Speculation: Roster Building Thread: New Season Edition

  • Work is still on-going to rebuild the site styling and features. Please report any issues you may experience so we can look into it. Click Here for Updates
Status
Not open for further replies.
I still don't understand why we're carrying 23 players.

Yeah, yeah I know Blais is injured. But like, why even carry Hajek? Can we not just call someone up from Hartford if D depth is needed at some point?

Hell, I'd carry 21. It's not as if the extra guys we're carrying (other than Blais) are better than replacements.
 
  • Love
Reactions: egelband
Tinordi stinks. Being forced to replace him will help us.

Gotta do it though

No argument from me on Tinordi. The issue being, he was probably going to be the first or second callup from Hartford at this point. So if he sucks (which I agree with), who's next?

I still don't understand why we're carrying 23 players.

Yeah, yeah I know Blais is injured. But like, why even carry Hajek? Can we not just call someone up from Hartford if D depth is needed at some point?

Hell, I'd carry 21.

I was saying this exact thing over the summer. Hartford isn't exactly far away for most of the season. Waive Hunt or Carpenter. I doubt they would be claimed. Carry the minimum number of players as long as possible
 
  • Like
Reactions: irishlaxburger2
No argument from me on Tinordi. The issue being, he was probably going to be the first or second callup from Hartford at this point. So if he sucks (which I agree with), who's next?

He wasn't next based on merit anyway. He was next based on age and experience.
 
No argument from me on Tinordi. The issue being, he was probably going to be the first or second callup from Hartford at this point. So if he sucks (which I agree with), who's next?



I was saying this exact thing over the summer. Hartford isn't exactly far away for most of the season. Waive Hunt or Carpenter. I doubt they would be claimed. Carry the minimum number of players as long as possible
It honestly feels irresponsible not to. You're just wasting potential accumulated cap space by paying Hajek and Hunt/Carpenter to not play.

And if injuries happen, hit up Hartford or the waiver wire for spot starts. Those guys are just as good/bad as what we're paying.
 
I still don't understand why we're carrying 23 players.

Yeah, yeah I know Blais is injured. But like, why even carry Hajek? Can we not just call someone up from Hartford if D depth is needed at some point?

Hell, I'd carry 21.

Once the Rangers get back from the quick B2B with MIN/WPG in games 2 and 3, they won't leave NYC for 2 weeks, probably can do some roster juggling after those two road games.
 
  • Like
Reactions: egelband and bobbop
No argument from me on Tinordi. The issue being, he was probably going to be the first or second callup from Hartford at this point. So if he sucks (which I agree with), who's next?
There is nobody next.

We don't have backup defensemen because we couldn't afford them.

we're hoping nobody gets hurt and when somebody does, it'll be Hajek and then some rando.

Some rando might be better than Tinordi so dilly dilly.
 
He wasn't next based on merit anyway. He was next based on age and experience.

So who would be next though? Robertson? Emberson? Scanlin? I would say that none of those guys should be in the NHL right now. That's all they have beyond Skinner and Welinski.

Again, I'm not crying about losing Tinordi, I thought this was a problem before losing Tinordi.
 
So who would be next though? Robertson? Emberson? Scanlin? I would say that none of those guys should be in the NHL right now. That's all they have beyond Skinner and Welinski.

Again, I'm not crying about losing Tinordi, I thought this was a problem before losing Tinordi.

Does it matter? If it gets to that point they can claim someone on waivers or trade a 6th or 7th pick for one of the million guys in the AHL with NHL experience. There's no issue of leverage when you're trying to trade for someone like that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: egelband
Will be interesting to see who they find to play D in the AHL since right now the Rangers only have 12 defenders signed to contracts, and 7 of those are with the Rangers.
 
Probably but the Rangers like Hajek. I'm still not convinced he doesn't get more games than Jones.
Sigh. Sad but true.

They're basically wasting $3M in accumulated cap space just to have him around. In a year where accumulated deadline space is at a premium.

If he was considerably better than a random replacement, fine. But he isn't.
 
half those guys are on ELCs lol, the others are on 1 or 2 year deals. So no, i don't think those are bargain contracts.

We have "fair" contracts like Fox, Zibanejad, Kreider, Lindgren, even Panarin (pre pandemic) and we have bad contracts like Trouba, Reaves, Goodrow. Shesty is on a good contract AAV wise but its too short, we're going to be f***ed once it expires.
Once Shesty's contract expires the Cap will be way higher and if they don't want to pay him 10 mil per then they will find a replacement. Reaves contract is done after this year and while Goodrow is overpaid he can be bought out and the terms are very favorable.
 
If they trade Gauthier after he did clear waivers ....and it is for another waiver player that cleared.....does the player we get in the deal have to clear waivers again if we try to insert him in our line up ASAP ? Anyone ?
 
If they trade Gauthier after he did clear waivers ....and it is for another waiver player that cleared.....does the player we get in the deal have to clear waivers again if we try to insert him in our line up ASAP ? Anyone ?
Pretty sure they're only required to go through waivers if we bring them up and then try to send them back down.

Unless they're on a waivers-exempt deal. So getting that type of player could be an interesting cap space trade.
 
  • Like
Reactions: egelband
REALLY surprised Gauthier didn't get picked up as a reclamation project for a basement team.

I think Gauthier is in Europe this time next year.
 
  • Like
Reactions: leetch99
If they trade Gauthier after he did clear waivers ....and it is for another waiver player that cleared.....does the player we get in the deal have to clear waivers again if we try to insert him in our line up ASAP ? Anyone ?

Two different things in that question,

They could trade for a player who cleared waivers, and not need to put him through waivers again.

However right now the Rangers only have like 200K in cap space and that is with Gauthier in the minors, so they would not be able to trade Gauthier out for a player to play on the NHL team without going over the cap.

My best guess, they trade a couple minor league forwards for a couple minor league defenders.
 
  • Like
Reactions: leetch99
The Athletic has the Rangers and Stars as teams which could disappoint this season. The Rangers will underperform their expectations and the Stars are one of the teams which could lose their playoff spot. Stars or Blues.


A lot. No, A LOT depends on the maturation of their key young players - LaF, Kakko, Chytil, Jones. If they all take steps forward then they should be okay.

I guess it depends on what the metric is for "disappointment" - minimum of ECF's or it's a bad year? They'll (and any other team) need a little luck to repeat or improve upon that even if that is the expectation.
 
A lot. No, A LOT depends on the maturation of their key young players - LaF, Kakko, Chytil, Jones. If they all take steps forward then they should be okay.

I guess it depends on what the metric is for "disappointment" - minimum of ECF's or it's a bad year? They'll (and any other team) need a little luck to repeat or improve upon that even if that is the expectation.
The article mentioned what we all know, that (pre-TDL at least) our metrics weren't great 5v5. I think it also said that if, for instance, Shesterkin's SV% dropped from .935 to .928, that could be worth something like 4 points in the standings. And they said couple that with a regression on either side of special teams, and we would be more like a 100-point team than a 110-point team. They did note that progression from the young guys could offset some of that, and closed with "Consider the Rangers due for a bit of regression but pump the breaks on wholehearted collapse." I think what they said here is pretty close to what most of us here know/believe to be true about our team this season.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad