Speculation: Roster Building Thread 2019-20: Part XXVII

[Savant]

Puts us over the top for what, to be a bubble team? We will probably be contenders in 2 years, the last year of his contract. Then he will command a ridiculous contract we won't afford. It literally makes no sense to trade for him unless we were extremely close to our window, which we are not. Not to mention the cost of him would be one of our top prospects at the very least and likely a first. Just makes zero zero sense.

I don’t agree. The one the Rangers don’t have internally is a Top Pair LHD

 

[Edge]

Wow this took a dark turn early on a Friday

In a shrinking media industry, where people are willing to do citizen reporting for free, at low costs, or as a side gig, that's the level desperation you're seeing from a lot of people.

 

[The Crypto Guy]

I don’t agree. The one the Rangers don’t have internally is a Top Pair LHD

Maybe not now, but maybe in 2-3 years they do when one of Fox/Lundkvist/DeAngelo switch to the left side or Miller turns into one. Just doesn't make any sense at the moment to bring in a top pair left defenseman, lose picks/prospects, when we arent even in our window and won't be during this time here, aside from maybe his last year. We are still in rebuild mode, that doesn't go with a rebuild at all.

 

[Edge]

If HFBoards were a religion, it would definitely be based around the principle of chanting mantras over and over again to try and will something into existence.

 

[Matt4776]

The odds of the Rangers carrying four defenseman who are 6'0, 200 pounds and smaller is pretty slim.

The odds of them doing so with a RHD having to play the left side are even lower.

Do you see any world in which Trouba, Tony, Fox, and Lundkvist are on the team together for the somewhat long haul? If not, do you think it's gonna be Lundkvist that is traded?

 

[NYR Viper]

Given that the Rangers next year have 30% of the cap tied to their backup goalie, 7th defenseman, 13th forward, and Tampa's stud offensive defenseman, it's more fun to think about 2021-22.

Panarin - Zibanejad - ?
? - Chytil - Kakko
? - ? - Kravstov
? - ? -?

Skjei - Trouba
Fox - DeAngelo
Lindgren - Lundkvist

Shesterkin
?

Open questions on forward include whether the Rangers will re-sign Kreider, Buchnevich, Strome, Fast, Lemieux and Howden.

Open questions on defense include whether the Rangers will make a trade for a natural LD and whether Miller, Keane, Hajek, and Rykov will force a move.

I think, for me, it's probably safe to assume Lemieux will be here. and I think it's a very safe assumption to have some form of (1) of Buch/Strome/Fast in a spot. That at least kills (2) forward spots.

The more you look at this though the more you feel that Skjei is the guy who gets traded for a good, young forward to help plug one of those holes up front considering the depth on defense that's available.

 

[IDvsEGO]

The benefits of trading Trouba are:

1) an *outsized* return, given the term he’s locked down to and complete lack of any trade protections until July, and
2) the cap savings, which we will need to keep ADA.

We could turn Trouba into a young 2C on an ELC and not suffer much for it in D depth. Brooks is right that it should absolutely be explored. It would be malpractice not to.

I don't get all the trouba hate. He's overpaid but not by much and he eats alot of the tougher minutes.

But the question is what does it look like around the league if we trade a guy who forced his way here, just before his nmc kicks in. The rangers are considered a classy org but at what point does the shine wear off if you do things like that.

 

[Savant]

Maybe not now, but maybe in 2-3 years they do when one of Fox/Lundkvist/DeAngelo switch to the left side or Miller turns into one. Just doesn't make any sense at the moment to bring in a top pair left defenseman, lose picks/prospects, when we arent even in our window and won't be during this time here, aside from maybe his last year. We are still in rebuild mode, that doesn't go with a rebuild at all.

Again, I do not agree - but that is okay. Rangers have D prospects coming out of there ears. They are not that far off. Throwing more youth at the defense, especially trying to pigeonhole a guy into the top pair to early is a bad idea. It’s clearly not working and it’s effecting Trouba. I’d rather not wait to see if everything breaks right for Miller, and would even less ruin his development by forcing him to play there. Look at Skjei. I have not problem dipping into our surplus to fill a gaping hole. You can pay top pair/top line players to be top guys.

 

[NYR Viper]

Sure. Have seen Nurse’s name a lot though

@Edge mentioned that the Rangers like Nurse, which is why his name keeps coming up

 

[TheBloodyNine]

The benefits of trading Trouba are:

1) an *outsized* return, given the term he’s locked down to and complete lack of any trade protections until July, and
2) the cap savings, which we will need to keep ADA.

We could turn Trouba into a young 2C on an ELC and not suffer much for it in D depth. Brooks is right that it should absolutely be explored. It would be malpractice not to.

Trouba isn't being traded.

 

[NYR Viper]

I REALLY want to see an ADA-Trouba pairing. That would solve pretty much everything and those guys seem to be the types who would compliment eachother.

 

[Savant]

@Edge mentioned that the Rangers like Nurse, which is why his name keeps coming up

That’s a pretty good reason.

that being said if I am going into that 7.5m+ for dman market I’d rather get a guy like Lindholm then Nurse

 

[TheBloodyNine]

Gotta love the Trade Trouba crowd. Rangers sign a guy to an 7 year/8mill deal and then wanted to trade him within in the first year and you don't think that's raising red flags for other teams?

"Hey we don't want this guy anymore even though we wanted to commit years and numbers to him, so why don't you give us something incredibly valuable for him"

You're out of your mind if you think that is a realistic situation.

 

[Avery16]

I don't get all the trouba hate. He's overpaid but not by much and he eats alot of the tougher minutes.

But the question is what does it look like around the league if we trade a guy who forced his way here, just before his nmc kicks in. The rangers are considered a classy org but at what point does the shine wear off if you do things like that.

Where do you read hate, or even dislike, anywhere in what I posted?

 

[Avery16]

Gotta love the Trade Trouba crowd. Rangers sign a guy to an 7 year/8mill deal and then wanted to trade him within in the first year and you don't think that's raising red flags for other teams?

f*** em. You don’t win Cups by holding everyone’s hand.

 

[TheBloodyNine]

**** em. You don’t win Cups by holding everyone’s hand.

Trouba isn't getting traded.

 

[True Blue]

Maybe not now, but maybe in 2-3 years they do when one of Fox/Lundkvist/DeAngelo switch to the left side or Miller turns into one. Just doesn't make any sense at the moment to bring in a top pair left defenseman, lose picks/prospects, when we arent even in our window and won't be during this time here, aside from maybe his last year. We are still in rebuild mode, that doesn't go with a rebuild at all.

I think that the chances are much greater that Fox/Lundkvist/DeAngelo stay on their side rather than become a top pairing d-man on their off side. In fact, I see almost no scenario where all three are here for when the team becomes are serious playoff contender.

Miller may or may not turn into one. But that will also not be in 2-3 years. Investing in Miller is investing in a long term process.

I believe that Trouba's partner will be found outside the organization. With very likely that someone like Lundqvist will be included as a part of the package to get him.

 

[Avery16]

Trouba isn't getting traded.

Where did I say he was getting traded?

 

[Savant]

The benefits of trading Trouba are:

1) an *outsized* return, given the term he’s locked down to and complete lack of any trade protections until July, and
2) the cap savings, which we will need to keep ADA.

We could turn Trouba into a young 2C on an ELC and not suffer much for it in D depth. Brooks is right that it should absolutely be explored. It would be malpractice not to.

Hypothetically If Trouba’s stock had dropped that much that the Rangers are ready to hit the ejector seat less than a year after trading premium assets for, and extending him; who is giving their 2C on ELC ?
It would be absurd to try to dump Trouba at this time

 

[TheBloodyNine]

Where did I say he was getting traded?

By even suggesting it as a possibility.

 

[Avery16]

For a message board, there’s a lot of people on here with problems reading things accurately.

 

[TheBloodyNine]

Something that is endemic on HFboards as a whole is this "I hate this guy he sucks...but if we trade him we could get something really valuable for him!"

Let's try to think realistically.

 

[Avery16]

Hypothetically If Trouba’s stock had dropped that much that the Rangers are ready to hit the ejector seat less than a year after trading premium assets for, and extending him; who is giving their 2C on ELC ?
It would be absurd to try to dump Trouba at this time

It wouldn’t be an ejector seat. It would be tactical. We didn’t trade Stepan because he sucked.

 

[NYR Viper]

That’s a pretty good reason.

that being said if I am going into that 7.5m+ for dman market I’d rather get a guy like Lindholm then Nurse

So this seems to be similar to the Karlsson vs Trouba debate a bit. Obviously Lindholm has 2 years left on his deal before he hits UFA so it's a bit different but Nurse is 25 and a RFA this year. He may be looking for $8m but my guess is he comes in closer to $6.5-7m on a long term deal, say 6-7 years. Lindholm makes $5.2m for the next couple of years but then becomes a UFA at age 29. So his next contract would probably be 7 years @ say $8.5m per season (cap going up).

So the net overall effect maybe Nurse from age 26-33 @ $7m per season vs Lindholm for 2 years @ $5.2m and then HOPING he signs for 7 years @ $8.5m from 29-36.

Basically what I am trying to show is that we get closer to the declining years for most players by acquiring Lindholm and are more likely to be paying him on the back-side of his career for what he has done rather than what he will do.

When taking contracts into account I'd prefer Nurse from 25-33 probably.

 

[Avery16]

Something that is endemic on HFboards as a whole is this "I hate this guy he sucks...but if we trade him we could get something really valuable for him!"

Let's try to think realistically.

If you’re going to make up quotes from me, at least doctor one of my posts so it’s halfway deceiving.