Speculation: Roster Building Thread: Part LII

  • 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.
imo Fast might have gotten us a 2nd but its more possible it would have been a 3rd so im not bummed by him staying. I think even if we lose him we did right by him and let him finish the season with us and he deserves a pay day more than what we would be willing to give so hopefully that happens for him. I can't honestly say i cant remember a night where his work ethic was an issue, now he deserves to get paid.
 
This means nothing.

They can still sign him when free agency starts. Very likely that they didn't want to commit anything to him right now before knowing whats going to happen with other players.

He may walk, but at the end of the day we're probably looking at a mid-late 2nd if he were moved. I'd like to have one in this draft, but its hardly the end of the world.

At the time, I don't believe anyone offered higher than a third for Fast. So much has happened since then, I hope I am remembering that correctly from conversations I had.

I think the Rangers ultimately decided that for another third round pick, they'd rather have Fast for the stretch-run and maybe even a playoff berth.
 
How is it that the Isles are probably the only team that muscles up on the 4th line knowing very well that nearly every team in the league is weak on the 4th and that they'll win that match up 9x out of 10?

They pay for that 4th line but it also comes with a huge advantage.

Super smart way to go about things.

Playing 3 lines is for idiots..
 
no one was giving a 2nd rounder for Jesper Fast, wishful thinking reinforced by other wishful thinkers

not a center, not a physical force, never hit 15 goals, never hit 35 points. a 3rd sounds right and keeping him was more valuable than that
 
This means nothing.

They can still sign him when free agency starts. Very likely that they didn't want to commit anything to him right now before knowing whats going to happen with other players.

He may walk, but at the end of the day we're probably looking at a mid-late 2nd if he were moved. I'd like to have one in this draft, but its hardly the end of the world.
I'm not giving up on the Quickie staying dream just yet.
 
  • Like
Reactions: egelband
Saw a lot of discussion around DeAngelo in this thread.

If we really need to make a decision as to which RFA to pay and which to trade, its DeAngelo over Strome every day of the week and twice on sunday. It is so much harder to find a RHD that can put up 60 points and drive possession than it is to find almost every other position with the exception of Center. And I dont really consider Strome a Center, more of just someone who can pass off as a Center but isn’t great at the position - certainly not with the defensive demands of it. And on top of that DeAngelo is 24 entering his prime when he is really starting to figure out how to light it up at the NHL level.

The problem is that DeAngelo will absolutely bring back more in a trade. However, I’d rather settle for a “lesser” return trading Strome if we are not getting a blue chip piece for Tony. I am talking names like the Tkachuk brothers, Barkov (yes i know he is nearing FA anyway), DeBrusk, etc. So if youre not getting a significant return then I am happy to take the return for Strome. Buchnevich almost landed us the 8th overall pick at last years draft according to @Edge ... maybe Strome can get you in the 8-12 range this year so you can draft a Center and then sign a stopgap short term while keeping DeAngelo.
 
Last edited:
In a year where there was a consensus #4 no less.
That was a different time. Like look at the trades around the Sedins. Those guys were consensus top 4 players as well. Arguable #1 & 2 back then. (even though Stefan seemed like the consensus #1)

First Vancouver trades Bryan McCabe for the #4OA - he had promise but was just a 21 pt, -11 player back then. That would be like Noah Hanafin getting the #4OA today. Or if we are generous, Provorov, Nurse, or Ristolainen. Or even ADA.
Then #1OA was traded from Tampa to Vancouver for the #4OA + 3rd + 3rd WTF, not happening even in an EA title.
The Vancouver flipped the #1OA to Atlanta for #2OA + 3rd. This one was just weird because they could have just taken a Sedin and let Atlanta take Stefan but Atlanta was willing to give Vancouver a 3rd just for the honor of selecting first or something. It might have made sense if Atlanta held the draft gun to Vancouver's head and said "we're taking a Sedin at #2 unless you give US something" so really bizarre in my opinion. I do remember the Sedin's being like "we're twins. we will play together or not at all" so there was some soft pressure to not draft only one of them but still. weird trade.

Of course despite all these weirdly terrible trades by today's standards, Neil Smith had to be a man ahead of the times and trade:
#4OA for Sundstrom, Cloutier, a 1st (which turned out to be the #8OA in 2000) + 3rd
 
  • Like
Reactions: egelband
Saw a lot of discussion around DeAngelo in this thread.

If we really need to make a decision as to which RFA to pay and which to trade, its DeAngelo over Strome every day of the week and twice on sunday. It is so much harder to find a RHD that can put up 60 points and drive possession than it is to find almost every other position with the exception of Center. And I dont really consider Strome a Center, more of just someone who can pass off as a Center but isn’t great at the position - certainly not with the defensive demands of it. And on top of that DeAngelo is 24 entering his prime when he is really starting to figure out how to light it up at the NHL level.

The problem is that DeAngelo will absolutely bring back more in a trade. However, I’d rather settle for a “lesser” return trading Strome if we are not getting a blue chip piece for Tony. I am talking names like the Tkachuk brothers, Barkov (yes i know he is nearing FA anyway), DeBrusk, etc. So if youre not getting a significant return then I am happy to take the return for Strome. Buchnevich almost landed us the 8th overall pick at last years draft according to @Edge ... maybe Strome can get you in the 8-12 range this year so you can draft a Center and then sign a stopgap short term while keeping DeAngelo.
Agree. Man, Zegras for Buchnevich would have been so sweet. If Strome can get us into the 8-12 range, cue up those GMJG magician pics! I would be ecstatic for such a return.
 
Agree. Man, Zegras for Buchnevich would have been so sweet. If Strome can get us into the 8-12 range, cue up those GMJG magician pics! I would be ecstatic for such a return.
Zegras is some player. Huge fan of his. Would have been nice to have him in the pipeline too. But then again maybe we dont end up where we are right now with the #1 pick.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Leetch3
This may be unpopular with some and I said it last offseason, I would love to have Brassard back. He competes and just shows up in the playoffs. He is costing the Islanders pennies.
 
This may be unpopular with some and I said it last offseason, I would love to have Brassard back. He competes and just shows up in the playoffs. He costing the Islanders pennies.

As a 3C? Yeah, maybe, but that's only because it's a terrible free agency class and we need a 2C/3C desperately. Brassard will be one of the few legitimate C on the market.
 
I like the Zegras ideas but I'd really like to get Turcotte on this team
 
I’m really not interested in trading roster players for futures. Roster players, at this stage of things, should be traded to adjust the roster mixture. I mean, isn’t this what the mantra of everyone who clamors first BPA in every draft is? If you end up with extra players at one position, you trade them for players at a position you’re not as strong in. Granted, the RD issue didn’t come from drafts, but from trades. It’s the same thing though. RD is the position of strength for them to trade from.

I don’t have any problem holding onto DeAngelo for one more season, but if, as we suspect, the Rangers see Trouba and Fox as the top two, then they should be exploring trades now to do what I mentioned above. If they do keep him for another season, I’d like to see long-term experiments with him on the left.

we need to stop thinking about individual trades in a bubble...players, prospects, draft picks and cap space are all assets used to make the team better and its not always a single move...

lets say we decide that we are better overall by replacing ADA with a 2C, well what are the odds that a team that wants ADA also is willing to trade a center that we want? that would make life easier but its pretty unlikely and to avoid just settling for the C that team has, there is a good chance that this 'move' would actually be multiple moves. if you move ada for 'futures' and then move 'futures' for a 2C then the end result is what you wanted. ADA should only be moved if its for a young potential 1C or young potential top pair LHD but it might end up being multiple moves...

and as far as trading roster players for futures in general...not saying that we are at this point yet, but in the ideal world when you look at the 'life cycle of a team' as players get older and price themselves out of their roles from a cap hit stand point, you will ideally have players in the system that can be promoted and back-fill those positions. and in the perfect world you can move those aging players for future assets that will later become the young players that replace that next guy and so on. so i wouldn't say its always a bad thing...
 
we need to stop thinking about individual trades in a bubble...players, prospects, draft picks and cap space are all assets used to make the team better and its not always a single move...

lets say we decide that we are better overall by replacing ADA with a 2C, well what are the odds that a team that wants ADA also is willing to trade a center that we want? that would make life easier but its pretty unlikely and to avoid just settling for the C that team has, there is a good chance that this 'move' would actually be multiple moves. if you move ada for 'futures' and then move 'futures' for a 2C then the end result is what you wanted. ADA should only be moved if its for a young potential 1C or young potential top pair LHD but it might end up being multiple moves...

and as far as trading roster players for futures in general...not saying that we are at this point yet, but in the ideal world when you look at the 'life cycle of a team' as players get older and price themselves out of their roles from a cap hit stand point, you will ideally have players in the system that can be promoted and back-fill those positions. and in the perfect world you can move those aging players for future assets that will later become the young players that replace that next guy and so on. so i wouldn't say its always a bad thing...

The problem is that you worry about backfilling when you’re already good. We aren’t, yet.

Also, I’m sorry, but none of this conversation strikes me as “Trade DeAngelo for futures and then trade those futures for what we need.” People aren’t discussing it that way. So, unless you have the second deal already lined up, you don’t make the first one.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mac n Gs
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Ad