Speculation: Roster Building Thread 2019-20: Part XXVII

[NYRangers0723]

Kreider playing hot but lets not forget the months at a time that Kreider completely disappears. Yes, lets risk losing ADA and lock Kreider up for 7 years

not really true but ok...

 

[Edge]

Also Larry is such a dummy.

“Trading Kreider means management thinks the future is still 4-5 years off”

No, it doesn’t mean that. Not sure how anyone sees trading Kreider as setting the team back half a decade

If Larry were a poster on here, he'd be the guy who makes some good points, but then doesn't know how to quit while he's ahead.

He'd be the guy who always takes it a step or two too far and then loses his audience. Or the guy who piles on because he thinks he's emphasizing a point, but ends up working against it.

Of course Kreider has value. That's why his contact demand is likely going to be what it is. That's why teams will be out there waiting with offers on July 1. That's why multiple teams are inquiring about a trade.

If he didn't have any value, none of those things would occur.

So the question is never whether Kreider has value. It's what price tag do you put on that value, and how long do you make payments.

 

[LORDE]

If folks are ALREADY (and I don’t mean on this board, I mean in management) bristling about how this rebuild has gone on ‘Too long’ then we are, as the Brit’s say, PROPER Fudged

 

[Matt4776]

If folks are ALREADY (and I don’t mean on this board, I mean in management) bristling about how this rebuild has gone on ‘Too long’ then we are, as the Brit’s say, PROPER Fudged

We are literally in our 2nd year of the full rebuild, and people are losing their minds. It's crazy.

 

[GoAwayPanarin]

If folks are ALREADY (and I don’t mean on this board, I mean in management) bristling about how this rebuild has gone on ‘Too long’ then we are, as the Brit’s say, PROPER Fudged

There is no indication that this is the case.

There is a certain poster who likes to project his wants as if they are the way that the people in charge actually feel, but again nothing that management has done seems to suggest that they're done with the rebuild.

 

[RGY]

The same arguments I heard for keeping Kreider are the same ones that were made for Zucc.

"He has such amazing chemistry with Zibanejad"
"Hes a leader in the locker room"
"Hes going to be really hard to replace"

None of those points had any effect on this team this year in regards to Zucc. Zibanejad is having an even better year, the leadership hasn't taken a hit and we've more than replaced him.

Only the last one will be a factor with Kreider. He is going to be really tough to replace, but they don't need an exact replicate to step into the spot that he would be vacating.

I dont think Zucc had nearly the chemistry with Zibanejad that Kreider does. Or anyone else on the team at the time he was traded. Zucc was also older, played a different style. He was replaceable.

Zucc was well liked in the lockerroom but was by no means a leader. I think he got along great with everyone and just went about his business. Kreider is a leader in that room. Absolutely is. You can see it.

Situationally it was more of a no brainer to trade Zucc and Hayes. But this year, with the state of the organization, the offseason they had, its just not a black and white decision.

 

[Edge]

I dont think Zucc had nearly the chemistry with Zibanejad that Kreider does. Or anyone else on the team at the time he was traded. Zucc was also older, played a different style. He was replaceable.

Zucc was well liked in the lockerroom but was by no means a leader. I think he got along great with everyone and just went about his business. Kreider is a leader in that room. Absolutely is. You can see it.

Situationally it was more of a no brainer to trade Zucc and Hayes. But this year, with the state of the organization, the offseason they had, its just not a black and white decision.

I think it not being a black and white decision hinges heavily on whether we're talking about a multi-million dollar gap and several years.

I think people keep saying it's not an easy decision, but I think they say with the hope that maybe $6x6 gets it done.

If that's not on the table at all, then it might very well be pretty black and white for the Rangers.

 

[RGY]

Kreider playing hot but lets not forget the months at a time that Kreider completely disappears. Yes, lets risk losing ADA and lock Kreider up for 7 years.

Or move Buchnevich and Strome and keep both. Likely Skjei too at some point.

 

[NYRangers0723]

I dont think Zucc had nearly the chemistry with Zibanejad that Kreider does. Or anyone else on the team at the time he was traded. Zucc was also older, played a different style. He was replaceable.

Zucc was well liked in the lockerroom but was by no means a leader. I think he got along great with everyone and just went about his business. Kreider is a leader in that room. Absolutely is. You can see it.

Situationally it was more of a no brainer to trade Zucc and Hayes. But this year, with the state of the organization, the offseason they had, its just not a black and white decision

.

Exactly. I loved Zucc but he was older and you can replace easier than what a Kreider brings. Players like Kreider don’t grow on trees. Plus he has always kept himself in great shape do I feel he won’t break down at least not for awhile

 

[RGY]

I think it not being a black and white decision hinges heavily on whether we're talking about a multi-million dollar gap and several years.

I think people keep saying it's not an easy decision, but I think they say with the hope that maybe $6x6 gets it done.

If that's not on the table at all, then it might very well be pretty black and white for the Rangers.

$6.5 x 6 or x 7 will be the tricky part if that is what both sides are interested in.

 

[TheBloodyNine]

Also Larry is such a dummy.

“Trading Kreider means management thinks the future is still 4-5 years off”

No, it doesn’t mean that. Not sure how anyone sees trading Kreider as setting the team back half a decade

Larry will also be the guy 5 games into a Kreider goaless drought pushing his "did you see Chris' contract?!?!" cornball shit. I wish Larry would just go write full time for his ultimate love the Devils.

 

[Fireonk]

When I said protect 8F/D, that is based on the assumption that we have the current roster minus Kreider/Anderson intact by then. Obviously things will change. Hopefully in the direction of moving our defensive depth for forwards. Even if they were to go the 7F/3D route, one of Lindgren/Hajek would need to be exposed at minimum.

I guess the point I am making is if its important to the Rangers to not go the 8F/D route, they really NEED to trade 2 of Skjei, DeAngelo, Lindgren, or Hajek. Because they almost surely will be the one chosen by Seattle. All the talk lately has been around Kreider and Georgiev. But the Rangers really need to deal 1-2 defenseman or risk losing them for nothing. Not necessarily by the deadline, but I think a lot of teams are going to be in a "Lets not lose this guy for nothing" mode a year from now, and their value will be significantly lower. If you have to move 1-2 of them, might as well do it at the deadline or the draft.

Rangers might be willing to sacrifice Skjei in order to get the cap space at that point. I also am not that bothered by losing Hajek. Protect Trouba, ADA, Lindgren or Skjei. We still have Fox along with our current stable of D prospects. Not overly concerning.

 

[Edge]

$6.5 x 6 or x 7 will be the tricky part if that is what both sides are interested in.

And that's ultimately what this could come down to. Not a lack of desire from either party, but limits on how much they can compromise.

If the Rangers are committed not to going above $6m, and Kreider isn't willing to drop down below $6.75m, I don't think even think the conversation advances to years. I think that might be too big of a gap for them.

That works out to anywhere from a $3.7 to a $5.2 million gap, depending on if the deal is for 5 or 7 years.

Again, I don't know if those are the numbers, I'm just pointing it out being a factor that trumps a desire from both sides to remain together.

 

[Oscar Lindberg]

Kreider playing hot but lets not forget the months at a time that Kreider completely disappears. Yes, lets risk losing ADA and lock Kreider up for 7 years.

That's what I'm saying

If he was on pace for 70 points and it looked like he had found a new gear, hell I could understand more people's willingness to sign him for 7 years

But he's playing exactly like he has for the last 5 years. A guy that is hot and cold and scores 50 points. He just happened to get hot around the time the team is going to trade him, and suddenly people are besides themselves about wanting to move him

 

[East Coast Bias]

re Kreider - I think the rangers thought some of the kids would be further along then they are at this point.

Kakko and Kravtsov haven't had seasons like I personally hoped they would. Maybe my expectations were too high. But neither seems close to ready for top 6 duty on a good team. So you're in a place where without Kreider next season where we'd be dangerously thin on top forwards. Panarin, Mika, Buch. I'm not sold on Strome. Chytil is developing but not ready to carry a big role (IMO). That's it. You're looking at 2 full lines of well below average. So if you let Kreider walk, they have a lot of work to do on this forward core.

The Panarin move didn't scream "we'll just let the next 2-3 years be development years" to me. They're in a weird place - one foot in the now, and one foot in the future. It's a tight spot. Hopefully they figure it out.

 

[MadHookUp]

Rangers might be willing to sacrifice Skjei in order to get the cap space at that point. I also am not that bothered by losing Hajek. Protect Trouba, ADA, Lindgren or Skjei. We still have Fox along with our current stable of D prospects. Not overly concerning.

That is where I am. Hajek would be my choice. But that would still require 8F/D to also protect Lindgren. Unless they are fine exposing both. But if I were the Rangers, I would still move 1-2 defenseman rather than losing them for nothing.

 

[Fireonk]

That is where I am. Hajek would be my choice. But that would still require 8F/D to also protect Lindgren. Unless they are fine exposing both. But if I were the Rangers, I would still move 1-2 defenseman rather than losing them for nothing.

With our current forward depth I would rather lose one of those defenseman than a forward. Rather lose any of Lindgren, Skjei, or Hajek over a Buchnevich or Lemieux with the way we are currently setup.

 

[MadHookUp]

With our current forward depth I would rather lose one of those defenseman than a forward. Rather lose any of Lindgren, Skjei, or Hajek over a Buchnevich or Lemieux with the way we are currently setup.

I wouldnt want to lose Lemuiex either, but I dont see Seattle taking him over one of Lindgren/Hajek. Honestly, we're loaded at defense. Especially LD, I would trade Skjei for a forward. Even if you lose Hajek in the draft you still have Lindgren, Miller, Rykov, Robertson, Reunanen at LD.

 

[The Crypto Guy]

not really true but ok...

What's not true? That he goes weeks with disappearing acts? It absolutely is true. Guy is playing his ass off right now for a huge payday come July 1st. Which is also great for use because his trade value continues to grow.

 

[mas0764]

Then what about the Arizona/Islanders/Florida paradox?

if you start a rebuild plan, you better have an exit date.

Maybe we do have an exit date.

Maybe that exit date isn't till after Kreider is traded and we've missed the playoffs four times. Or five!

 

[Tawnos]

re Kreider - I think the rangers thought some of the kids would be further along then they are at this point.

Kakko and Kravtsov haven't had seasons like I personally hoped they would. Maybe my expectations were too high. But neither seems close to ready for top 6 duty on a good team. So you're in a place where without Kreider next season where we'd be dangerously thin on top forwards. Panarin, Mika, Buch. I'm not sold on Strome. Chytil is developing but not ready to carry a big role (IMO). That's it. You're looking at 2 full lines of well below average. So if you let Kreider walk, they have a lot of work to do on this forward core.

The Panarin move didn't scream "we'll just let the next 2-3 years be development years" to me. They're in a weird place - one foot in the now, and one foot in the future. It's a tight spot. Hopefully they figure it out.

I think the target was always to get back in the playoffs on the bubble in 20-21, solid playoff team in 21-22. So we're talking about another year under the belts of Chytil... with another off-season I think he'll be ready to take over 2C. But more importantly, Lindgren, Fox, DeAngelo, and whatever LD finds a way to step up between Rykov, Hajek, Reunanen, and Miller (if Miller goes pro) will all be another year along in the process.

And this doesn't account for the possibility they can find another Trouba type of situation... young vet we can make a strong pitch to acquiring.

None of this means that I think they'll be contending next season, but I think the possibility is pretty strong they'll be a bubble team, simply through natural youth improvements. That's the next step towards contention.

 

[mas0764]

Yes, I read his post. We don’t always agree.

None of those teams ever planned to have a forever rebuild. No one does. The Rangers did not plan a seven year rebuild from 1997 to 2004.

I’ve seen plenty of teams turn things around quickly. Three years is acceptable. Barely. Four years starts to feel like an era.

The Rangers weren't rebuilding from 97 to 04 though. They were mucking things up without a coherent direction.

I'm again going to take issue with your characterization of it being unacceptable. You haven't explained WHY it's unacceptable.

Just because other teams have turned things around quickly doesn't mean it's the way for the Rangers to go.

This is why missing the playoffs a fourth year shouldn't be unacceptable:

1) Long term dynasty build should be the goal of this organization right now. There is no other acceptable goal in my book. Do you disagree?

2) One of the strengths of this organization is being a financial powerhouse and there is no evidence that the profit margins are down significantly enough to effect our status as financial powerhouse in the league (maybe some execs feel that pressure, but I'm arguing, they SHOULDN'T, since again, the profits are still there and they will be made up for by being a long term winner).

3) Another strength of this organization is it's attractiveness as a destination (for most players) and also as a class-A well run organization that treats its players right. Neither of those things are in jeopardy from 4 straight missed playoffs.

4) There is no proof that missing the playoffs 4 straight years effects player development long-term (especially since many of the players who will be team cornerstones were not on the NHL roster in years 1, 2 or 3, but instead were in minor leagues, overseas, or were undrafted at that time).

5) Conversely, there IS a strong correlation between not acquiring enough high-end talent in the draft, and failing to win a Stanley Cup. Teams with multiple superstars win more than teams without. This team has seen that happen just in it's last era: Very good, but lacking one or two more stars to get them over the hump, to get that key goal when they needed it. You could say this possibly cost them THREE Stanley Cups from 2012-2016. (oh, what might have been if we had Alexei Cherepanov).

6) And finally, we are fresh off an extended run of deep playoff success. This isn't, say, the 2006-07 Rangers who flirted with missing the playoffs, who, after the 97-04 drought, made the playoffs in 05-06. That team, you could say, hey, it's unacceptable that this team misses the playoffs. It has to build towards something after making the playoffs last year. It can't slip back to it's 7-year dry spell. But this team isn't that. This team is fresh off a 7 year era of deep playoff runs. This team has that good-will still built up. It's fans understand that. It's fans don't want to see a repeat of 10-11 to 16-17, where it was always "close but no cigar." It wants to see a Champion.

What's the best way to build a champion? See above.

That's why some patience on missing the playoffs a fourth time is not unacceptable. Not yet.

Maybe at 6 years it would become unacceptable. Because then you would have to conclude the talent acquisition is failing (ie, if a 22 year old Kakko and a 23 year old Kravtsov and a 24 year old Chytil and a 27 year old Shersterkin can't carry this team to the playoffs, then there's something wrong). But 4 years? With 19 year old Kakko and 20 year old Kravtsov? Nah. That's perfectly acceptable.

 

[NYROrtsFan]

I think no matter what it's a good idea to trade Kreider. Even if you want to bring him back, trade him and acquire more assets first.

 

[EpicDing]

I think the target was always to get back in the playoffs in 21-22. So we're talking about another year under the belts of Chytil... with another off-season I think he'll be ready to take over 2C. But more importantly, Lindgren, Fox, DeAngelo, and whatever LD finds a way to step up between Rykov, Hajek, Reunanen, and Miller (if Miller goes pro) will all be another year along in the process.

And this doesn't account for the possibility they can find another Trouba type of situation... young vet we can make a strong pitch to acquiring.

None of this means that I think they'll be contending next season, but I think the possibility is pretty strong they'll be a bubble team, simply through natural youth improvements. That's the next step towards contention.

This, I always thought the plan would be to make the playoffs once Staal, Smith, Lundqvist's deals are off the books. 21-22.

 

[Tawnos]

This, I always thought the plan would be to make the playoffs once Staal, Smith, Lundqvist's deals are off the books. 21-22.

Oddly, I meant 20-21 for making the playoffs on the bubble but still. I edited my post to reflect.