Toggle sidebar

Roster Building Thread - Part VIII (2023-24 season)

  • 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.
Profet said:
One thing this org needs to get better at is deciding when to give out the NMC/NTC contracts.

They have been a disaster at this this far.
Click to expand...
Gabs had a NTC. He got traded. My point is a NTC is only a disaster if the player refuses to be traded. I have long thought that more often than not a player does not choose to stay where they are not wanted.
 
  • Like
Reactions: egelband
The trade Lindgren stuff is still a thing? This is nonsense. There's no reality based in this. Y'all either need to get over it or propose some actually coherent trades. Geez Louise this is not a 32-year-old Girardi. He's gonna get a 3-4 year deal similar to Igor's current one with less AAV.

I've been very sick the last two weeks but reading the Chytil update: either the internet are collectivity a bunch of dramatists or the way I read it is that "he's been skating and is going to begin training with his Czech strength and skills guy". It's more like Crosby in 2011-12 than Sauer. If he ramps it up and has a setback, that's a problem. That hasn't happen yet.

Literally Crosby did the same thing that season. He was not n Pittsburgh a large part of that season.

A word of advice for Chytil: you're a millionaire, go visit Jagr and spend some time with him. Pick his brains on puck possession and protecting yourself. It's a train ride away.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Go Rangers, egelband and Avery16
effen said:
People miss the idea of Kakko. They have plenty of guys who can put up 3 points in 20 games, and do.

Cuylle is already better than he is. Kakko still has a place on the team but he's always going to be the 3rd guy on his line. His arb number is gonna be so low I wouldn't trade him but he's JAG.
Click to expand...
To be honest, I haven't thought of him in some time.
 
majordomo said:
Considering some of the things that organization has done, it's not out of the realm of possibility,.
Click to expand...
I hope you are right but I find a #1 pick in return as doubtful.

While we are very happy with Quick's play, I do not think Toronto is giving a #1 pick at age (38) based on 12 starts.

I like Quick. I was optimistic for him right from the start. A #1 pick is just something I could not pass up.
 
NickyFotiu said:
I hope you are right but I find a #1 pick in return as doubtful.

While we are very happy with Quick's play, I do not think Toronto is giving a #1 pick at age (38) based on 12 starts.

I like Quick. I was optimistic for him right from the start. A #1 pick is just something I could not pass up.
Click to expand...
I don't think it's likely either....but, as I said, considering the organization, it wouldn't surprise me.

Quick has won me over slowly but surely....I was not happy with the signing at all.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NickyFotiu
NickyFotiu said:
Gabs had a NTC. He got traded. My point is a NTC is only a disaster if the player refuses to be traded. I have long thought that more often than not a player does not choose to stay where they are not wanted.
Click to expand...
We also had Tortorella at the time. There’s no poison pill this time around.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: NickyFotiu
Avery16 said:
We also had Tortorella at the time. There’s no poison pill this time around.
Click to expand...

NTC aren't the end of the world... In certain situations.

Tampa told McDonagh to accept the trade to Nashville or else rot in the AHL. He accepted the trade.

There are some factors there that don't always work (player has to actually be good enough to be able to make money on their next contract and not want to rot in the AHL). If a player is in decline and likely not to get a next contract, this strategy does not work.
 
There is 0 chance Quick returns a first round pick lol. He was dealt for a 2025 7th last year. He's started 12 games this year his value has not gone up that much. There hasn't even been a goalie traded as the main piece for a 1st round pick since Andersen in 2016. It's not unlikely. It is not happening. Ridiculous conversation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ail
NickyFotiu said:
I hope you are right but I find a #1 pick in return as doubtful.

While we are very happy with Quick's play, I do not think Toronto is giving a #1 pick at age (38) based on 12 starts.

I like Quick. I was optimistic for him right from the start. A #1 pick is just something I could not pass up.
Click to expand...
Who was the last goalie traded for a 1st?

The only one I can think of was St. Louis paying a 1st for Ryan Miller in 2014. That worked out poorly for them and there were other significant players in that trade. It just doesn’t happen. Brooks is clickfarming.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: pld459666 and NickyFotiu
SA16 said:
There is 0 chance Quick returns a first round pick lol. He was dealt for a 2025 7th last year. He's started 12 games this year his value has not gone up that much. There hasn't even been a goalie traded as the main piece for a 1st round pick since Andersen in 2016. It's not unlikely. It is not happening. Ridiculous conversation.
Click to expand...
This board has really turned into WFAN-Level quality.

We're HFBoards Rangers fans. We're supposed to be critical thinkers.
 
cheech70 said:
Eddie Olzyck was asked tonight what he thought of the Rangers."I'd keep an eye on Will Cuylle. He scored again tonight he just has a real nose for the net in an old school way. I'm seeing a Jarome Iginla type player."After a pause: "Maybe better"High praise
😳
Click to expand...
lmao slow down Eddie, but yeah love Cuylle.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pld459666 and bhamill
KirkAlbuquerque said:
Girardi was better offensively than Lindgren, and he was much bigger so he could withstand more punishment.
Click to expand...
Girardi was light years better than Lindgren. Lindgren isnt a good hockey player and the love on these boards is bonkers. He is a 3rd pairing dman and thats it. The extentions for 3 and 4 mill a year are ugly. Trade him now and I guarantee we will see him playing on the 3rd pair in a few years once teams realize he contributes nothing on offense and he just gets beat up by everyone.
 
IDvsEGO said:
Like he's not a terrible top 4 option, but put him on the bottom pair and he's a solid defenseman.

If we got him for a 4x4 deal. I run with that, and see if we can fit him and hanafin in our cap next year.
Click to expand...
So you want to pay a bottom pairing dman 4 mill a year......
 
Profet said:
One thing this org needs to get better at is deciding when to give out the NMC/NTC contracts.

They have been a disaster at this this far.
Click to expand...
That's a two-way street. If you don't offer protection to a UFA, somebody else will.

They had to trade for Trouba to negotiate with him, and in retrospect, they probably never should have touched him. Ditto Goodrow.

The good players that are here on a NTC/NMC wouldn't be here if we didn't offer that. The others aren't bad contracts because of the clause, they're bad contracts because they're bad players.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pld459666
It’s a false argument to justify giving Lindgren his next contract as a “third pairing D”, but it also proves nothing to use past bad contracts to justify a future good one.

In that vein, I’ll point out that we paid Brendan Versatile Smith 4.35m x4 as a 27-year-old in 2017 dollars and some on here felt that was a steal. There were games on that contract he couldn’t crack our defense squad at all, let alone the top-4.
 
Avery16 said:
Who was the last goalie traded for a 1st?

The only one I can think of was St. Louis paying a 1st for Ryan Miller in 2014. That worked out poorly for them and there were other significant players in that trade. It just doesn’t happen. Brooks is clickfarming.
Click to expand...
Crazy Larry :D
 
Lindgren is the reverse Tony DeAngelo.

It’ll happen slower than it has for the OFD who can’t defend, but the defensive D who kill offense/transition are going to get phased out. I’m not sure I even want that on my bottom pair at any price point, let alone what Lindgren will make on his next contract.

We really need to upgrade his spot now. He’s hurting Fox.
 
Flan the incredible said:
So you want to pay a bottom pairing dman 4 mill a year......
Click to expand...
Yeah, $4m for someone who can play on the top pair with your best defenseman so you don’t have to pay another $3-$4m more for a bona fide top pair D - so the team can spend it elsewhere. This is besides the point that Lindgren has been having a down year so for and there’s plenty of room for him to improve the rest of the season to match how he performed last season.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kendo
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom