Speculation: Roster Building Thread 2019-20: Part XXVII

[mas0764]

"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.

Why is this the point? Our foundation should be two young star players to build around for a decade. We have one sure one in Kakko (well, presumably, and certainly good enough bet to move forward with).

The second one is still up in the air. If I knew Kravtsov was an 80-90 point player, I'd agree, let's move on. But I don't know that. There's a chance he's only a 50-60 point player, more like a second liner. I need another top-line player at or near Kakko's potential.

 

[bobbop]

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.

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.

The problem with the year rebuilds is that they can easily turn into much longer rebuilds.

Let’s take a Toronto as an example. Toronto missed the playoffs 10 years out of 11. Think they weren’t trying? Think they weren’t spending money? All of this with some pretty good hockey people (former Stanley Cup winners) calling the shots. They have had more rebuild plans than Eastern Europe.

Look at what happening in Buffalo. The owner will spend whatever is necessary. They have a bunch of top five draft choices on the team. They suck and the fans are fed up.

You don’t end rebuilds by trading away your core players for futures. We have had enough of that. Brooks article today nails it. Either the Rangers are serious about making a mark in the next two or three years or they are thinking 5-6 years down the road.

Sign me up for the former.

 

[mas0764]

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

You are also getting the increased value of your own pick.

Which could be.... well..... invaluable.

Dropping to 6 or 7 and getting, say, Holtz, is infinitely and unmeasurably better than winning out, getting a 12 pick, and getting Dylan Holloway.

 

[GoAwayPanarin]

The problem with the year rebuilds is that they can easily turn into much longer rebuilds.

Let’s take a Toronto as an example. Toronto missed the playoffs 10 years out of 11. Think they weren’t trying? Think they weren’t spending money? All of this with some pretty good hockey people (former Stanley Cup winners) calling the shots. They have had more rebuild plans than Eastern Europe.

Look at what happening in Buffalo. The owner will spend whatever is necessary. They have a bunch of top five draft choices on the team. They suck and the fans are fed up.

You don’t end rebuilds by trading away your core players for futures. We have had enough of that. Brooks article today nails it. Either the Rangers are serious about making a mark in the next two or three years or they are thinking 5-6 years down the road.

Sign me up for the former.

 

[Avery16]

Toronto went bargain hunting. Campbell won't solve their goaltending problem, but its time for us to move on to other teams. Kapanen not coming here.

 

[EpicDing]

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

Oh. Welp, I stand by my point haha. It's such an obvious point to say "this is where we want to turn it around and really compete."

 

[Pawnee Rangers]

You are also getting the increased value of your own pick.

Which could be.... well..... invaluable.

Dropping to 6 or 7 and getting, say, Holtz, is infinitely and unmeasurably better than winning out, getting a 12 pick, and getting Dylan Holloway.

Yes, because the kid drafted 6 spots ahead of another kid, always ends up the better player.

 

[mas0764]

The problem with the year rebuilds is that they can easily turn into much longer rebuilds.

Let’s take a Toronto as an example. Toronto missed the playoffs 10 years out of 11. Think they weren’t trying? Think they weren’t spending money? All of this with some pretty good hockey people (former Stanley Cup winners) calling the shots. They have had more rebuild plans than Eastern Europe.

Look at what happening in Buffalo. The owner will spend whatever is necessary. They have a bunch of top five draft choices on the team. They suck and the fans are fed up.

You don’t end rebuilds by trading away your core players for futures. We have had enough of that. Brooks article today nails it. Either the Rangers are serious about making a mark in the next two or three years or they are thinking 5-6 years down the road.

Sign me up for the former.

I'm for whatever approach has the higher ceiling. I'm betting on the latter.

That being said, I think our young talent is so good that we can sell off again and still compete in 2-3 years. We're talking about Chris Kreider here..... yes, he's a good player, a borderline first-second liner, but he's not and never will be a superstar, and on top of that, he can be hot and cold.

In 2-3 years we will have a core of 30 year old Panarin, 28 year old Zibanejad, 20 year old Kakko, 21 year old Kravtsov, 23 year old Chytil, 26 year old Shesterkin, 26 year old DeAngelo, 28 year old Trouba, 23 year old Fox, etc. That is going to be a playoff team with or without Kreider around. I don't buy that he's the lynchpin to competing in 2-3 years. He might be the key to competing NEXT year, but, I don't think his influence extends much beyond that.

That's part of the problem extending Kreider. He's probably on the outside looking in, in terms of being a top 6 forward, within 2-3 years.

 

[Fitzy]

Why is this the point? Our foundation should be two young star players to build around for a decade. We have one sure one in Kakko (well, presumably, and certainly good enough bet to move forward with).

The second one is still up in the air. If I knew Kravtsov was an 80-90 point player, I'd agree, let's move on. But I don't know that. There's a chance he's only a 50-60 point player, more like a second liner. I need another top-line player at or near Kakko's potential.

Adam Fox is pretty much a bona fide star in the making at this point, and quite possibly an eventual Rangers captain.

 

[mas0764]

How about we agree to stop using the term ‘dumpster fire’. May I suggest we start using ‘hipster pyre’?

In all sincerity.... why?

 

[mas0764]

I think Dubas’ seat is much warmer than Gorton’s right now.

He knows where to find Gorton if he wants to chat.

I see no reason to believe Gorton's seat isn't ice cold.

 

[Lays]

Give me Hampus Lindholm

 

[LORDE]

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.

Exactly why many of us were concerned about signing Bread. No one thought he would be bad here. We all want him to be this good... but it doesn’t help us if he’s this good for 2-3 years and then the team is ready in yr 4. Same goes for Kreider. We all know he’s going to be good for the next couples of years... it’s after that, when it’ll REALLY matter that we’ll need this iteration of Kreider

 

[Shesterkybomb]

That's something I've been thinking about too. To sign him in July I think you'd have to go 7 years X $7 mil at least. The other thing I've been thinking about is whether it's possible to keep him and sign him for 5 year and say something a bit over $6.

I'm going to miss him if we move him. He and Mika have really got a great chemistry between them and his speed and net front presence are the best on the team. This has been his best season. He's the one older player from the past 3 years I'd actually want to keep.

Im ok paying him a little more than I am currently comfortable with if he accepts a trade and he doesn't have a full no move.

 

[Shesterkybomb]

Exactly why many of us were concerned about signing Bread. No one thought he would be bad here. We all want him to be this good... but it doesn’t help us if he’s this good for 2-3 years and then the team is ready in yr 4. Same goes for Kreider. We all know he’s going to be good for the next couples of years... it’s after that, when it’ll REALLY matter that we’ll need this iteration of Kreider

Unless bread gets hurt there should be no problem getting good production from him in 5 years. He has too many tools to fall off that quick.

 

[mulli25]

This is just a really unfortunate time for Kreider to be an unrestricted free agent.

I've reached the point where I could get on board with extending him if there was a smart way to move out some other salaries to ensure we can lock up Deangelo, but I'm not convinced there's a realistic scenario where both guys are on the roster next year.

Imagine we didn't hand out garbage contracts in the past that we had to buy out? That $7M+ in dead cap next year is absolutely brutal. I suspect Kreider would already have a new contract if that wasn't our reality.

 

[mas0764]

I'll say this.

I'm way more open to the Rangers re-signing Kreider on the open market this offseason AFTER trading him away for a rental haul, than simply keeping him and signing him.

I think both not getting a return for him and investing a 6-7 year contract in him at 6-7 million are bad things.

But I'd live with the latter if we picked up 2 young cost controlled, high value assets while doing so.

I know that never seems to happen, but I don't know why you couldn't approach Kreider and his agent now and say, hey, we are clearly not going to be playing playoff hockey. Here, go try to get a ring somewhere. But if you like it here, give us first dibs come June.

 

[LORDE]

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.

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.

Sir I would like to buy u a beer

 

[Shesterkybomb]

This is just a really unfortunate time for Kreider to be an unrestricted free agent.

I've reached the point where I could get on board with extending him if there was a smart way to move out some other salaries to ensure we can lock up Deangelo, but I'm not convinced there's a realistic scenario where both guys are on the roster next year.

Imagine we didn't hand out garbage contracts in the past that we had to buy out? That $7M+ in dead cap next year is absolutely brutal. I suspect Kreider would already have a new contract if that wasn't our reality.

Not saying I disagree but complaining about previous garbage contracts and then lamenting we cant afford to give Kreider a 7x7 deal might be kinda what got us here.

 

[Ola]

The guy I keep circling back to is Fast. I'm not sure trading him for, say a 2nd, is worth it honestly. If he'd take ~$3m per season, I'd probably re-sign him and look to trade Strome who I think would return more.

Yeah, and I am a big fan of Fast even though his play last season just wasn't good and he obviously was hurt, BUT, if Fast all of a sudden starts to show obvious signs of being worn out and maybe not having a ton left in the tank -- wouldn't we all say that the writing was on the wall?

I think term is the big issue with Fast. If we have cap space, 2-3m, for a 1-2 year deal, perfect. No problem. But if its 3 years or 4 years or even 5 years, then its more worrying some.

 

[Cassano]

At $4 million, with only a one year commitment, I don’t think finding a team would be too difficult. Especially if there isn’t an expectation of a huge return.

I think the biggest obstacle, and arguably the only one that matters, is Lundqvist himself. But I think there are a few possibilities out there, and a $4 million salary wouldn’t be too much of an issue.

The contending teams that need goalies don't have 4m in cap space this TDD though.

 

[LORDE]

Unless bread gets hurt there should be no problem getting good production from him in 5 years. He has too many tools to fall off that quick.

We don’t know that. We all hope so but either way he’s here and performing. Time will tell. But I see less issue with banking on him performing through the majority of his contract than I do Kreider through the next 7 of his upcoming contract.

 

[mulli25]

Not saying I disagree but complaining about previous garbage contracts and then lamenting we cant afford to give Kreider a 7x7 deal might be kinda what got us here.

I fully understand and recognize the hypocrosy, and thought about pointing it out myself haha

I'd say I've gone from "we absolutely can not extend Kreider" or "I could live with it if we did"

but by no means am I suggesting its the best course of action

 

[Shesterkybomb]

I have a question, everyone is saying this and that about 3 goalies but if we just suffer through it this year cant we qualify Georgiev and send him to the minors next year before the season starts?

 

[Shesterkybomb]

I fully understand and recognize the hypocrosy, and thought about pointing it out myself haha

I'd say I've gone from "we absolutely can not extend Kreider" or "I could live with it if we did"

but by no means am I suggesting its the best course of action

Ya as I said before I'd be more willing if we got to trade him then resign him this summer. I still cant get to 7 years tho.