Toggle sidebar

Speculation: Roster Building Thread 2019-20: Part XXVII

  • 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
Status
Not open for further replies.
TheBloodyNine said:
This paragraph:

“The first is an inability to sign impact free agents. I don't care how well you draft or how much good fortune you have with developing prospects, at some point you're going to need to make trades or free agent signings. It's inevitable. And if you can't do either of these things with consistent success, you're probably going to struggle.“

The Rangers don’t have an inability to sign impact free agents.


Or this paragraph:

“The second challenge is drafting beyond the first round. The odds say you'll come away with talent if you're consistently picking in the top half of the draft, especially the top 10. But what usually separates the top teams from the teams perpetually stuck on the bubble is the ability to find support talent in the second and third rounds, along with the occasional gem in the later rounds.”

The Rangers already have multiple players in their lineup who are making an impact and were not drafted in the 1st round.

So I don’t know how either of those “proves your point” when neither inability to sign impact free agents or drafting beyond round 1 applies to the Rangers.
Click to expand...
Making trades that are for the now. Signing player (Kreider, Panarin)
 
The Crypto Guy said:
Lol, okay.

A prime Kapanen could easily be putting up 55 points, that's a tad more than Fast's career high 33 points. And I'd much rather have an actual 2nd line player helping out on the top 6 than a bottom forward that has barely has lick of offensive talent.
Click to expand...
Lol yourself. Kapanen is a player I am Ok to see Rangers give a chance. But they are not gonna trade another cheap useful roster player for him. If he will be as good as you say, then he should be replacement for Kreider. Georgiev for Kapanen I can maybe do. Not including Fast in a trade. I do not know why I am arguing with a guy who thought it was a bad idea to sign Panarin....
 
Arizona and The Islanders are tire fires that would likely struggle within three years if they were given the free reign to choose players from every team in the league, fantasy draft style.

Even allowing myself to take a few minutes to remotely contemplate Jeff Gorton vs. Garth Snow, or the JD-led Rangers to Charles Wang is the equivalent of asking me stab myself in the eyes with rusty nails, while being manscaped by a weed wacker.

And 1997 to 2004 was not a rebuild. And even if someone wants to consider it a rebuild, comparing that era to this one is disingenuous at best.

Toronto, Chicago, and even Boston are far better comparisons to what the Rangers are attempting to do based on market size, approaches, resources, and even Gorton’s own resume.

And I’ve just suckered myself into providing four more paragraphs on this subject than I wanted.

I’m out.

:::Mic Drop:::
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gluten Free Breadman, NYRKING30, Off Sides and 11 others
Starting to warm up to keeping Kreider on the right deal—no more then 6x6.5.

Georgiev to Toronto for Kapanen would love to expand the deal to Georgiev and Skjei and Buch for Nylander.

Buch to Edmonton for 1st and Puli
Or Calgary for Dude and Jankowski

Strome to Minnesota for a 1st. Not getting Greenway. Just the right team for Strome.

Fast to St Louis or Dallas for a second.

Buyout Staal in the off season

I believe that will fit everyone in with CK. No issues if we trade Skjei.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RGY
TheBloodyNine said:
Ok so what does that have to do with an inability to sign free agents or draft past the 1st round that has led to failed rebuilds by teams who have bad management?
Click to expand...
"At some point you are going to have to make trades and sign FAs" this is that point. Don't keep cycling out the slightly older vets.

It's time to make trades for the build. Not rebuild. We've already made a foundation. It's time to build the house. We have the materials to do so.

If you get stuck to much on the foundation it'll stay a slab of concrete.
 
I honestly think if the difference was $500k and a single season, we wouldn’t be having this conversation right now.

Take Hank out of the equation, maybe you have a bigger appetite. If he remains, I have a hard time seeing the Rangers shuffle that much furniture to get a guy for whom they haven’t shown any indication of changing their stance on.

Not a popular answer, but I think there’s at least a noticeable gap between what fans are willing to give, vs. what the Rangers are willing to give, vs. what Kreider is willing to accept.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Leetch3 and Brooklyn Rangers Fan
Edge said:
I honestly think of the difference was $500k and a single season, we wouldn’t be having this conversation right now.

Take Hank out of the equation, maybe you have a bigger appetite. If he remains, I have a hard time seeing the Rangers shuffle that much furniture to get a guy for whom they haven’t shown any indication of changing their stance on.

Not a popular answer, but I think there’s at least a noticeable gap between what fans are willing to give, vs. what the Rangers are willing to give, vs. what Kreider is willing to accept.
Click to expand...

How do you know how far apart they are?
 
This started more of a spitball on my part, but I STRONGLY suspect the Rangers would go longer on years if it got the annual salary down. The thought being they like the shorter term financial freedom, and that Kreider’s salary in 2025 could roughly be the equivalent of his 2020 salary when you adjust for cap increases and other salaries going up.

So 6x6 and especially 6x7 could be more enticing to them then 7X5.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RGY
jas said:
IMO, Kreider is more important to this team taking the next step next year, than one last trade for assets.
Click to expand...
the problem with a trade is that we are only getting a late first and maybe an ok prospect. That’s not enough Kreider and we won’t be able to replace him
 
Edge said:
I honestly think of the difference was $500k and a single season, we wouldn’t be having this conversation right now.

Take Hank out of the equation, maybe you have a bigger appetite. If he remains, I have a hard time seeing the Rangers shuffle that much furniture to get a guy for whom they haven’t shown any indication of changing their stance on.

Not a popular answer, but I think there’s at least a noticeable gap between what fans are willing to give, vs. what the Rangers are willing to give, vs. what Kreider is willing to accept.
Click to expand...

This may be heresy for some, but, I would much prefer seeing Lundqvist traded than Kreider.
 
  • Like
Reactions: wafflepadsave, White Death 24 and Richard Banger
Edge said:
I don’t, that’s why I said I think.

And I think that based on the numbers fans are floating vs. the numbers I’ve heard from people outside the org., vs. people from within the org.
Click to expand...

So you know how much the team is offering?
 
NYRangers0723 said:
the problem with a trade is that we are only getting a late first and maybe an ok prospect. That’s not enough Kreider and we won’t be able to replace him
Click to expand...

If the Rangers trade Kreider it won’t be because they think a first and prospect is better than what Kreider is today as a player.

It will be because they don’t want to commit the money or the term he is asking for.

Now, we can agree or disagree with their thought process and make some compelling arguments for or against that approach. But I do think it’s important to keep in mind that the trade itself would be more about Kreider’s next contract than his current ability as a player.
 
  • Like
Reactions: qq, bleedblue94, Chalfdiggity3 and 1 other person
Edge said:
I have a reasonable idea of what they’ve felt comfortable with in the past. If it still holds true, I think we’d have to come down a little from $6.5.
Click to expand...

I’m really not trying to be difficult, honestly. But you either know or you don’t know. I get you there’s things you can’t say, but these hints and circular comments are maddening.
 
Pawnee Rangers said:
I’m really not trying to be difficult, honestly. But you either know or you don’t know. I get you there’s things you can’t say, but these hints and circular comments are maddening.
Click to expand...

I’ll be straight to the point - if you can get the number closer to 6 per year, that’s the key. And if you can get it to that point, I think they might be willing to add the 7th year to make up the difference on the deal.

I know some people aren’t comfortable with that 7th year, and I can’t say it puts me at ease, but I think that’s your potential opening. So I’d keep on eye less on the concept of 6.75x6 or even 6.5x6, and I’d keep an eye out for the idea of 6x7 starting to come out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: wafflepadsave
This offseason is the last one that probably will show the effect of the last contracts Sather gave out. Hank. Staal. Smith (Gorton). Shattenkirk (Gorton). When those guys/cap hits leave, it will create a ton of flexibility for Gorton. I’d venture a guess that if those 3 weren’t here, the team would not only be more competitor as they’d have more financial freedom to sign necessary depth but they’d probably be in a much better position to re-sign a guy like Kreider as they’d be more competitive both this year and next year.
 
  • Like
Reactions: belford22
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom