais and Goodrow.

Here’s the bottom line. If the Rangers get better it will because that Lafreniere, Kakko, Kravtsov, Chytil group takes a leap. If not, they have lost too much offense. The Rangers will not be better because of Blais or Goodrow. They’ll check harder, but it’s not raising the ceiling of the team.

eh, not sure if i totally agree. You need the grit to go far in the playoffs.

islanders go far bc of their 4th line, colorado lost because they couldn’t handle vegas’s grit and they have none.

so yes, we will only fo as far as our youngsters will improve. We will needed to beef up and not get tossed around. Having a good matchup line is the difference in winning and losing a series in the PO’s when offense dries up.

So i do think that goodrow, blais, reaves does actually raise the ceiling of the team even with the loss of buch.

 

[Zynbanejad]

Ok. I’ll take Buchnevich over Blais and Goodrow.

Here’s the bottom line. If the Rangers get better it will because that Lafreniere, Kakko, Kravtsov, Chytil group takes a leap. If not, they have lost too much offense. The Rangers will not be better because of Blais or Goodrow. They’ll check harder, but it’s not raising the ceiling of the team.

But would the kids succeed if Buch was still here eating their minutes?

 

[Savant]

Ritchie has lazy streaks with his physicality whereas Reaves doesn't, he's remarkably consistent with his hits from my observations. But Ritchie is very good around the net offensively which I feel we lack way more than what Reaves brings.

And that is what the Rangers need more.

 

[Levitate]

I don't think Shayna has any sources and was only speculating that Gallant liked Gudbranson once and maybe the Rangers would be interested. But I think that spot was filled by Tinordi and Reaves to some extent. The Rangers are deep on D and don't need to keep loading up on 7th D men

 

[Savant]

But would the kids succeed if Buch was still here eating their minutes?

Why wouldn’t they? Wouldn’t it be one the coach to figure that out? Depth is not a bad thing.

 

[Savant]

eh, not sure if i totally agree. You need the grit to go far in the playoffs.

islanders go far bc of their 4th line, colorado lost because they couldn’t handle vegas’s grit and they have none.

so yes, we will only fo as far as our youngsters will improve. We will needed to beef up and not get tossed around. Having a good matchup line is the difference in winning and losing a series in the PO’s when offense dries up.

So i do think that goodrow, blais, reaves does actually raise the ceiling of the team even with the loss of buch.

The Islanders go far because they are the best coached team and they have the most continuity and chemistry. They aren’t just big.

Teams need to be able to score too. That’s why Vegas didn’t beat Montreal if you want to go there.

 

[Thirty One]

I don't think Shayna has any sources and was only speculating that Gallant liked Gudbranson once and maybe the Rangers would be interested. But I think that spot was filled by Tinordi and Reaves to some extent. The Rangers are deep on D and don't need to keep loading up on 7th D men

If I remember correctly, she was first on the Skjei trade, so I think she has some sources at least. This is pretty clearly third hand speculation though.

 

[Savant]

I think it's more complicated than that but the success of this team in the future was always going to rely on how Lafreniere, Kakko, Kravtsov, etc develop, not on Buchnevich

I mean in a perfect world Kreider is traded at the deadline two years ago and Buchnevich is here with this core, right?

The problem wasn’t Buchnevich getting traded. The problem is the return was bad.

 

[PuckLuck3043]

Ok. I’ll take Buchnevich over Blais and Goodrow.

Here’s the bottom line. If the Rangers get better it will because that Lafreniere, Kakko, Kravtsov, Chytil group takes a leap. If not, they have lost too much offense. The Rangers will not be better because of Blais or Goodrow. They’ll check harder, but it’s not raising the ceiling of the team.

Yes they will and yes it is. Actually checking and cycling will make them better and more balanced.

 

[Savant]

I don't think Shayna has any sources and was only speculating that Gallant liked Gudbranson once and maybe the Rangers would be interested. But I think that spot was filled by Tinordi and Reaves to some extent. The Rangers are deep on D and don't need to keep loading up on 7th D men

I’d still take Shayna over Carp

 

[Savant]

Yes they will and yes it is. Actually checking and cycling will make them better and more balanced.

Not necessarily. If anything now they are too unbalanced in the other direction. That’s why the kids need to take a leap to improve the team. Rangers still need to put points up.