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.
Avery16 said:
Why would John Davidson fire Gorton for making the team more competitive?
Click to expand...
You still have not answered how a Trouba trade makes the team more competitive. How is that the most likely outcome?

it however is a fireable offense to give out 8/64 and trade it for net negative.

If we want to assume Trouba value has dropped, who is giving more than Pionk and a 1st? Who is out there with that value to make Rangers more competitive?
I’ll wait. I’m on an airplane I have time
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mac n Gs, Brooklyn Rangers Fan, RGY and 1 other person
True Blue said:
Oh, did I miss something? I am in no way advocating making that move right now. And certainly not for Lindholm. I believe that Trouba's partner will not arrive here until two years from now.

Lots of things are also predicated on what happens to Skjei
Click to expand...
Haha I was just debating with the other poster why trading for Lindholm right now would be a bad idea.
 
GAGLine said:
What is this mythical scenario under which we trade Trouba and thereby make the team better?
Click to expand...
You trade Trouba to a team that can’t attract a FA like Trouba with or without significant overpayment. Teams like Edmonton, Phoenix, Buffalo, Calgary, etc. those types of teams are usually flush with highly drafted ELCs. Trouba lacks trade protections and would be trapped wherever he gets traded to for 8 seasons. What is that worth to a team like Calgary?
 
  • Like
Reactions: mschmidt64
Savant said:
You still have not answered how a Trouba trade makes the team more competitive. How is that the most likely outcome?

it however is a fireable offense to give out 8/64 and trade it for net negative.

If we want to assume Trouba value has dropped, who is giving more than Pionk and a 1st? Who is out there with that value to make Rangers more competitive?
I’ll wait. I’m on an airplane I have time
Click to expand...
If the return wouldn’t make the team more competitive, you wouldn’t trade him. DUH. Safe travels.
 
Avery16 said:
If you’re going to make up quotes from me, at least doctor one of my posts so it’s halfway deceiving.
Click to expand...
Nothing made up. You're talking about getting rid of a guy which would be a major red flag to other teams and expecting something of value back. Not logical. Not realistic.
 
Avery16 said:
You trade Trouba to a team that can’t attract a FA like Trouba with or without significant overpayment. Teams like Edmonton, Phoenix, Buffalo, Calgary, etc. those types of teams are usually flush with highly drafted ELCs. Trouba lacks trade protections and would be trapped wherever he gets traded to for 8 seasons. What is that worth to a team like Calgary?
Click to expand...

Or we could trade ADA since we already have a similar player in Fox and another on the way with Lundkvist.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Brooklyn Rangers Fan
TheBloodyNine said:
Nothing made up. You're talking about getting rid of a guy which would be a major red flag to other teams and expecting something of value back. Not logical. Not realistic.
Click to expand...
Quote me saying anything remotely similar to “I hate this guy, he sucks!”
 
mschmidt64 said:
I get the logic of "we should explore trading Trouba."

It's not an indictment of Trouba. No one is saying he sucks or that he's even not worth the contract. It's simple math, that the Rangers have a few too many RDs and some of them will have to be moved. Ironically, if we rule out Trouba, and then people suggest trading DeAngelo, we have to hear "Why do people want to trade DeAngelo? We've been looking for this kind of defenseman for forever." Well, someone has to be moved and I don't think people like the idea of trading Fox.

But the simple fact is, we just bought Trouba and committed to him. My own personal feelings on Trouba were, pre-trade, we should probably stay away because he's not a true #1 and he'll be highly paid, but when we made the deal (just a first and Pionk), I changed my tune because the value was just too good, we gave up almost nothing that would end up better than Trouba. And getting Trouba hedged our bets for the young D developing.

But here we are not a year later and Fox is excelling, DeAngelo cleaned up his act and exploded, and Lundkvist is really developing as well. We have tons of defensive talent in spades. Someone is gonna have to go. So I get the thinking, "Why not trade the older guy who makes more money and still isn't a #1?"

I get it. It might be the best move from an asset-management standpoint. Especially if you can get back more than you gave up for him. The trade is then a net positive for you, plus you free up space to sign DeAngelo, plus you clear a roster block for Lundkvist to eventually join the team.

But it's not gonna happen. It would be bad optics and the franchise can probably damage their reputation among free agents. What, I'm gonna sign there, they'll give me a NTC, and then flip me 6 months later before it kicks in? Not good for business.

The fact is the Rangers PROBABLY should have had a little more patience before jumping on Trouba, and frankly, if they knew they could have gotten Panarin at the time, I'm not so sure they chase Trouba. But I also don't think they knew at that time that they were front-runners for Panarin in Panarin's mind.

So anyway, Trouba is here and he's not going anywhere. And I won't even say we are "stuck" with him, because he's still a positive for us. But it just means that someone else is probably gonna have to go, either DeAngelo, Fox, or Lundkvist. Unless someone can play the left side.

And even then, someone is gonna have to go because Miller, Rykov, and Hajek all play that side.
Click to expand...


Well said, I do not expect them to trade Trouba, but there is reasoning behind it.

All in all the only thing I'd disagree with, future expensive UFAs who sign are likely to have clauses in their contracts from the get go, plus it's NYC, I don't really think it would effect their ability to sign players in the future.

Every RFA who signs away UFA years within that contract has to know they could be traded before any clause activates, from a business perspective if that does not cross their minds before signing away those years, that is sort of on them.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Avery16
Edge said:
Rangers like Nurse and his next contract raises uncertainty in Edmonton.

But that same contract would be difficult if the Rangers also add large salaries to their roster (Kreider, ADA, etc.).
Click to expand...

And this brings us back to the fact that re-signing Kreider pumps the brakes, at least short term, on improving elsewhere.
 
GAGLine said:
Or we could trade ADA since we already have a similar player in Fox and another on the way with Lundkvist.
Click to expand...
Sure, that’s another option. If faced with the choice of keeping ADA or Trouba, I would choose ADA. But that’s me.
 
Oscar Lindberg said:
The optics on trading Trouba now would be bad, in addition to it being a dumb idea

Gorton can see what's out there if he likes, but there's a zero % chance Trouba is moved. And then his NMC kicks in during the summer and everyone can shut the **** up about it
Click to expand...

Lindgren would be the Rangers only physical defenseman if Trouba gets traded which should never happen. stupid idea
 
  • Like
Reactions: cheech70
Avery16 said:
Quote me saying anything remotely similar to “I hate this guy, he sucks!”
Click to expand...
Never said you said that. But by suggesting trading Trouba a year into his 7 year/8 mill contract, you're saying that we need to get rid of him because his play isn't good. Why rush to trade a guy before his NTC kicks in unless you're not happy with his play? Logic.
 
Avery16 said:
Sure, that’s another option. If faced with the choice of keeping ADA or Trouba, I would choose ADA. But that’s me.
Click to expand...

At the very least, it will require a change to the perceived approach.

Whether that's buyouts, different types of trades, not signing certain players, etc., remains to be seen.
 
Brooklyn Rangers Fan said:
Standard practice for columnists (and bloggers), actually. ICYMI, without saying ICYMI.
Click to expand...

Yeah, there are two settings on Twitter. One that uses their algorithm to see "important" tweets, and another that lets you just see things in reverse chronological order. Lots of news organizations post the same article multiple times to make sure people going chronological see it. For example, if they put something up at 11am, but I don't go to Twitter until 3pm, chances are I'll never see the thing from 11am.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Brooklyn Rangers Fan
TheBloodyNine said:
Never said you said that. But by suggesting trading Trouba a year into his 7 year/8 mill contract, you're saying that we need to get rid of him because his play isn't good. Why rush to trade a guy before his NTC kicks in unless you're not happy with his play? Logic.
Click to expand...
Nothing about saying a trade should be explored suggests anything like what you’re saying it does. A player can be good, can improve a team, and still get moved for a return that improves the team even more.
 
I'd probably be inclined, if possible, to do something like:

Kreider @ 50% for Heinen + Frederic + BOS 1st

Skjei for Tuch + LV 1st

Buch (RFA) + Georgiev + BOS 1st for Nurse (RFA)

If those scenario's were possible/plausible. I realize some will need to be massaged but that general line of thinking
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Ad

Ad

Top Bottom