Toggle sidebar

Speculation: Roster Building Thread L "Please Do Not Pester the Vetted Posters"

  • 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
  • We're expecting server maintenance on March 3rd starting at midnight, there may be downtime during the work.
Status
Not open for further replies.
IMO Trading Buch would be for a future 2C. Zegras, Turcotte, Cozens, Newhook etc. We have wingers, we need actual centers.

At #7 or #8 we could get Zegras or Cozens
 
mschmidt64 said:
Buch/Vesey package for 7, Kreider for 14?

Sign me up all day long.

Come away with Cozens and Newhook. Wingers going forward are Kakko, Kravtsov, Andersson and Chytil. Can move Zibanejad for a top defenseman in a year or two.
Click to expand...

There is no way Buch+Vesey gets the 7OA.

Fireonk said:
I don't think any of the guys you listed were traded strictly because of their age though. Step and Hayes were contract related. Brassard was a chance to steal Zib.
Click to expand...

I'd disagree. I think it has become clear that the teams philosophy is no longer to invest in aging players. I think these trades were both a combination of age+contract. I'd also argue the McD trade was a similar combination.

Turris is 29. He's not that good. And he's making 6 Mil for 5 more years.

Zucker is 27. He's OK. Making 5.5 for 4 more years.

If these guys were currently on the Rangers, we'd be talking about trading them. So why would we trade FOR them?

Also why would the Rangers have not just re-signed Hayes if they were interested in players of this ilk?
 
  • Like
Reactions: haveandare
Treliving: (Travis) Hamonic was a draft day deal. (Dougie) Hamilton was a draft day deal. You’re always managing that. You keep it a little bit separate. To me, you want your amateur guys focused on the draft and getting everything in the right slot and get your board in the right order.

Looks like a team with a history and tendency to make bigger deals at the draft
 
RGY said:
Please God move on from this guy already. We have plenty of other options with kids are younger AND can actually play defense.
Click to expand...
I mean he’s a great AHL defenseman. If it weren’t for Hartford being so stacked on D I would love to keep him around
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tob
pblawr said:
Personally, I wouldn't want to trade Buchnevich unless we are getting a MASSIVE return.

After getting benched by Quinn at the all-star break and stepping up his play, he scored 23 points in the last 32 games of the year. That's a 60 point pace. If you want to cherry pick, over the last 10 games of the season, he scored 9 points. That's a 70 point pace.

So you've got a kid who has already put up and sustained top line production for a half a season. The fact that it's the most recent half a season is especially relevant because it could be the best reflection of the player he is now. Put differently, if he can sustain what he did for the last half of the season, Buch is currently a first line player. Right now. He just turned 24 2 months ago.

Buch turning into a first line player would not be surprising. Before coming over to the US, he put up the 2nd highest scoring U20 KHL season of players currently in the NHL. That's better than Panarin and Tarasenko, who have been cornerstone players on cup-contending teams. The most similar prospects to Buch in terms of league and production - Kuznetsov, Tarasenko, and Panarin - didn't have their breakout NHL seasons until they were 23, 23, and 24. That's basically exactly the same Buchnevich is now / was when he turned it on and produced at a 1st line rate for the second half of the season.

There's always uncertainty with young players and Buch having a strong half a season doesn't guarantee anything, but I think there's a lot of cause to believe that he could be in the middle of breaking out as a first line caliber player. Again, he's 24. So I worry that if we trade Buch, we could be trading a young, controlled first line player basically right as he breaks out. That's the exact opposite of what you want to do in a rebuild. Personally, I would need a HUGE return to forego that upside.

@Edge if there's a reason the Rangers might view him differently, or there are some holes in my thinking, I'd be curious if you could plug in what you think those might be.
Click to expand...

I am just not sure where he fits in long term here so if the Rangers have a team thats willing to pay top dollar for him you have to really consider it. He started putting up points, but hes still a very limited player overall. Put up the same amount of even strength points as Strome last year, doesnt penalty kill, doesn't win puck battles, and doesn't really do too much to make his linemates better.

Think he is completely expendable for us with Kakko and Kravtsov arriving this season honestly. But, of course I wouldnt just trade him for the sake of trading him. Just seems like the right chip for teams looking for help now who also want a player for more than just this season.
 
Some sort of combination between Kreider + Vesey or Buchnevich + Vesey in a package deal to get 7/8 OA? Maybe factor a small add on our behalf, a halfway decent prospect?
 
RGY said:
He is a great Offensive* AHL Defenseman, nothing more. Move on.
Click to expand...
He’s pretty solid defensively when I’ve seen Hartford. Just not at an NHL level. I know people don’t care about Hartford usually but having a winning environment and good vets down there is important. I don’t like Gilmour either, but I’m just saying I’d re-sign him if Hartford didn’t have a logjam.
 
  • Like
Reactions: William Moneylander
Faceless said:
There is no way Buch+Vesey gets the 7OA.



I'd disagree. I think it has become clear that the teams philosophy is no longer to invest in aging players. I think these trades were both a combination of age+contract. I'd also argue the McD trade was a similar combination.

Turris is 29. He's not that good. And he's making 6 Mil for 5 more years.

Zucker is 27. He's OK. Making 5.5 for 4 more years.

If these guys were currently on the Rangers, we'd be talking about trading them. So why would we trade FOR them?

Also why would the Rangers have not just re-signed Hayes if they were interested in players of this ilk?
Click to expand...

I have no interest in Turris. I floated Zucker out there as a possibility based on the hints being thrown out, but Edge later clarified that our target(s) might not fully be on the list.

I dont think the age thing is anything more than they see their window starting in a season or two so signing mid level guys doesn't make much sense at the moment.
 
pld459666 said:
Unless its Ehlers, Marner or theNucks 1st, I have no interest in anything on that board.
Click to expand...

Think asset management. Roster management, depth management. Guys who can play this season and be a rental In February.

Think swaps and flips and picks to help move up.

Remember the guys are the board are the ones teams want or need to move, that plays into gortons preference to target teams and situations where players/assets are to be had at a good cost
 
I'm torn, I think they may be trying for picks, yet on the other hand I think they may be trying for players who fit in more with Zbad/Trouba.
 
ericmgomes said:
The players on that trade bait list, nothing, in particular, I'm thrilled about. If the Rangers want to make a civilized trade that isn't some sort of blockbuster, totally cool with that. I just hope we don't use Kreider and Buchnevich chips to cash in on that opportunity.
Click to expand...
Think one of those players on top of a 1st for Kreider/buchnevich

Not as the main piece or a one for one
 
  • Like
Reactions: ericmgomes
Trxjw said:
I think it's an either/or situation. Not both.
Click to expand...

Probably not. Would love to come away with two centers, but that's being greedy.

Kreider/Vesey plus a lower prospect (someone below Chytil/Andersson - maybe Rykov/Reunanon/Lindgren?) for 7 though? I would like that. Probably being too unrealistic.
 
TheKingsCourt said:
It's 9:45 in Vancouver, you can bet Gorton is finishing up breakfast and ready to get to work...
Click to expand...
tenor.gif
 
  • Like
Reactions: Alluckks, TheKingsCourt, Yankeekid07 and 2 others
Faceless said:
There is no way Buch+Vesey gets the 7OA.



I'd disagree. I think it has become clear that the teams philosophy is no longer to invest in aging players. I think these trades were both a combination of age+contract. I'd also argue the McD trade was a similar combination.

Turris is 29. He's not that good. And he's making 6 Mil for 5 more years.

Zucker is 27. He's OK. Making 5.5 for 4 more years.

If these guys were currently on the Rangers, we'd be talking about trading them. So why would we trade FOR them?

Also why would the Rangers have not just re-signed Hayes if they were interested in players of this ilk?
Click to expand...

I'm not trading futures for Zucker, but if Kreider doesn't get traded for a 1st+, and we aren't intending to re-sign him, trading him for Zucker is a good idea. For us, at least. I don't know if Minnesota would agree.

I guess it comes down to, would you rather have 27 year old Zucker @ 5.5 for 4 years, or re-sign 29 year old Kreider for 5+ years @ 6.5+ per year?

That's probably the only scenario where I see us trading for Zucker.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Faceless
RGY said:
We need @Edge to create a Twitter account with a fake alias, let us know what it is, and then live tweet his updates and tidbits tomorrow starting at 12 noon through the draft. Would be much easier than hitting refresh on these boards LOL
Click to expand...

I got a better idea.

@Edge tells me everything, I keep all of it secret and laugh while I get to watch everyone else freak out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GeorgeKaplan, Trxjw, Pizza and 1 other person
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom