Toggle sidebar

Speculation: Roster Building Thread Part VIII: Autumn in New York

  • Xenforo Cloud has upgraded us to version 2.3.6. Please report any issues you experience.
  • We are currently aware of "log in/security error" issues that are affecting some users. We apologize and ask for your patience as we try to get these issues fixed.
Status
Not open for further replies.
bernmeister said:
You're missing the point my friend.
We want to exploit we can extract top $ return from Dallas now.
that requires now. not 2 years from now.
It is useful to get top younger assets in return for Smith and Zuc.

It is a side benefit that we also would create room for 2 rookies.
Click to expand...

By signing Shattenkirk, the Rangers are definitely in win-now mode. So, to answer your question:

No, it would not be useful to trade Zuccarello and Smith for younger assets. And you want to retain salary on those contracts? Smith is signed for 4(!) more years. You are willing to retain money for the next 4 seasons?
 
SA16 said:
If you wanted to trade Nash to acquire prospects and use the new cap space to sign Jagr that'd be one thing but they really haven't indicated they have any interest in doing that.
Click to expand...

Here's the thing though: Jagr isn't a better fit to this team than Nash is.

If it's just to sign Jagr, we are really not improving. Trading Nash, with 1 year left, should only be done if it makes us better because what is the point otherwise?
 
Hire Sather said:
Yeah we get it, you two with the same rhetoric while we continue to contend with our "old" team year after year.

Anytime one person agrees with you, it's satisfaction that you are 100% correct despite the fact that 95% of the board thinks your ideas about this team are bonkers and unrealistic.
Click to expand...

That contending team continues to lose every single year, because you do not build.
You insist on repeating history not learning from it, apparently.
Do it my way, build enough, have enough horses, give yourself a decent chance..
stop with failed win now mentality.

Your continued efforts, unprovoked, to disparage me = epic fail.
We all get some right and some wrong.
Doesn't matter what the head count was in each instance.
Truth ultimately prevails.

Case in point to illustrate: Stepan.
I maintained we should have dealt him long ago, b'c his trade value was worth more than his production.
Before they became the wonder twins, we could have moved Staal, Girardi and Stepan for Hall.
Unfortunately, we did not go there, and we have what we have today.

I was entirely correct about that and I am sure I have been way, way off on other things.
Your "bonkers" derision is inaccurate and without merit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ail
Amazing Kreiderman said:
Here's the thing though: Jagr isn't a better fit to this team than Nash is.

If it's just to sign Jagr, we are really not improving. Trading Nash, with 1 year left, should only be done if it makes us better because what is the point otherwise?
Click to expand...

Because taking a slight downgrade and getting good prospects at the same time could be a good move overall? It's not possible to simultaneously trade Nash and get better this year.
 
bernmeister said:
Yes.
Not going back into ancient history when some of us, forget extending Staal, and Girardi among others, wanted to trade him for assets and get ahead of the curve, only to be ruled out by the win now crowd to whom Slats foolishly listened, but just as to recent developments, we should have bought him out. Girardi's NMC turned into limited NTC this July, and while we would have had to eat $ and bribe, he could have been moved more readily as a RD.

Can't jump on GMJG too much, cause he could not have known exactly how well we would have made out on Shattenkirk, etc.

I am on record as having called Staal, properly so at that time, the best pure shutdown D in the league.

But he now has to acknowledge that a critical eye injury, and to a lesser extent a couple of concussions later, have reduced his effectiveness. And if the team comes first --- and it does --- he has to park his ego and work with the team.
Click to expand...

You make it sound as if Marc hasn't already--he should be taking a course in patriotism. Marc Staal doesn't have to do anything except play hockey if and when his coaches put him in the lineup and to show up to practice (barring injury) whenever the team has one of those. He's signed a legally binding contract with certain additions/conditions with the New York Rangers and his end of it now is to show up at training camp in good enough condition to pass his physical and then make himself available to play to the best of the ability (barring injury and even if he sucks) from thereon. The certain conditions include the Rangers not being able to send him down to the minors or trade him to another team without his consent. He's met his conditions. He's passed the physical and as far as I know has made every practice and he's played two preseason games. What's this crap about his ego? If you had a job that you liked and maybe you thought you were doing pretty well even if maybe as you got older you were a little slower than when you were younger--would you go to your boss and tell him for the good of the company to pay you less or to fire your ass? That would be absurd and what if your boss isn't so good as he use to be either? Would he let himself go?
 
Lindberg Cheese said:
Letting people go because they don't advance business objectives and treating people poorly are two different things.....to maintain a good reputation, treat everyone well whether you move forward with them or not. Just look at the Knicks.....
Click to expand...

Which is why I'd be more than happy to have him Lupuled. I did say spare his dignity.

The Knicks messed up their return on the Melo trade because of Phil Jackson publicly deriding him. That was a stupid move. It's not something you expect from the PR savvy Rangers, even if some of us have no problem grinding Staal down, it's not something you will see from the Rangers.

If Marc does what he did last year, bench him, call it an injury and let him enjoy his luxury welfare state. I don't see anything wrong with that.
 
SA16 said:
Because taking a slight downgrade and getting good prospects at the same time could be a good move overall? It's not possible to simultaneously trade Nash and get better this year.
Click to expand...

If Nash really is so mediocre as people make him out to be, that him leaving will be a slight downgrade, how "good" will the prospects be which we get back in the deal?
 
Amazing Kreiderman said:
If Nash really is so mediocre as people make him out to be, that him leaving will be a slight downgrade, how "good" will the prospects be which we get back in the deal?
Click to expand...

Where did I imply Nash is mediocre? Jagr is really really good despite 90% of this board thinking otherwise simply because he is old and slow. The people who think Nash is mediocre or that Jagr isn't good have no idea what they are talking about.
 
SA16 said:
Where did I imply Nash is mediocre? Jagr is really really good despite 90% of this board thinking otherwise simply because he is old and slow. The people who think Nash is mediocre or that Jagr isn't good have no idea what they are talking about.
Click to expand...

I wasn't referring to you. People want to trade Nash because they think he doesn't make this team better. Yet, think the return will include some good prospects. Those 2 don't really go together.
 
Machinehead said:
Who has been shown more respect by his business than Marc Staal?

He's awful and makes 5 million a year to be awful, with a guaranteed spot, and somehow we've spun that into him being disrespected.
Click to expand...

We aren’t talking about something that has happened, we’re talking about something someone suggested should happen.

I know you’re a little dull, but try to keep up will you? :nod:
 
I still maintain Zucc isn’t the kind of guy you trade needlessly.

He hasn’t played much nhl hockey for his age, he’s stil fast, still very productive and he’s taken friendly deals repeatedly. If he were slowing down that would be one thing but he’s still excellent and he’s a huge, huge part of what makes the team work.

Trading him for another young player takes away more relevant vets and adds another young guy. These guys need mentors and established players to help them succeed on and off the ice.
 
At this point, don't see how Desjardins and Farnham aren't released from their PTOs. 4th should be Puempel/Desharnais/Nieves (or Grabner, depending on whether Andersson or Miller is 3C) until Fast is back.
 
kovazub94 said:
So you're ok with"Trade Nash" circus?
Click to expand...

I never said that, and no, I'm particularly in a rush to trade Nash.

I do think Zuccarello is harder to replace than Nash, and I'd pull the trigger on Nash if it made our team better today.

But some people here seem to think we get rid of Nash and it's addition by subtraction and that's not the case at all.

He's still the best even strength goal-scorer in this organization, and it isn't close. A Nash trade has to replace that production in some way.

Maybe a slight downgrade that AV would actually use properly, or a guy who's better on the powerplay.

(we really could use another powerplay forward, as Nash and Kreider are both even strength specialists)

So am I ok with that? Short answer - no.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Ad

Ad

Top Bottom