Speculation: Roster Building Thread LXXX: Going 8-0 to close out might not be enough!

[True Blue]

No one ever said it must be straight up.

Then what does a trade profile look like? Serious question.

 

[rangersfansince08]

Are there any Patrick Maroon/Josh Anderson types available in upcoming FA? Preferably 2 years from now.

 

[mas0764]

Again, trading for a young top 6 center is not the same thing as trading for a prospect who may one day be a top 6 center. So now we are trading for a young top-6 center. Ok. What is the trade profile look like? For that matter, what does a complete deal look like? That is a more worthy discussion.

I gave you a template that I notice you conveniently omitted any reference to in your reply, the Mark Stone trade.

Neither one of these trades involve trading a young top line player for a prospect that has never played in the NHL. Try again.

I literally just named one.

And again, this caveat you are putting in place is arbitrary.

If Brassard can be traded for Zibanejad then Buch can be traded for Lundell. It's the same level of projection required.

That is all you have ever centered on. So now we are moving goalposts. That is fine. At least they are moving in the right direction.

It's not moving the goalposts, it's the crux of the entire argument. A Buch-for-Lundell trade would make sense for both teams, and is eminently possible.

If you are going to insist on worthless throw-ins to make sure it's not "1-to-1" that can also be accomplished with ease, but the framework remains the same.

Sentiment stands. If you do not want comments than you can either be in a private space. Or feel free to block me. Both work fine.

Blocking people is a bitch move.

Just calling a spade a spade.

 

[LokiDog]

While hardly common place, we managed to trade Gomez for a McDonagh who hadn’t played in the NHL yet. Also, more often than prospects, but you see guys dealt for picks, which are just as unproven. And as someone pointed out, the situation is a bit closer to unprecedented territory as it’s very rare for a team to have a 26 year old top line performing winger and not have room for him in their plans. Since that type of situation doesn’t come along too often, the type of trade that may result may also be on the rarer side.

If you think of Buch as Laine-ish (better player, way less hype, a few years older) than maybe that’s the type of package we should be looking for in return. I’d love Lindholm for Buch.

 

[mas0764]

Then what does a trade profile look like? Serious question.

I gave you the Stone trade as an example.

 

[rangersfansince08]

There is a balance at play here, bc if we purely stay the course and we year to year reinforce this type of team and characteristics that help make the group ineffective in tight games that are physical and lack space than we will just keep down the same path with a team that can win against bad teams and be handled consistently by the good ones. I believe the org will start to make those changes this summer.

Agree. A large part of our hopes also rest on Chytil, Laf, Kakko, Kravstov and Miller being physical players. Those are all big guys.

I understand.

I believe that it was not just us saying no. I believe that Lafreniere is on a Rangers "No" list.

You are right about cap consideration. And those types of trades do in fact get made. But not so much when discussing young top liners.

For the record, I think that Buchnevich will in fact get moved. But I just fee like it will not be so much for one prospect that can one day be a top-2 line center. I think it would be more to help diversify the every day roster. Now that deal may in fact include a prospect or a pick, sure. But that, IMO, will not be the sole consideration for Buch.

Would you trade Buch for two physical third line players (lets say 30-40 pt potential)? I make that trade without thinking any day.

 

[Oscar Lindberg]

Larry out here letting the normies know Quinn is on the clock with his latest lol

 

[bleedblue94]

I understand.

I believe that it was not just us saying no. I believe that Lafreniere is on a Rangers "No" list.

You are right about cap consideration. And those types of trades do in fact get made. But not so much when discussing young top liners.

For the record, I think that Buchnevich will in fact get moved. But I just fee like it will not be so much for one prospect that can one day be a top-2 line center. I think it would be more to help diversify the every day roster. Now that deal may in fact include a prospect or a pick, sure. But that, IMO, will not be the sole consideration for Buch.

I know he produces, but I see buch much more as a 2nd liner. His eye test production in many (NOT ALL) seem to come from great plays by others more often than not, but he has the skill to capitalize on those plays and his addition of solid defense is terrific. I guess what I am getting at is there are 1st line players that drive and make the 1st line, and then there are the complimentary players that can play with 1st line players. I think pitt is a great example of what I mean where they have a long list of those kind of players that have played with sid over the years. I LOVE buch, I love him more for his attitude and push back than anything. He may know he is going to get manhandled by someone but he doesnt back down and we need more of that. That is the part I am more worried about in losing him than I am his production bc I think we have internal options that will offer the same production soon, although they will lack the rest of his game.

 

[mas0764]

While hardly common place, we managed to trade Gomez for a McDonagh who hadn’t played in the NHL yet. Also, more often than prospects, but you see guys dealt for picks, which are just as unproven. And as someone pointed out, the situation is a bit closer to unprecedented territory as it’s very rare for a team to have a 26 year old top line performing winger and not have room for him in their plans. Since that type of situation doesn’t come along too often, the type of trade that may result may also be on the rarer side.

If you think of Buch as Laine-ish (better player, way less hype, a few years older) than maybe that’s the type of package we should be looking for in return. I’d love Lindholm for Buch.

The examples are probably endless of established top 6 players being traded for prospects, yet someone is insisting it never happens.

 

[LokiDog]

I mean in the end it's a pointless argument because

Buchnevich for Lundell

and

Buchnevich, 7th round pick, Hunter Skinner for Lundell, Heponiemi, 4th round pick

Are essentially the same trade. Quibbling about 'one for one has never happened' is kind of pointless, and an effort to end a valid conversation for no particular reason other than pedantry.

We don't need pedantry on a sports message board

Give this man a medal and a glass of scotch.

 

[mas0764]

That is a bit disingenuous, if stone had term on his contract or rights than that trade doesn't happen.

Also, most of the deals you mentioned got one gm put under extreme pressure shortly after bc of how the deal was viewed, and in most cases the concerns proved legit

Buch doesn't have term on his contract.

And it is not disingenuous at all - you are merely observing that the team possessing the established player had motive to move that established player for a prospect.

Ottawa had motive - Stone did not have term and Ottawa was entering a rebuild and thus valued prospects.

The Rangers have similar motive - Buch does not have affordable term for the role he is soon to be slotted for, and we are seeking a young center and thus would value a prospect like Lundell.

If Buch was currently signed for 3 more years at $4m a season, yes, we probably aren't having this conversation. Might be a lesson to be learned here about bridge contracts, btw.

As for the GM angle, Gorton couldn't be on a safer seat right now. And if he flips Buch for a young center that seat likely gets way safer.

 

[Cag29]

More Blackbeard

Boy it’s a good thing Quinn is giving Blackwell 1st PP time. It’s important for his development next season. .
I like what Blackwell has done but let’s look at one of the kids in that spot.

 

[bleedblue94]

Buch doesn't have term on his contract.

And it is not disingenuous at all - you are merely observing that the team possessing the established player had motive to move that established player for a prospect.

Ottawa had motive - Stone did not have term and Ottawa was entering a rebuild and thus valued prospects.

The Rangers have similar motive - Buch does not have affordable term for the role he is soon to be slotted for, and we are seeking a young center and thus would value a prospect like Lundell.

If Buch was currently signed for 3 more years at $4m a season, yes, we probably aren't having this conversation. Might be a lesson to be learned here about bridge contracts, btw.

As for the GM angle, Gorton couldn't be on a safer seat right now. And if he flips Buch for a young center that seat likely gets way safer.

I said term or rights, buch has 2 more years of control, he isnt a pending ufa in 3 months

again, comparing stone at the dealine just prior to ufa is not the same as buch's situation. there are plenty of examples of stone's situation, not many of what you are suggesting. that doesn't mean it cant happen, I am just saying it isnt as common as you are suggesting

it is possible buch signs 3 years for 4.5-5, we dont know and they will have extension talks.

the gm angle wasnt to suggest gorts was in trouble, it was the highlight that the types of trades you are suggesting usually work out poorly for one of the gms in the deal. If your deal was made and buch goes to flo and regresses (he consistently seems to play his best with zib and, well zib) while lundell comes here and blossoms with the offensive talent we have here than that becomes and issue. Most teams dont want to trade the top prospects with even potential elite offensive upside until they see them in this league to get an idea what they have. Lundell will be no different bc no one ever seems to know what the kids will do in the nhl, especially those coming from euro leagues. That's exactly why people are so hesitant to talk about trading nils until he is here and we see what we have at the nhl level

 

[rangersfansince08]

Buch doesn't have term on his contract.

And it is not disingenuous at all - you are merely observing that the team possessing the established player had motive to move that established player for a prospect.

Ottawa had motive - Stone did not have term and Ottawa was entering a rebuild and thus valued prospects.

The Rangers have similar motive - Buch does not have affordable term for the role he is soon to be slotted for, and we are seeking a young center and thus would value a prospect like Lundell.

If Buch was currently signed for 3 more years at $4m a season, yes, we probably aren't having this conversation. Might be a lesson to be learned here about bridge contracts, btw.

As for the GM angle, Gorton couldn't be on a safer seat right now. And if he flips Buch for a young center that seat likely gets way safer.

Which team has a good prospect they could offer for Buch? I'd even add a first and second round pick if we can a big physical second line center on an ELC.

 

[DutchShamrock]

There is a balance at play here, bc if we purely stay the course and we year to year reinforce this type of team and characteristics that help make the group ineffective in tight games that are physical and lack space than we will just keep down the same path with a team that can win against bad teams and be handled consistently by the good ones. I believe the org will start to make those changes this summer.

There is certainly a balance. But there is a difference in altering your organization by trading a Lundkvist for Newhook and signing Danault at 29 when he is looking for big money.

My big thing is what do we know? We didn't learn a ton about our youth. Kakko could be a relentless defensive forward. Lafreniere could have a mean streak and edge. Is chytil definitely a center? Basically, do we want to make a resounding change when we could have answers here? I'm all for supplemental help. I'm all for cheap, short term answers like Blackwood. But I'm very gun shy about moving on from any of the kids after a bad April.

 

[bleedblue94]

Which team has a good prospect they could offer for Buch? I'd even add a first and second round pick if we can a big physical second line center on an ELC.

why do we want to only focus on prospects for a roster that has holes that need nhl players to fill them?

I think there will be players available this summer that people may not now realize will be out there. Some teams are going to make big changes and there will be domino affects, especially in a capped out league.

 

[bleedblue94]

There is certainly a balance. But there is a difference in altering your organization by trading a Lundkvist for Newhook and signing Danault at 29 when he is looking for big money.

My big thing is what do we know? We didn't learn a ton about our youth. Kakko could be a relentless defensive forward. Lafreniere could have a mean streak and edge. Is chytil definitely a center? Basically, do we want to make a resounding change when we could have answers here? I'm all for supplemental help. I'm all for cheap, short term answers like Blackwood. But I'm very gun shy about moving on from any of the kids after a bad April.

I agree with your last statements and I think that is part of why people are so frustrated with deployment recently. We could have used more games to see what we have in these young players to help make more informed decisions this summer. That being said, I think NYR is going to do at least one substantial trade for a known NHL player who will address one of the glaring issues here. I think last summer they wanted to make some changes and kind of accepted when the right scenarios didn't play out, figured lets give this group another year and see, but this team doubled down this season with what we saw in the bubble and I think NYR will aggressively look to make one or two key moves to address those issues, moves that make fans lose their shit about the values of a trade.

 

[mas0764]

I said term or rights, buch has 2 more years of control, he isnt a pending ufa in 3 months

again, comparing stone at the dealine just prior to ufa is not the same as buch's situation. there are plenty of examples of stone's situation, not many of what you are suggesting. that doesn't mean it cant happen, I am just saying it isnt as common as you are suggesting

it is possible buch signs 3 years for 4.5-5, we dont know and they will have extension talks.

the gm angle wasnt to suggest gorts was in trouble, it was the highlight that the types of trades you are suggesting usually work out poorly for one of the gms in the deal. If your deal was made and buch goes to flo and regresses (he consistently seems to play his best with zib and, well zib) while lundell comes here and blossoms with the offensive talent we have here than that becomes and issue. Most teams dont want to trade the top prospects with even potential elite offensive upside until they see them in this league to get an idea what they have. Lundell will be no different bc no one ever seems to know what the kids will do in the nhl, especially those coming from euro leagues. That's exactly why people are so hesitant to talk about trading nils until he is here and we see what we have at the nhl level

I'm not suggesting this kind of thing is common at all. I have said just today in fact that it would be an outlier.

This is the genesis of this little debate: People have been speculating and Edge has now made clear that the Rangers are probably looking to deal Buch for young, developing center help. Whether that is a player in the NHL or not is not clear, presumably they might first look at someone who is young and already in the league but there is no reason to think they wouldn't be interested at all in a player like Lundell who they LOVED at the last draft, and when they were willing to trade Buch for the 8OA just one draft earlier. Not coincidentally, the poster who a few months ago was railing against trading Buch at all because "who else is going to play RW, it's not going to be Kravtsov because he hasn't proven anything yet," now that Kravtsov has actually proven he can in fact play in the NHL and has made Buch expendable, is now taking the position that Buch can't be traded for a prospect because "it never happens."

But it does happen.

Proposing Buch for Lundell is my opinion, as well as a handful of other posters' opinion apparently, as to what the best looking return would be for us. The Rangers may disagree and the Panthers may really disagree so I am under no delusions that this deal is something I should be counting on; but it IS worth talking about just like all the other hypothetical trades we throw out there. As long as they are based on reality - ie, we aren't proposing dealing Tarmo Reunanen straight up for Connor McDavid - then there is no need to try to silence this discussion as one poster is trying to do.

A deal that centers around Buch and Lundell as the centerpieces - with adjustments from either or both sides - has historical NHL value precedent not even that long ago, and since in some people's opinion it would be a best-case outcome for dealing Buch, it is worth discussing. And if not Lundell, we can feel free to talk about substitutes (Barrett Hayton? Etc).

But what is not productive is being dismissive under the pretense that "first line players are never traded for prospects," when in fact it has happened not even that long ago that first line players were traded for prospects.

 

[Avery16]

Can’t imagine Brooks writing what he wrote unless he’s heard something from either the player side or the FO side about Quinn.

Maybe it has something to do with Panarin getting held out. If there isn’t an injury/maintenance issue, Quinn can GTFO

 

[DutchShamrock]

I agree with your last statements and I think that is part of why people are so frustrated with deployment recently. We could have used more games to see what we have in these young players to help make more informed decisions this summer. That being said, I think NYR is going to do at least one substantial trade for a known NHL player who will address one of the glaring issues here. I think last summer they wanted to make some changes and kind of accepted when the right scenarios didn't play out, figured lets give this group another year and see, but this team doubled down this season with what we saw in the bubble and I think NYR will aggressively look to make one or two key moves to address those issues, moves that make fans lose their shit about the values of a trade.

I agree. But I guess that is what I mean between different types of moves. We have a center hole that won't be fixed internally. I cringe at the idea of Danault. Between the age and projected contract, he isn't a fit for me. Making a trade with LA for a rookie, top 6 projected center at the cost of a RD prospect is understandable. I just don't want to over react to the Isles losses and try to be something we aren't.

 

[Pawnee Rangers]

Boy it’s a good thing Quinn is giving Blackwell 1st PP time. It’s important for his development next season. .
I like what Blackwell has done but let’s look at one of the kids in that spot.

Panarin didn't skate this morning, assuming Blackwell was just a stand in.

 

[CLW]

I'm not picking on you, but a few months ago the Laf for Eichel thing was kicked around and we said no to the idea. I understand the point you are trying to make, but sometimes capspace/hit comes into the roll of the dice decisions. Quite honestly I have no idea what gms are going to do this summer. I feel like this summer could be the summer of wild shit happening that is outside of what we normally see in the hockey world.

Feels like that to me as well. There have been few relatively quiet trade deadlines/seasons now. With the flat cap squeeze/space, expansion draft, post-covid situation (hopefully), realignment of teams competing for the SFC etc and built up needs this summer could provide some fireworks on the trade front.

 

[Pawnee Rangers]

Are there any Patrick Maroon/Josh Anderson types available in upcoming FA? Preferably 2 years from now.

Nick Foligno would be a good get in the offseason.

 

[mas0764]

Which team has a good prospect they could offer for Buch? I'd even add a first and second round pick if we can a big physical second line center on an ELC.

I'm way less likely to deal Buch for a player, even a young player, if that player has established himself as nothing more than a second line center in a 40 point mold.

I would much rather gamble on a player with some upside.

Florida really strikes me as a team that would be at the top of the list for Buch. They are in a little bit of a win-now environment. Quennville isn't there to win next decade, he's there to make a splash now. They have a #1 Center in the prime of his career in Barkov (a player they probably need to convince to stay with a little success). They have a #1D in Ekblad, if they think he'll recover. They have a highly paid goalie and a young stud goalie to ride into the playoffs. They have a 2nd star in Huberdeau.

What Florida seems to be missing is complimentary wing depth. Adding a 60 point winger to play next to Barkov or Huberdeau would give that team quite a boost. This is a team that because of it's non-traditional market and thus, it's cash flow problems, probably would have some trouble consistently attracting top free agents (yes, I know they just signed Bobrovsky last offseason, that's why I said "consistently"). They are a team that needs to be winning to put butts in seats and thus be profitable. It's a team that probably needs to show it's stars it has a cast around them that can win to retain Barkov. Yes Buch does not have a contract, but he is restricted, and so if Florida is willing to tender him, no one is going to give up the required draft pick compensation to raid him away. Buch can be theirs for the duration of a long-term deal to play with Barkov and Huberdeau. That's a 26 year old first line winger, all for a prospect who isn't in the NHL yet. I know Lundell is a top asset, but they are hoping Lundell turns into a 60 point player - meanwhile, they can have one NOW and who can help them be financially solvent and able to retain their stars. That's a big appeal for them.

Another team you think of might be Vegas if they weren't so strapped against the cap. But you think of that scenario as perhaps the Rangers take back a contract AND a center prospect (or two) like Glass and/or Krebs and send Buch out there.

A final team I can think of -- off the top of my head -- would be the Kings, simply because they have centers in abundance and might want to convert some of that talent to NHL-ready wingers to support those young centers.

Not sure about in-the-league options. Others would be better to speak about that.

I love a player like Alex Newhook but not sure I see the motivation for Colorado to do that deal.

 

[CLW]

The examples are probably endless of established top 6 players being traded for prospects, yet someone is insisting it never happens.

I gave the Pacioretty example that returned Suzuki (13th, 2017), Tatar +2nd. Buch for Lundell (12th, 2020) is roughly in the same territory.