Yep. Skate him on the bottom pairing and hopefully he's effective in that role for one season and can help mentor a rookie.
We don't need the cap space for this season. No need to rush the buyout.
Proposal: Roster Building Thread Part IV: High Hopes
- Thread starter Gardner McKay
- Start date
- Status
Yep. Skate him on the bottom pairing and hopefully he's effective in that role for one season and can help mentor a rookie.
We don't need the cap space for this season. No need to rush the buyout.
silverfish
got perma'd
Wait, now being in the middle, mired in mediocrity, and hoping one of our non-lottery first-round picks makes it big (luck) is the new way to build a team?
We're applauding mediocrity now?
Tawnos
A guy with a bass
It's not really two fewer carrying a Staal cap hit. It's one. 8 years from now is 2025. 6 years from next year is 2024. You have to account for us paying him this year too.
Two fewer years spent paying for someone not on the roster? Sure. The question is more one of which is better for next season: paying Staal $5.7m to suck or paying him less not to be here. Years beyond next year are the same either way.
If the plan is to buy him out anyway, just do it now.
Tawnos
A guy with a bass
silverfish
got perma'd
Not really, at least IMO.
Sather built the contending team we have now by getting astronomically lucky with a 7th round pick in 2000. Then he brought in free agents. Made some trades that "mortgaged the future" to go for it.
I see few similarities between the way Gorton and Sather have run these teams, despite the end-point being a 'mediocre' Rangers team. There are plenty of ways to get to mediocre. There are but a few ways to get to contender or bottom-dweller.
Anyway, I'm not as high on this off-season thus far as everyone else.
The Stepan trade was bad.
The Andersson pick was a reach.
B. Smith is overpaid.
Buying out Girardi was good.
The Shattenkirk deal is great, but how much of that was actually Gorton and how much of that was Shattenkirk?
DD - whatever move.
Not bridging Zibanejad was good.
Overall: Good.
Mac n Gs
Drury plz
- Jan 17, 2014
- 22,836
- 13,560
Just curious, what don't you like about the Andersson pick (if you separate the Stepan aspect from it)? I'm with you on Stepan in all facets. The narratives that built up around moving him were *********, and now we're hoping Kevin Hayes, whose has been in lala land for two years, and DD to replace Stepan in aggregate (good blog post btw
)
You wanted Gorton to trade the Chytil pick to dump Girardi. Keep Stepan. Keep Brassard. Keep pushing for the Cup with Lundqvist on the roster. How is the feasible? That's a better plan?
Savant
Registered User
- Oct 3, 2013
- 39,388
- 11,997
silverfish
got perma'd
Just curious, what don't you like about the Andersson pick (if you separate the Stepan aspect from it)? I'm with you on Stepan in all facets. The narratives that built up around moving him were *********, and now we're hoping Kevin Hayes, whose has been in lala land for two years, and DD to replace Stepan in aggregate (good blog post btw
It was a reach. He shouldn't have been the player selected at 7. I get that the Rangers loved him, but they should've done everything in their power to move down to 10-12 and grab him there. If no one was open to trading, they should've drafted a better player.
No. I wanted Gorton to trade the Chytil pick to dump Staal. I wanted to keep Stepan. I had no qualms with the Brassard trade, in fact I'm pretty sure I'm on record loving it at the time (EDIT - I read the thread. I have the first post in there where I'm undecided. 8 or so pages later when I've had time to digest it, I liked the trade, but questioned the path the Rangers were taking). Yeah, I want to keep pushing for the cup when we have the best goalie in the planet on our team. (read: one of the best in the league)
How is this feasible? Stop overpaying mediocre talent like Brendan Smith, for starters. Be smarter. You don't re-sign Smith. Keep Stepan. Sign Franson instead for dirt cheap. Still afford Shattenkirk. Yeah, yeah, yeah, Franson sucks. I'd much rather have Franson @ $1m than Smith at $4.35m.
Mittlestadt, Rasmussen, Tippet, Vilardi.
Last edited:
Tawnos
A guy with a bass
Revisionist history if I ever saw it.
11-12 was the first year of the window. Of the 21 players who played in the playoffs that year, 11 were Rangers draft picks or UDFAs. Another two were picks of other teams who broke into the league with the Rangers (Boyle, McDonagh). Two were shrewd bargain pickups (Stralman, Mitchell). One was acquired via trade (Prust). 4 were regular UFAs (Richards, Gaborik, Fedotenko, Rupp). The last is Eminger.
That team was largely homegrown. 15/21 essentially breaking into the league with the Rangers. Nearly every one of the 15 was brought to the Rangers by Sather during a period of so-called mediocrity.
So yeah, Dubinsky and Anisimov get traded for Nash. Del Zotto gets traded for Klein. Callahan gets traded for St. Louis. And over the years, Boyle, Mitchell, Stralman, Hagelin, and Bickel all move on for other reasons, many of them cap restrictions. Gaborik gets traded for some of the depth we lost in the Nash deal, part of which ends up getting us Yandle. Some of those players get replaced by more homegrown assets like Zuccarello. And yeah, other prospects and first round picks get traded for "missing pieces." The 13-14 team had a grand total of 2 typical "Rangers" UFA signings: Richards and D. Moore. The other UFA who hadn't been on the 11-12 team was Pouliot, who more or less falls in the same category as Stralman. Everyone else was either a draft pick, UDFA, or trade.
But that team was built from young assets acquired during a period of mediocrity. You joined in 2008. Don't you remember all the predictions about how we will always be mediocre unless we tank?
Last edited:
He overrating of Franson is ridiculous
Lundqvist is also no longer the best goalie on the planet
Lundqvist is also no longer the best goalie on the planet
silverfish
got perma'd
Is it that absurd to rather have Franson at $1m than Smith at $4.35m allowing you to keep Stepan and sign Shattenkirk? I feel like it's not. But that's me.
Fair on Lundqvist. Exaggeration got the best of me, but I know when RB calls me out like that it's not just the next season he's talking about. He's referring to the past 7 years I've wanted the Rangers to push.
Off Sides
Registered User
- Sep 8, 2008
- 9,755
- 5,585
I thought I was the only one who thought they over payed for Smith. And likely Zbad too by the NMC, and was not thrilled with the return for Stepan.
It's not that I believe they are bad moves, I just am wondering what they are trying to be, if it's a legit contender I don't really see it, and if it's to rebuild on the fly, why are they renting Smith just to re-sign him, then adding in Shattenkirk too, Why is Nash or Zucc not moved?
To me it seems like they want two things, to make the playoffs/contend, and they want some sort of good pipeline, yet I don't see how either of those things turns out awesome by doing both. The rules of the CBA, the supply and demand built in, the timing, they are fighting it by trying to contend and rebuild at the same time.
It's not that I believe they are bad moves, I just am wondering what they are trying to be, if it's a legit contender I don't really see it, and if it's to rebuild on the fly, why are they renting Smith just to re-sign him, then adding in Shattenkirk too, Why is Nash or Zucc not moved?
To me it seems like they want two things, to make the playoffs/contend, and they want some sort of good pipeline, yet I don't see how either of those things turns out awesome by doing both. The rules of the CBA, the supply and demand built in, the timing, they are fighting it by trying to contend and rebuild at the same time.
Gardner McKay
RIP, Jimmy.
Yeah it is. Smith fits well here. There is no way to know if Franson would do well here. I know GM's make mistakes all the time but there seems to be a reason that Franson still hasn't been signed.
Hire Sather
He Is Our Star
Savant
Registered User
- Oct 3, 2013
- 39,388
- 11,997
Andersson is safer than all of those players and more NHL ready.
If you want to make the argument the Rangers traded for the 7th pick in a draft with six players above and beyond the rest (I thought the Rangers thought they could get Makar, Pettersson or Glass) I can buy that. But I'm not buying that they reached for Andersson. If anything they reached for Chytil, but I am glad that they did. It's not a perfect science.
silverfish
got perma'd
Replying so you know I'm not ignoring you, but I have no desire to get into a conversation about the qualifications of players via GM opinions
If you believe scouting rankings, they unequivocally reached. And I think you're totally right that they went with the 'safe' guy. It seems that in the worst case scenario, LA is a good middle-6 center. But, his best case scenario and worst case scenario are awfully close, hence 'safe'.
Mittlestadt, Tippet, Vilardi, and Rasmussen are all further away from the NHL than Andersson is (though I'd argue that Tippet may be just as close), but I firmly believe they all have higher ceilings than LA does. Rasmussen is arguable, but Tippet, Mittlestadt, and Vilardi all have top-line potential because they all bring more offense to the table than LA.
Again, this is all my opinion.
I don't think Smith is that overpaid but the Staal Girardi contracts completely **** up the blue line pay structure and make paying anything more than bargain deals on other guys seems like too much
I wish they'd gotten some more out of the Stepan deal, I'm not super upset they traded him overall. Some kind of center in the return would have been preferable
I don't really have an opinion on the Andersson pick at this point, I think it's hard to make strong assertions about prospects at this point. Any of the other guys they picked there could easily bust or be underwhelming. It's not much of an exact science yet
I wish they'd gotten some more out of the Stepan deal, I'm not super upset they traded him overall. Some kind of center in the return would have been preferable
I don't really have an opinion on the Andersson pick at this point, I think it's hard to make strong assertions about prospects at this point. Any of the other guys they picked there could easily bust or be underwhelming. It's not much of an exact science yet
eco's bones
Registered User
It seems to me that the Rangers are taking a half to a full step back this year. They don't want to fall so far that they'll miss the playoffs but it's a bit of regrouping of things.
I think the window has closed on Lundqvist carrying the team through 4 playoff series on his own and that the Rangers are not going to be real contenders for a Cup until we have another goalie to take over from him and it's not Pavelec or Halverson. So this realigning of pieces and going younger while maintaining playoff viability is what they might be aiming for. With that in mind Nash, Zucc, Grabner and Staal are placeholders and the only one of them that might be around for the next time we start to push to the top is Zuccarello but it will have to happen kind of fast.
My hunch would be Nash who is on his last year of his contract will be gone by the TDL. Very good player but he always underwhelmed. Staal--I would buy out right now--there is no trade value--if not this year next year. Too much money for a bottom pairing d-man at best and IMO there are at least three rookies that would be better options this year than him.
Lion Hound
Pornhub Enthusiast
Here's the part that just doesn't make sense on a Staal buyout.
5 teams currently have buyout cap hits larger then NYR. All are teetering around the same amount as NYR cept for Vancouver who has 1 season left of a big $4.5 on Beauchemin.
If, Staal was to be bought out as well, the Rangers would pretty much double every other club in buyout cap. Is that the best plan for the team that plays in the biggest market?
5 teams currently have buyout cap hits larger then NYR. All are teetering around the same amount as NYR cept for Vancouver who has 1 season left of a big $4.5 on Beauchemin.
If, Staal was to be bought out as well, the Rangers would pretty much double every other club in buyout cap. Is that the best plan for the team that plays in the biggest market?
The Brassard trade was ok because we still had Stepan and got younger with Zibanejad.
The Stepan trade is horrible because we have no clue what we will get from Zibanejad as far as being a #1 center when he has struggled to maintain being a consistent #2 center. We know much less with Hayes. The guy seems dumb as rocks to me. He does play like he is in lala land most of the season as one poster just said. And he has been ATROCIOUS in the playoffs.
We still have Hank. The build of the team was not far off. They needed fo rid of themselves of Girardi and add Shattenkirk. Yes they did not know they would get him for only 4 years but cmon you had to know you could get him for near that cap hit and couldve planned accordingly. You had already known you added Pionk and Beargloves, and while ADA has more upside, he isnt completely necessary with all the depth we have. Heck Pionk could potentially beat him out in camp. Then this looks even worse. This team still has Hank. The window is still open and just needed re-tooling. The right re-tooling. Im with Silverfish's distaste for the Stepan trade. Andersson is definitely a reach at #7 overall.
I disagree with SF about Smith though. He may be overpaid by $300K or so but he was a great re-signing
Smith is in no way overpaid for how he produces. Compare his Hero chart to Jacob Slavinhttps://public.tableau.com/shared/KTCM38C4W?:display_count=yes who just go paid for 7 years at over 5 million per year or even Brian Dumoulin https://public.tableau.com/shared/H5MZ42MWB?:display_count=yes. I would state that he is somewhere between those two players in talent. The average yearly value of his contract is between both of them. I would argue that he is very fairly paid, especially since it is only a 4 year contract.
Tawnos
A guy with a bass
And then there's the in between, which is that I don't think at all the Andersson was a reach at 7, but I do think that the return on Stepan+Raanta was disappointing. There either should have been a 3rd asset in there or the prospect/young player should have been one of the Coyotes promising young Cs.
BobMarleyNYR
Rangers future on D
Remember Yakupov after year 2? It's similar proportionately, but Buchnevich is a rookie and the separation of his League-wide value to his worth to us is so huge that a trade involving him should be grounds for a new GM.
A straight-up would get us either a bottom-six C or a 2nd depending on the team. To the Rangers, he SHOULD be worth a top-10 pick. As far as forward prospects go, he seems to be all there is in terms of 1st liners.
I don't think they took a step back, more a step sideways. I guess maybe it more hinges on how well Pavelec does as the backup.
I think the defense is vastly improved but the center position is weaker. They balance out IMO with the possibility of the team being better if the defense really performs well.
I think people also aren't looking at what management is doing realistically. Or at least, people are saying "I think they should do this and management isn't doing that". The Rangers are obviously still trying to position themselves to make another run at the cup, while also trying to get younger to keep the team competitive in the future. People may not agree that what they're doing furthers those ends, but if they really though "we can't/don't want to contend' tehy would trade assets like Nash, Zucc, etc
- Status
