Speculation: Roster Building Thread: Part LXXIII

[True Blue]

Also I disagree that the "gathering of prospects," is entirely done.

The raw sell off phase is done. The stockpiling of any asset as a pure asset is done.

The targeted acquisition of young top talent at positions of need is not done and is never done. We all know the Rangers are still in the hunt for a 23 or under 1C type; hence the rumors that they are after guys like Eichel or PLD.

I don't buy that they wouldn't consider close-to-ready NHL talents that they are high on like Zegras.

You preached the same thing at the deadline. Nothing remotely close occurred. Unless said prospect can step in this year and make an impact, the time of dealing production for picks and prospects has come and gone. Not unless they have absolutely no other option whatsoever.

 

[RGY]

 

[Off Sides]

I think the Rangers would trade ADA for Zegras in less time than it took for me to type this.

 

[Shesterkybomb]

Nonsense says who? You? There is NOTHING to indicate that management is trading production for prospects. It is known that they love Zegras and he just had a fantastic junionrs. Is that enough for Gorton trade a 24 year old RD who was just pacing 60 points? I am not Gorton or JD and I do not play them on tv, but a move that significantly weakens the team when they have talked about competing they way that they have would be odd. COULD it happen? Sure. Anything could. But I am just not seeing it. On either side. And frankly the further you get away from Zegras, the less likely it gets.

Ill drive Deangelo to the airport if we got Zegras for him.

 

[mas0764]

I think the Rangers would trade ADA for Zegras in less time than it took for me to type this.

Of course they would. To suggest otherwise is ridiculous.

And I also think it's absurd to say the list would stop there, at Zegras.

It might not be a long list, but I'd guess it has some other names on it as well - names we know they were high on like Lundell.

The question is, where is the cut off for how good they have to feel about the prospect and how far from the NHL is he, versus how much current production (and for how long) are you giving up in the NHL?

They obviously liked Kreider long term (7 years) and thus decided to keep him rather than parlaying him into the assets that probably could have secured a guy like Lundell in the draft. But they clearly CONSIDERED moving Kreider.

And to suggest in one post that you predict the organization will decide to move on from ADA in favor of Schneider, and then in the next post say the organization wouldn't move ADA for a long term piece like Zegras or Lundell, is just nonsensical.

 

[NYR Viper]

Who didn't or does this mean everyone cleared

 

[LokiDog]

Who didn't or does this mean everyone cleared

Balcers > SJ (lol)
Sbisa > NSH
Comrie > NJ
Forsberg > CAR

is what I saw.

 

[True Blue]

There is nothing to indicate they wouldn't if it was for the right player, either.

There has been commentary to reflect that making the playoffs is a priority. There has been absolutely no commentary regarding continuing to make trades for picks and prospects.

Not having done it yet isn't evidence that they wouldn't in the right deal. Their willingness to deal Buch at the 2019 draft for Zegras (essentially) is evidence that they are still on the hunt for that type of player. Has their willingness to make such a deal declined? Perhaps, but perhaps not. If they view a guy as a future 1C like Zegras I see no way they turn down such a deal.

Entering the draft of 2019 is a world away from entering the 2021 season. Circumstances were completely different.

While Zegras may be a special case in that they had such a hardon for him, with each degree of separation from him, the probability of dealing a DeAngelo or Buchnevich for someone even like a Lundell gets less and less.

I don't really think you know what they will or won't do, frankly. They talk about competing because that is coach and GM speak and it is true that landing Panarin, Kakko and Lafreniere have accelerated the rebuild; but you have let these facts fool you into making hardline declarations like they won't trade a player they think they will lose for a future 1C just because it's "futures."

None of us know. All I have are what they say, what our insiders whisper and what the actions of management have indicated. All of those add up to not trading production for picks and prospect.

They have said the rebuild has been accelerated but they've never said they were done looking for young players to compliment their core of guys like Kakko, Lafreniere, Chytil, Kravtsov, Fox and Miller. In fact they have also said that their goal is to build a team that will compete for a long, long time which leads me to believe they are still open to making long-term decisions over short term ones within reason.

Young players that can step in and help immediately? Sure. Prospects that are several years away from playing, let alone contributing? Not so much.

And trading a player who they know doesn't fit their long term plans for a player they think will fit their long term plans makes all the sense in the world to that end.

On top of all that.... if they did say they were done trading for players who aren't in the NHL yet, then I'd say they are simply making a bad decision. As someone else has suggested, you think it would be a bad move to trade DeAngelo for Zegras (or a similar type prospect they love) when they are trying to free up a spot for Schneider? That's just poor planning.

Long term plans can change depending on what circumstances play out in the real world.

No one is freeing any spot for prospect unless they start to knock on the door. Poor planning to an arm chair GM may not be poor planning in real life.

 

[jay from jersey]

Need to make room for Schnieder. Seriously, I know I sound like a broken record, but I do not see Gorton and JD building a team that has two smallish puck movers on one side. Substitute Schneider for DeAngelo, and that comes closer to what I think will happen.

Now again, if DeAngelo goes out and paces 70+ this year AND can improve his defense to simply mediocre, then the equation may need to be revisited.

I think Schneider kind of fell into their lap. I don’t think they thought there was any possibility they could grab him with that second first. I agree him on third pair certainly makes the team harder to play against, but removing ADA for a Robertson -Schneider pair hurts the transition game a bit and not to mention the PP. although I supposed fox could take over DeAngelos duties but I’m not sure he will do as well yet, what to do with nils Lundkvist too?? He’s on the smaller puck moving side as well, definitely not as much snarl in his game as ADA. Any scenario we put out involving a D with all current players and prospects will most likely be wrong in a year or two. Trades will definitely be made I wonder if they do make a splash for a big LD who it would be?? Depending on Chytil’s year some may go for a 2C as well but we’ve got too many kids for all these spots

 

[True Blue]

I think the Rangers would trade ADA for Zegras in less time than it took for me to type this.

Possibly. Like I said, due to their known love for Zegras, it is possible. However, 1) with each prospect not in the NHL that is not named Zegras, the reality of such a move decreases. And 2) a DeAngelo for Zegras trade makes no sense for the Ducks.

 

[mas0764]

There has been commentary to reflect that making the playoffs is a priority. There has been absolutely no commentary regarding continuing to make trades for picks and prospects.

Pretty sure that is untrue. They have said they prioritize building a long term competitor as well, no?

 

[True Blue]

I think Schneider kind of fell into their lap. I don’t think they thought there was any possibility they could grab him with that second first. I agree him on third pair certainly makes the team harder to play against, but removing ADA for a Robertson -Schneider pair hurts the transition game a bit and not to mention the PP. although I supposed fox could take over DeAngelos duties but I’m not sure he will do as well yet, what to do with nils Lundkvist too?? He’s on the smaller puck moving side as well, definitely not as much snarl in his game as ADA. Any scenario we put out involving a D with all current players and prospects will most likely be wrong in a year or two. Trades will definitely be made I wonder if they do make a splash for a big LD who it would be?? Depending on Chytil’s year some may go for a 2C as well but we’ve got too many kids for all these spots

I ultimately believe that both DeAngelo and Lundqvist will be traded. I also do not believe that Gorton & JD are building a team that will feature a defense with two smallish players on one side.

Again though things can play out differently. DeAngelo can go out and pace 70+ and some things may get revisited.

 

[True Blue]

Pretty sure that is untrue. They have said they prioritize building a long term competitor as well, no?

"That's what you set your sights on — to get into the big dance," Davidson said. "If we do that, that'll be really good for the organization for a number of different reasons."

"There's no question (the playoffs are) a goal," he added. "I personally feel that when you get into the build situation, you need to hang your hat on something when you’ve finished the season as you move forward to become a champion. And if this club — in this division — makes the playoffs, that'll be an accomplishment."

 

[jay from jersey]

10 NHL players poised to break out in 2020-21 - TSN.ca

2 Rangers on the list.

Hah he is unaware that shesty is exempt. There is no clock on Gorton to deal Georgiev. Even uncle Larry knows this for lurking on the boards. SMH and these guys get paid the big bucks

 

[mas0764]

"That's what you set your sights on — to get into the big dance," Davidson said. "If we do that, that'll be really good for the organization for a number of different reasons."

"There's no question (the playoffs are) a goal," he added. "I personally feel that when you get into the build situation, you need to hang your hat on something when you’ve finished the season as you move forward to become a champion. And if this club — in this division — makes the playoffs, that'll be an accomplishment."

Those quotes are no better than ambiguous about shedding any light for certainty on what they want to do. I also note Davidson preached "patience," and that the team would not cut corners or look to only consider "win now" moves:

“There’s a lot of work to be done here,” Davidson said Wednesday when he was introduced as the 11th team president in franchise history. “There’s no shortcuts. It’s nothing but hard work, and it takes patience and resolve, and I really want to make sure that I use the word ‘patience’ and I use the word ‘resolve,’ because we’re going to be in a battle here to get this club to be better. But you have to be patient when you go through a build like this.”

So he's said both things, frankly. Neither rules out the other approach.

 

[True Blue]

Those quotes are no better than ambiguous about shedding any light for certainty on what they want to do. I also note Davidson preached "patience," and that the team would not cut corners or look to only consider "win now" moves:



So he's said both things, frankly. Neither rules out the other approach.

No one mentioned anything about going all in and being a "win now" team. I certainly know that you cannot find anything that even alludes to me stating such a thing.

I am not sure of what is so ambiguous about needing something to hang your hat on, but ok.

Not sure of what to tell you. The actions, words, tea leaves and smoke signals all point to something. Yet you choose to ignore. Our own insiders have stated that the appetite to trade a DeAngelo or a Buchnevich for nothing but picks and prospects is not there. Yet you continue to bang your drum for it. The draft comes and goes and NOT ONE trade that you wanted in trading production for a prospect goes through, and you continue to bang your drum for it. Clearly you are not willing to accept the reality of the situation. Ok. We can pick this up when they do not trade for nothing but picks and prospects. If I eat crow, I eat crow. But your views really do not seem aligned with the reality of what is happening. Or not happening as the case may be.

 

[LokiDog]

If an absolute unit of a prospect who as at least ready to step into the NHL today and has high upside (Byram, Zegras, Cozens, Lundell, types - maybe not those exact names) were offered for DeAngelo, I’m sure there would be discussion and deal may be worked out (likely with some balancing lesser pieces included on either ends).

Aside from getting someone who looks like a sure bet to be an impact NHL player, if not right out of the gates than later this year or immediately next year, the only way that we will move a player like ADA or Buch for futures is if we eventually find ourselves squeezed for money to re-sign pieces we deem more valuable to the future. If we’re at next deadline and Lundkvist has stepped in to some games and shown he’s ready or Schneider is knocking on the door and we know ADA’s 4.8M plus whatever raise he’s going to ask for is going to make it harder to sign Kakko or Fox, then we may move him for futures at that time. The only other way that happens is if someone knocks our socks off with an elite blue chip that we just can’t justify passing on.

 

[Off Sides]

Of course they would. To suggest otherwise is ridiculous.

And I also think it's absurd to say the list would stop there, at Zegras.

It might not be a long list, but I'd guess it has some other names on it as well - names we know they were high on like Lundell.

The question is, where is the cut off for how good they have to feel about the prospect and how far from the NHL is he, versus how much current production (and for how long) are you giving up in the NHL?

They obviously liked Kreider long term (7 years) and thus decided to keep him rather than parlaying him into the assets that probably could have secured a guy like Lundell in the draft. But they clearly CONSIDERED moving Kreider.

And to suggest in one post that you predict the organization will decide to move on from ADA in favor of Schneider, and then in the next post say the organization wouldn't move ADA for a long term piece like Zegras or Lundell, is just nonsensical.

I think the Rangers already tested the market for ADA, found it lacking, and are now going to have to either wait for some opputunity to come up to try to get ~equal value, or they will eventually be forced to take what they believe is the best out of whatever is being offered. If it comes to the second scenario, whether futures and or prospects is more valuable to them than a lesser NHL player(s) than ADA, who knows.

 

[HatTrick Swayze]

I think the Rangers already tested the market for ADA, found it lacking, and are now going to have to either wait for some opputunity to come up to try to get ~equal value, or they will eventually be forced to take what they believe is the best out of whatever is being offered. If it comes to the second scenario, whether futures and or prospects is more valuable to them than a lesser NHL player(s) than ADA, who knows.

Agreed. But a season where he ~repeats what he did last year could be what it takes to convince 1-2+ teams that what happened last year wasn’t a fluke. And 1-2 teams might be all it takes for the return to increase a good deal.

 

[KirkAlbuquerque]

People we’re not getting Zegras. And ADA will never score 70 points those are ridiculously high expectations.

 

[GAGLine]

The Rangers have advanced salary cap analysis spreadsheets. If they didn't waive him for cap space it's a pretty safe bet they've ran the numbers and determined it isn't necesary.

It's possible that we'll leave a spot open on the taxi squad and move Smith to the taxi squad for non-game days.

Smith is a good extra to keep because he can play both D spots and forward. He can't play any of them well, but that versatility helps.

 

[Oscar Lindberg]

DeAngelo isn’t worth anything near Zegras

you guys are setting yourself up for disappointment when he gets traded for a middle 6 forward with upside lol

 

[JESSEWENEEDTOCOOK]

DeAngelo isn’t worth anything near Zegras

you guys are setting yourself up for disappointment when he gets traded for a middle 6 forward with upside lol

Watch us trade him for like virtanen and a 3rd

 

[mas0764]

No one mentioned anything about going all in and being a "win now" team. I certainly know that you cannot find anything that even alludes to me stating such a thing.

I am not sure of what is so ambiguous about needing something to hang your hat on, but ok.

You yourself are advocating that they not deal current roster production for futures. That is "win now."

Not sure of what to tell you. The actions, words, tea leaves and smoke signals all point to something. Yet you choose to ignore. Our own insiders have stated that the appetite to trade a DeAngelo or a Buchnevich for nothing but picks and prospects is not there. Yet you continue to bang your drum for it. The draft comes and goes and NOT ONE trade that you wanted in trading production for a prospect goes through, and you continue to bang your drum for it. Clearly you are not willing to accept the reality of the situation. Ok. We can pick this up when they do not trade for nothing but picks and prospects. If I eat crow, I eat crow. But your views really do not seem aligned with the reality of what is happening. Or not happening as the case may be.

I think the problem is your lack of reasonability in accepting the nuance of the argument and what our insiders are saying. Frankly it mirrors your intransigence on the "convert to center," debate.

I think we've all heard Edge say they were exploring a Lindholm trade, but we also heard him say they loved Lundell and had him 6th on their board. We also witnessed that they almost moved Buch for 8th overall (Zegras) just one draft ago. We all heard JD say they want to make the playoffs; but we also all heard him say patience and they are gonna do this the right way (which indicates drafting, acquiring and developing young, elite talent). They never came out and said they were done with that at all.

It's hardly outside the realm of possibility that they would re-examine that type of deal under the right circumstances. I agree the ship has probably sailed on moving long term roster pieces for completely unknowable assets like future picks or guys who are years and years away with no certain development trajectory. But as you move along the trajectory from "safe roster spot," to "likely to be displaced by Braden Schneider as soon as he's ready," and you move along the trajectory from "shot in the dark prospect," to "can't-miss Alexis Lafreniere-like stud," it becomes more and more likely that they'd make such a move, until the point where it reaches "certainty," that they'd do such a deal.

The parameters you are setting for when they would and wouldn't make such a deal do not line up with any available evidence other than your own interpretation of their words and actions, and on top of that, do not make sense under a real-life application. Again, it would make zero sense NOT to trade DeAngelo for Zegras, if Schneider is almost ready to make the jump and replace him. Insisting that you get existing NHL talent that may top out as a 2/3C on a non-ELC is simple bad business and bad franchise building if you could otherwise get a Zegras who projects as a 1/2C and is a year or less away from entering the pros.

I find it kind of nuts you are trying to argue that they wouldn't trade ADA for Zegras. Of course they would.

From there, there are other names they would certainly entertain as well. Again, a long list? Maybe not. But it's a list.

This logic also extends to guys like Buch. Whether or not we have a RW ready to duplicate his production. Example: If Byfield, or Stutzle, or Jack Hughes, or Zegras was offered for Buch, they probably jump on that deal as well. As we drift down the future impact matrix to players like Newhook or Lundell who aren't as high-ceiling or are farther away, it becomes less and less likely that they'd be willing to do such a deal, but it's not a zero percent chance.

Frankly I believe the limiting factor in this discussion is that other teams wouldn't be willing to give up the young talent, as opposed to the Rangers being unwilling to acquire it for current roster pieces. That is why you haven't seen these trades materialize; not because the Rangers haven't asked. Ie, it was the Oilers who said no to the Buch-for-Zegras deal in 2019, not the Rangers.

 

[mas0764]

If an absolute unit of a prospect who as at least ready to step into the NHL today and has high upside (Byram, Zegras, Cozens, Lundell, types - maybe not those exact names) were offered for DeAngelo, I’m sure there would be discussion and deal may be worked out (likely with some balancing lesser pieces included on either ends).

Aside from getting someone who looks like a sure bet to be an impact NHL player, if not right out of the gates than later this year or immediately next year, the only way that we will move a player like ADA or Buch for futures is if we eventually find ourselves squeezed for money to re-sign pieces we deem more valuable to the future. If we’re at next deadline and Lundkvist has stepped in to some games and shown he’s ready or Schneider is knocking on the door and we know ADA’s 4.8M plus whatever raise he’s going to ask for is going to make it harder to sign Kakko or Fox, then we may move him for futures at that time. The only other way that happens is if someone knocks our socks off with an elite blue chip that we just can’t justify passing on.

Exactly this. Not saying go out and ship ADA off for pennies on the dollar or before we know what else we have.

But there are bluechip prospects out there who haven't played in the NHL yet that we'd be smart to trade ADA for (if they were even available, which they are not) simply for roster balancing considerations. Then there are scenarios where despite his usefulness in a playoff run, the certainty that he will not be re-signed means that it's a no-brainer to deal him for other prospects, depending on their quality.

That's all.

I highly doubt we are ever in a situation where it's an unaffordability issue. We will sort it out and get good value either for him or for his putative replacement (Schneider/Lundkvist) way before we are in a cap crunch.