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

[Pavel Buchnevich]

I like tomorrow's D pairs:

Skjei-ADA
Graves-Pionk
Bereglazov-Kampfer

Really want to see how Bereglazov performs.

Those pairings are very good. Should be a good match, especially with Chytil playing again, this team on a line with Buch and Miller.

 

[Pavel Buchnevich]

honestly..Chytil reminds me a lot of..well...Pavel Buchnevich.

I think I compared him to Buch right after the draft.

He's a more explosive skater, I don't think he has the same shot as Buch, but besides that, I think they are very similar players, actually. Chytil will play center, thats the main difference.

 

[Pavel Buchnevich]

Assuming Andersson and Chytil keep up their current level of play, how do people feel about them starting the season in Hartford?

Seems to me, the big con of this is that we burn a year of their contracts.

On the plus side:

Hartford is a better team with them on it.

Both get used to the amount of games in an NHL schedule (or close enough - 80 games instead of 82), so when they do start with the big club, they're not gassed midway through the season (see Vesey, Jimmy)

Both get accustomed to NA sized rinks

Both build chemistry with players who will likely be their teammates on the Rangers for years to come (Graves, ADA, Pionk etc.)

If someone in the top 6 gets injured, (again, assuming their level of play stays consistent to what we've seen so far) I'd rather have one of these guys fill in than ask someone on the big club to play over their heads in a role they're not suited for.

Thoughts for or against?

Andersson could start in Hartford. Don't think it matters that much. I slightly prefer Frolunda, but no strong preference. Chytil seems to want to play in Czech Republic, let him play there, if not the NHL.

 

[TheTakedown]

We can't trade Nash right now unless we get a better point producer back. People get carried away in preseason. Our forwards are solid not great. We do not have enough scoring upfront that we can just give Nash up for a draft pick at this point. Maybe later in the season or at the trade deadline.

Assuming Nash puts up 60 points? Sure, I agree with you.

Assuming Nash puts up 35 points? No, you absolutely sell as high as you can on him--he's a glorified PKer at that point that can be replaced by Michael Grabner, who can then be replaced by Ryan Gropp

I have low expectations for Nash at this point. Don't see anything more than a 3rd liner/PKer

 

[GoAwayPanarin]

Assuming Andersson and Chytil keep up their current level of play, how do people feel about them starting the season in Hartford?

Seems to me, the big con of this is that we burn a year of their contracts.

On the plus side:

Hartford is a better team with them on it.

Both get used to the amount of games in an NHL schedule (or close enough - 80 games instead of 82), so when they do start with the big club, they're not gassed midway through the season (see Vesey, Jimmy)

Both get accustomed to NA sized rinks

Both build chemistry with players who will likely be their teammates on the Rangers for years to come (Graves, ADA, Pionk etc.)

If someone in the top 6 gets injured, (again, assuming their level of play stays consistent to what we've seen so far) I'd rather have one of these guys fill in than ask someone on the big club to play over their heads in a role they're not suited for.

Thoughts for or against?

I say let them both go back.

Andersson is a legacy in Frolunda and it'd be great for him to get the opportunity to play there if he isn't going to stick here. Chytil should get plenty of ice time with Zlin as well.

Plus Hartford is going to suck.

 

[bernmeister]

Bern lets say you trade Nash for a draft pick today with no salary cap money retained or taken back. What will you do with that 7.8 mill in extra cap space this season vs in June when Nash's contract expired?

1. You have it as contingency in case opportunity knocks.
Means you can pull the trigger immediately, as opposed to having to juggle around first.

2. Long term want to phase out senior vets, EXTEND the young core, best possible financials. That means offering mo $ overall for mo years to reduce/minimize annual average salary --- and cap hit. This allows us to better control cap, not the reverse. And it means we max the value of our players as trading commodities, so, even though we are less likely to move parts of the young core, if we elect to do so we would have optimum combo of reasonable salary and decent term, not too much or too short.

Also, if Nash gets injured, that kills it
Move him now so it is not a possible problem.

 

[TheTakedown]

It kind of writes itself.

If Nash is uninjured and playing well the Rangers are not going to find a deal they like enough to hurt their run. If he is injured or not playing well no one is going to trade much, if anything for him.

Yeah that's the issue. This was discussed some months back... basically, Trading Nash requires BOTH of the following things to happen:

1) Nash has a good year, putting up AT LEAST 25 goals and 55-60 points
2) Rangers underachieve, looking like they aren't going to make the playoffs.

I see NEITHER of those things happening

 

[TheTakedown]

Assuming Andersson and Chytil keep up their current level of play, how do people feel about them starting the season in Hartford?

Seems to me, the big con of this is that we burn a year of their contracts.

On the plus side:

Hartford is a better team with them on it.

Both get used to the amount of games in an NHL schedule (or close enough - 80 games instead of 82), so when they do start with the big club, they're not gassed midway through the season (see Vesey, Jimmy)

Both get accustomed to NA sized rinks

Both build chemistry with players who will likely be their teammates on the Rangers for years to come (Graves, ADA, Pionk etc.)

If someone in the top 6 gets injured, (again, assuming their level of play stays consistent to what we've seen so far) I'd rather have one of these guys fill in than ask someone on the big club to play over their heads in a role they're not suited for.

Thoughts for or against?

No contract burn if they stay in the AHL Those games do not count against years where the contract can slide.

That said, I'd agree Hartford would be a better place for them. I feel like Andersson will not be leaving North America--seems like he has the desire to get better on the smaller ice, Hartford helps him do that while the Rangers can retain his contract slide year if they want. He's technically more NHL ready compared to Chytil. Him being in Hartford would be a good thing for him to become accustomed to the game

Chytil, it really depends on what they think is best for him emotionally. Physically he has the tools, and mentally he thinks the game through incredibly well, but moving to North America from the CR on a whim has gotta take a toll on you as a person. Then again, based on what I've seen of Chytil, he too seems like he WANTS to be here

 

[Off Sides]

Playing time and the role they'd be playing. People will try to justify it by saying something like we don't have a fourth line, but the reality is that there's a big difference between playing with Grabner and Fast and playing with Kreider and Zuccarello. Just because there's no Glass doesn't mean its not a fourth line. You don't want a rookie having to carry a line.

I think the idea that there are roles in hockey is changing, sooner rather than later every player in every position is going to be a 2-way player. They may lean one way or another but it's not like teams are going to have a checking line that has no ability to go up ice and provide some offense, or a 4th line that is utility and toughness.

If it were me, I'd take the 12 best 2-way forwards, 6 best 2-way D and work it out.

If they are not ready that is one thing, if it's about what roles they are going to play, they all play their best 2-way game and anyone who only had a 1-way game only plays if I did not have enough good 2-way players.

 

[NickyFotiu]

Assuming Nash puts up 60 points? Sure, I agree with you.

Assuming Nash puts up 35 points? No, you absolutely sell as high as you can on him--he's a glorified PKer at that point that can be replaced by Michael Grabner, who can then be replaced by Ryan Gropp

I have low expectations for Nash at this point. Don't see anything more than a 3rd liner/PKer

It sounds like you are speaking about trading Nash later in the season as an expiring contract. That would be a different scenario and I would consider that possibility. I was saying we can not trade him right now unless we get back a better producer. I would say the same thing for any of our top 6 forwards because I feel we lack real firepower upfront.

 

[E-Train]

Those pairings are very good. Should be a good match, especially with Chytil playing again, this team on a line with Buch and Miller.

Agreed. There's a lot if different options for the season.

 

[NickyFotiu]

1. You have it as contingency in case opportunity knocks.
Means you can pull the trigger immediately, as opposed to having to juggle around first.

2. Long term want to phase out senior vets, EXTEND the young core, best possible financials. That means offering mo $ overall for mo years to reduce/minimize annual average salary --- and cap hit. This allows us to better control cap, not the reverse. And it means we max the value of our players as trading commodities, so, even though we are less likely to move parts of the young core, if we elect to do so we would have optimum combo of reasonable salary and decent term, not too much or too short.

Also, if Nash gets injured, that kills it
Move him now so it is not a possible problem.

1) Do you think this team can really afford to trade a top 6 forward and not get that point production back on just a hope that another 7 mill player will become available during the season? Wouldn't that be kind of waiving the white flag on this season before it begins? If you said trade him as a rental that might make sense but today?

2) Nash's contract expires at the end of the season. We might trade him as a rental but do we really gain much by trading him today? You always say phase vets out but don't teams that win championships also have vets? Did Pitt have Vets? Chi? LA? Why would we want to get rid of anyone that is productive and on a fair deal just because they are over the age of 27? Would you have got rid of Messier? We first traded for him when he was around 31.

 

[nyr2k2]

Regardless of his production Nash only gets traded at the deadline if we're out of it. If we're in it and his play is even decent I can't see them moving him barring some hige overpayment, and even then I don't see it.

 

[Off Sides]

Nash is closer to a Nedved than a Messier.

 

[Kaapo Cabana]

1) Do you think this team can really afford to trade a top 6 forward and not get that point production back on just a hope that another 7 mill player will become available during the season? Wouldn't that be kind of waiving the white flag on this season before it begins? If you said trade him as a rental that might make sense but today?

2) Nash's contract expires at the end of the season. We might trade him as a rental but do we really gain much by trading him today? You always say phase vets out but don't teams that win championships also have vets? Did Pitt have Vets? Chi? LA? Why would we want to get rid of anyone that is productive and on a fair deal just because they are over the age of 27? Would you have got rid of Messier? We first traded for him when he was around 31.

though I also do not think trading Nash is wise, his deal isn't all that fair for what he brings

 

[Avery16]

Yeah lets not forget that Nash was out-scored by six forwards last season, Zibanejad would make it seven, if he'd put up two more points in his 20 fewer games than Nash played. Even without Andersson and Chityl, Nash looks like a third liner, one who makes 7.8 million. He shouldn't block either. We have great forward depth, but who knows what we could need down the road. I'd rather have a $7.8 million cap cushion than Nash as a third-liner, PKer.

 

[Gardner McKay]

Yeah lets not forget that Nash was out-scored by six forwards last season, Zibanejad would make it seven, if he'd put up two more points in his 20 fewer games than Nash played. Even without Andersson and Chityl, Nash looks like a third liner, one who makes 7.8 million. He shouldn't block either. We have great forward depth, but who knows what we could need down the road. I'd rather have a $7.8 million cap cushion than Nash as a third-liner, PKer.

We just traded Stepan. We have no idea how our C depth will play out (or if Miller will be a C). Odds are that both kids will not be in the opening night line up and if they are, they sure as hell aren't pushing Nash out of the line up. They are kids. They need time to grow. You can't just throw them into every situation that an everyday NHLer is already accustomed to.

The vendetta and hate towards Rick Nash has gone from entertaining to absurdly ridiculous. The amount of people wanting to trade Nash just to recoup an asset despite the fact that we are hopefully going to be a contending team, also absurd.

The goal isn't to have the most picks at the NHL entry draft. The goal is to win a freakin cup.

 

[NickyFotiu]

though I also do not think trading Nash is wise, his deal isn't all that fair for what he brings

I was speaking about Bern's (and a few others) mindset of trade anyone over 27 in general but you are right about Nash's deal specifically.

 

[Avery16]

Nash aint a C. This is my point. He doesn't effectively address a need of ours. You can say I hate Nash a million times, but it doesn't make it any truer. I've never said a bad thing about him. He just doesn't make us that much better of a team.

 

[Mac n Gs]

Nash aint a C. This is my point. He doesn't effectively address a need of ours. You can say I hate Nash a million times, but it doesn't make it any truer. I've never said a bad thing about him. He just doesn't make us that much better of a team.

With how this currenr roster is constructed and the lack of overall depth at W and C, this is just silly. We'd need everything to go well with our rookies and second year guys to make Nash "redundant." Even then, he's still useful because he can help shelter the kids from top competition. With only a year left on his deal, trading Nash for any other reason than us being completely out of the playoff race is just dumb.

 

[Gardner McKay]

Nash aint a C. This is my point. He doesn't effectively address a need of ours. You can say I hate Nash a million times, but it doesn't make it any truer. I've never said a bad thing about him. He just doesn't make us that much better of a team.

But Miller is and if they end up moving Miller back to C that weakens our depth on the wing. That is my point. By trading Nash, you make it more difficult to move Miller to C if you need to. Playing the kids is all fine and dandy but what about when they really struggle? What do you do then? Move Miller to C? Fine. You have **** depth on the wing.

Argue all you want. There is no sound reason for trading Rick Nash unless it is at the deadline and we are out of contention.

With how this currenr roster is constructed and the lack of overall depth at W and C, this is just silly. We'd need everything to go well with our rookies and second year guys to make Nash "redundant." Even then, he's still useful because he can help shelter the kids from top competition. With only a year left on his deal, trading Nash for any other reason than us being completely out of the playoff race is just dumb.

 

[NYR94]

It's weird to read that at his age Nash is going to unrestricted free agency for the first time. You would think he would be extra motivated this year to produce. If he can stay healthy and score 25-30 goals, he'll be worth keeping around. I'm not even concerned about points with him, just goals. The Rangers have good setup guys, they need forwards who can reliably put the puck in the net. Grabner won't score 27 again. If Miller plays center, that leaves Kreider, Grabner and Nash on the wings as guys who have scored more than 20 goals last season. Vesey and Buch are still very young. It's okay to have guys over 30 on the team.

 

[Off Sides]

Given that is the depth situation, where does that really put the Rangers chances at a cup? Nash or no Nash?

Everything has to go right, including Nash.

Seems like having faith in everything going right could be considered at the very least, overly optimistic.

To me this is either a transition year or it's a go for it year. If it's a transition year, Nash could be better used to gain something to transition into. If it's a go for it year they probably should have done a better job fixing the lack of depth.

My concern, trying to do both always leads to opposing actions. Renting and not selling even when they know they are not all that good. Then trying to reacquire what they spent on renting which hurts their capacity to go for it. How does that cycle ever lead to either winning it, or building something that can?

 

[NickyFotiu]

It's weird to read that at his age Nash is going to unrestricted free agency for the first time. You would think he would be extra motivated this year to produce. If he can stay healthy and score 25-30 goals, he'll be worth keeping around. I'm not even concerned about points with him, just goals. The Rangers have good setup guys, they need forwards who can reliably put the puck in the net. Grabner won't score 27 again. If Miller plays center, that leaves Kreider, Grabner and Nash on the wings as guys who have scored more than 20 goals last season. Vesey and Buch are still very young. It's okay to have guys over 30 on the team.

He said he is playing for his next contract. That may be a real benefit to us this season but I actually did not like the sound of it.

 

[Gardner McKay]

Given that is the depth situation, where does that really put the Rangers chances at a cup? Nash or no Nash?

Everything has to go right, including Nash.

Seems like having faith in everything going right could be considered at the very least, overly optimistic.

To me this is either a transition year or it's a go for it year. If it's a transition year, Nash could be better used to gain something to transition into. If it's a go for it year they probably should have done a better job fixing the lack of depth.

My concern, trying to do both always leads to opposing actions. Renting and not selling even when they know they are not all that good. Then trying to reacquire what they spent on renting which hurts their capacity to go for it. How does that cycle ever lead to either winning it, or building something that can?

Everything has to go right for any team to win the cup. Otherwise the President Trophy Winner would just win the cup every year.

Having a solid Lundqvist + a spectacular defense and a speedy offense should give us as good of a chance as anyone.

The team will never be perfect. Ever. There will always be a flaw. There will always be something and year after year the same people will talk about it being a transition year.

It doesn't have to be a transition year or a lets go for it year because truthfully it really is neither. If come TDL day we are in the running for the Presidents Trophy then maybe we make an acquisition. Otherwise we go to war with what we have. If Skjei can replicate last year we easily have one of the best top 4s in the NHL.

For a long time I was told that this team wasn't going to go anywhere with the defense it had. We have a great defense now and people are still afraid of going for it? Sometimes you have to take chances

Also, what year were they not that good? Seriously. Outside of the Eric Staal trade, there is not one year where they weren't considered a cup contender. Spare me the false narratives. I'm sick of seeing them. We have had a good team year in and year out. We had a good team last year. We should have beat Ottawa. We could have beat Pittsburgh and Nashville is super ****ing overrated. AV out coached himself in the second round. That is why we lost.