Roster Building Thread - Part XI (Off-season edition)

[Shesterkybomb]

It’s the same in any league with free agency. Players unions have worked hard to earn the right to have some say in where they play. If no one likes Winnipeg perhaps they shouldn’t have a team. The reserve clause went out 50 years ago in sports.

I'm not saying people don't like Winnipeg, I'm saying if you had the chance to make 10 mill in Winnipeg or 9 mill in Tampa, you'd likely take Tampa. Says nothing about what kind of city Winnipeg or Buffalo are, just that there are more preferred destinations. If every free agent thumbed their nose at our franchise the story would be different, as it is we're one of the prime destinations yet we still hand out ntc and top dollar and term like it's candy. It makes no sense at all.

 

[Shesterkybomb]

I handwave it because its years ago now and constantly rehashing it does NOTHING constructive, we ALL know it was a bad trade. Somehow we still made it to the ECF TWICE, so "ruined" may be a tad hyperbolic. Also, we keep him we can't sign Trocheck... I'll take Vinnie over him every day of the week and twice on Sunday, at a slightly lower cap hit to boot.

We still have the same gm making those decisions though. There's nothing saying we wouldn't have Trochek without that trade, we could have not given players like Reaves, Nemeth, Goodrow their contracts instead. Even without all that it was imperative for them to get value back for Buch, they gave him away for nothing.

 

[noncents]

If we had kept Buch HE would have needed HIS 5.8mil AAV contract and we would NOT have signed Trocheck....

upon what are you basing this?? you're just making it up

Trocheck replaced strome, plus a bit of extra salary headroom which we would have had even with buch signed at his 5.8.

We have had this conversation before, but you keep memory holing James Dolan firing upper management during the f***ing season because of their attitudes towards the Wilson incident and failures to adequately build a team that would defend each other.

It directly led to the offseason edict of getting some Gritty McGrits who aren't very good at hockey which in turn led to there not being money for Buchnevich. These are very connected things.

you are making my point for me. they're absolutely connected.

Buchnevich was traded because his cap room was needed for Goodrow, Reaves, and Nemeth - Grit Gang. His potential salary cap expenditure went to them.

In my opinion that the most grievous FO error is to let your own top line talent go, this was a indefensible. It was also a triple whammy - not only did we let elite talent get away, but the cap room instead went to shitgritters, AND the trade return was dogshit.

when i say "justification doesn't stand up to logical analysis" what i mean is - they traded buch because they signed the shitgritters and this was a BAD IDEA even then.

Never thought we traded Buch for Reeves, Nemeth and Goodrow. Always thought we traded Buch to open up a top 6 RW spot for KK and Krav. The trade was a mistake but have you seen our cap? We do not have Reeves, Goodrow or Nemeth anymore and we still would have a lot of trouble fitting Buch in today. Hindsight being 20-20 I would not do the trade but it isn't about money. Its because KK and Krav did not live up to top 6 RW hopes as of today.

this is also a bad idea. there is no law against having talented players down the lineup. in fact it means you have a *better* team - fancy that!

this team has had good success with Kakko on the 3rd line. With buchnevich on ziba line this would have always been the case.

as far as cap gymnastics, pretty much any overages can all be washed away. what is important is to sign good talent at good value. Buchs 5.8 is a contract you KEEP, not one you move.

 

[bhamill]

We still have the same gm making those decisions though. There's nothing saying we wouldn't have Trochek without that trade, we could have not given players like Reaves, Nemeth, Goodrow their contracts instead. Even without all that it was imperative for them to get value back for Buch, they gave him away for nothing.

Again. NO ONE has said it wasn’t a bad trade.
My point was about we could or couldn’t have done if we kept him. If someone wants to hypothesize we wouldn’t have signed Reaves, Goodrow and Nemeth, I can easily hypothesize we couldn’t/wouldn’t have signed Troch. Buch got 5.8, we gave Troch 5.6.

 

[noncents]

this isn't hindsight. I and many others knew as early as larry started leaking that buch was on the move that it was a bad idea.

the point is that regardless if you were moving buchnevich:

A. to free up playing time for unproven (even though they were heralded) prospects
B. to free up cap space for gritshitters
C. to free up cap space for anything else
D. because the FO didn't like him
E. because of the car crash

Any combination of these was known at the time to be an idea entirely without merit. There was no justification for trading him that had merit. None.

 

[NickyFotiu]

ial salary cap expenditure went to them.

this team has had good success with Kakko on the 3rd line. With buchnevich on ziba line this would have always been the case.

as far as cap gymnastics, pretty much any overages can all be washed away. what is important is to sign good talent at good value. Buchs 5.8 is a contract you KEEP, not one you move.

This move was made 3 years ago. In hindsight I wish we did not make the move but we can't look at it in a vacuum. The rest of the league was not knocking our door down for Buch at that time. If I could turn back time and undo the trade I would but here is the problem with that. If I go back in time and undo the trade then we do not make the ECF twice in 3 years. You ask why not but I'm speaking scientifically. If you ever read the book Back To The Future you know if I change the past I will also change the future.

 

[bhamill]

upon what are you basing this?? you're just making it up

Trocheck replaced strome, plus a bit of extra salary headroom which we would have had even with buch signed at his 5.8.

What are you basing not signing the others on? It’s all the same. We are ALWAYS up against the cap. You think they would have just left room for Vinnie? No strome wasn’t making anywhere near what Tro nor Buch signed for. 11.3 mil between them. You don’t want to acknowledge it because it doesn’t help your narrative but we wouldn’t have signed both.
But whatever. Keep harping on a bad move we all already agreed was a bad move three years ago. I’m done talking about it.

 

[noncents]

Again. NO ONE has said it wasn’t a bad trade.
My point was about we could or couldn’t have done if we kept him. If someone wants to hypothesize we wouldn’t have signed Reaves, Goodrow and Nemeth, I can easily hypothesize we couldn’t/wouldn’t have signed Troch. Buch got 5.8, we gave Troch 5.6.

from 2021-2022
Strome made 4.5, he walked, troch was 5.6

+1.1mm

buch would have been 5.8

goodrow was 3.6
nemeth was 2.5
reaves was 1.75
blais was 1.5

accounting for buch and troch, there is 2.5mm left for those depth spots.

the money worked... your justification is ass.

What are you basing not signing the others on? It’s all the same. We are ALWAYS up against the cap. You think they would have just left room for Vinnie? No strome wasn’t making anywhere near what Tro nor Buch signed for. 11.3 mil between them. You don’t want to acknowledge it because it doesn’t help your narrative but we wouldn’t have signed both.
But whatever. Keep harping on a bad move we all already agreed was a bad move three years ago. I’m done talking about it.

it's not hard to pull up a calculator and puckpedia.

 

[gabevh3]

https://x.com/i/web/status/1814676221000585665

 

[noncents]

I handwave it because its years ago now and constantly rehashing it does NOTHING constructive, we ALL know it was a bad trade. Somehow we still made it to the ECF TWICE, so "ruined" may be a tad hyperbolic. Also, we keep him we can't sign Trocheck... I'll take Vinnie over him every day of the week and twice on Sunday, at a slightly lower cap hit to boot.

not gonna fight you that "ruined" is hyperbolic, but you're looking at results and not at cost to fill buch spot year after year - copp trade, kane trade, reilly smith trade.. you act like it's old news but we're still dealing with it lol.

it will end when kakko or perreault find success on KZ line, or K+Z are separated, or either of them leave the team.

 

[gravey9]

this isn't hindsight. I and many others knew as early as larry started leaking that buch was on the move that it was a bad idea.

the point is that regardless if you were moving buchnevich:

A. to free up playing time for unproven (even though they were heralded) prospects
B. to free up cap space for gritshitters
C. to free up cap space for anything else
D. because the FO didn't like him
E. because of the car crash

Any combination of these was known at the time to be an idea entirely without merit. There was no justification for trading him that had merit. None.

The biggest rumor on this matter was that it was precursor to an Eichel move that got squashed by BUF owner at last minute. take it for what it's worth -- pure rumor. But that seems to make the most sense. I think Drury was trying to make a bigger splash in his first summer and like a rube ended up with Goody, Blais and Nemeth.

The pure amount of assets that summer has cost us is crazy. Between what we've traded to constantly fill 1RW and what we traded to remove Nemeth and potentially what we've moved to make cap room for other deals because we paid Goody 3.6 -- it's truly mind-boggling how much thinner the org is with assets as a result of that first summer.

We have one top 6 prospect. And no other prospect that is currently destined anything but middle-six forward or top 4 D. or backup goalie. And say what you want about later round picks -- but some of those 2nd rounders and other picks we've moved to fill the carousel has made it harder and harder to address current needs and future.

 

[Machinehead]

Zetterlund sucks

 

[RangersFan1994]

Zetterlund sucks

I rather get another draft pick. I still wonder what Drury think’s Kakko’s value is compared to what others think about him around the league.

 

[noncents]

The biggest rumor on this matter was that it was precursor to an Eichel move that got squashed by BUF owner at last minute. take it for what it's worth -- pure rumor. But that seems to make the most sense. I think Drury was trying to make a bigger splash in his first summer and like a rube ended up with Goody, Blais and Nemeth.

The pure amount of assets that summer has cost us is crazy. Between what we've traded to constantly fill 1RW and what we traded to remove Nemeth and potentially what we've moved to make cap room for other deals because we paid Goody 3.6 -- it's truly mind-boggling how much thinner the org is with assets as a result of that first summer.

We have one top 6 prospect. And no other prospect that is currently destined anything but middle-six forward or top 4 D. or backup goalie. And say what you want about later round picks -- but some of those 2nd rounders and other picks we've moved to fill the carousel has made it harder and harder to address current needs and future.

Okay. point to you.

rope-a-doped into moving Buch quickly for dogshit return makes a little sense if the lens is "we can make eichel happen."

 

[bhamill]

from 2021-2022
Strome made 4.5, he walked, troch was 5.6

+1.1mm

buch would have been 5.8

goodrow was 3.6
nemeth was 2.5
reaves was 1.75
blais was 1.5

accounting for buch and troch, there is 2.5mm left for those depth spots.

the money worked... your justification is ass.



it's not hard to pull up a calculator and puckpedia.

2.5. Million to fill 4 or 3 spots doesn’t work, and why would we count both Buch and Blais, it’s one or the other, but by this reasoning we COULD have kept Buch and still found a way to sign Goodrow, Nemeth and Reaves…
My whole point was that you were making dire statements about the fallout that weren’t NECESSARILY the case, and if you could say that about the other signings we could say the same about Troch. All you did was illustrate my point, just from the other direction.
Regardless if you want to still rail on about a bad trade we made 3 years ago, be my guest. I’ll leave you to it.

 

[Zats Muccarello]

Would the Rangers be able to trade Trouba with a prospect or pick to someone like Calgary, have Calgary buy him out, then re-sign him at a cheaper AAV or is that cap circumvention? I think technically the Rangers are allowed to re-sign a player that ANOTHER team buys out.

I believe this is what the Capitals did with Brooks Orpik some years back

 

[noncents]

2.5. Million to fill 4 or 3 spots doesn’t work, and why would we count both Buch and Blais, it’s one or the other, but by this reasoning we COULD have kept Buch and still found a way to sign Goodrow, Nemeth and Reaves…
My whole point was that you were making dire statements about the fallout that weren’t NECESSARILY the case, and if you could say that about the other signings we could say the same about Troch. All you did was illustrate my point, just from the other direction.
Regardless if you want to still rail on about a bad trade we made 3 years ago, be my guest. I’ll leave you to it.

are you being deliberately obtuse? or do you really not get how the cap works?

you're not counting both buch and blais. it's either buch or those 4 players that we acquired the same offseason we traded buch.

also you're being totally ignorant of the fact that we wouldn't have just not had a top 9 center replace Strome.

as i said, the reason it's still relevant is that as recently as this offseason we spent draft assets to fill the hole Buch left on the KZ wing. 3 years of assets continually spent to bandage one mistake.

 

[HatTrick Swayze]

Zetterlund sucks

That would be a Drury special so maybe it has legs

 

[Kaapo Cabana]

The Buch trade is done. It was a mistake. Every team makes them. Unless we are looking at it as precedence for a similar situation, its useless to bring up.

We act like we are the only team that makes bad trades, and have never benefited from one. You have to take the good with the bad because you are not always going to win. Nobody here seems to be complaining about the Zibanejad trade. We take that as a given, but the Buch trade as a unique instance of blatant incompetence.

Blais at the time was a player who played a noticeable role on a recent cup team, and it wasn't out of the realm of possibility that he could be a good player for us that brought a physical element that we lacked. They recognized the difference in value which is why we also got a 2nd for him. They also knew Blais would cost less, and with us thinking at least 1 of Kakko and Laf would be playing major roles in 21-22, you can start to understand the logic

Blais started slow, got hurt, and that was it for him. The pick was traded for a pretty good rental in Copp, but ultimately we have nothing to show for it. The money we saved was not spent wisely. Kakko and Laf didn't come anywhere close to expectations that next season. Everything that could have gone wrong, did.

The reality is that there was a plausible justification to make the trade. You can disagree with that justification as I do, but there is a world where it could have worked out. It was a questionable move at the time that has been tainted by the events that followed.

I happen to think you almost always lose trades where you are trading the best player because the value of the aggregate return very often does not reach full potential. So in that regard I did not like the move at the time, but I'm over it. We all should be.

 

[80shockeywasbuns]

"we wouldn't have been able to afford trocheck."

Could’ve had both of them easily

 

[80shockeywasbuns]

dude it was the same offseason.

do you think letting strome go and signing troch were unrelated? of course not.

the point is that there is no justification, at the time or since, that stands up to logical analysis. The idea of trading buch was always and will forever be a bad one.

worst trade the team has ever made. literally not a single justification for it

 

[eco's bones]

Buchnevich is a really good player but his playoff track record so far in his career doesn't lead me to believe that he'd have been a big difference maker against Florida. We can lament the bad value we got back for him but even so I don't think it would have changed the results in 2022 against Tampa or 2024 against Florida. If we had kept him we might not have Trocheck either who was our best forward in the playoffs last year or at least IMO.

 

[bernmeister]

The Buch trade is done. It was a mistake. Every team makes them. Unless we are looking at it as precedence for a similar situation, its useless to bring up.

We act like we are the only team that makes bad trades, and have never benefited from one. You have to take the good with the bad because you are not always going to win. Nobody here seems to be complaining about the Zibanejad trade. We take that as a given, but the Buch trade as a unique instance of blatant incompetence.

Blais at the time was a player who played a noticeable role on a recent cup team, and it wasn't out of the realm of possibility that he could be a good player for us that brought a physical element that we lacked. They recognized the difference in value which is why we also got a 2nd for him. They also knew Blais would cost less, and with us thinking at least 1 of Kakko and Laf would be playing major roles in 21-22, you can start to understand the logic

Blais started slow, got hurt, and that was it for him. The pick was traded for a pretty good rental in Copp, but ultimately we have nothing to show for it. The money we saved was not spent wisely. Kakko and Laf didn't come anywhere close to expectations that next season. Everything that could have gone wrong, did.

The reality is that there was a plausible justification to make the trade. You can disagree with that justification as I do, but there is a world where it could have worked out. It was a questionable move at the time that has been tainted by the events that followed.

I happen to think you almost always lose trades where you are trading the best player because the value of the aggregate return very often does not reach full potential. So in that regard I did not like the move at the time, but I'm over it. We all should be.

Buchnevich is a really good player but his playoff track record so far in his career doesn't lead me to believe that he'd have been a big difference maker against Florida. We can lament the bad value we got back for him but even so I don't think it would have changed the results in 2022 against Tampa or 2024 against Florida. If we had kept him we might not have Trocheck either who was our best forward in the playoffs last year or at least IMO.

The prob was not that we traded Buch
It was that despite we were obv going nowhere, we held him and did not deal until the last possible moment when all there was was a sliver of rfa status.

Had we dealt earlier when there was both low salary AND TERM, we could have scored a much, much bigger haul.

 

[Machinehead]

We don't win the Cup with Buchnevich any of the last three years. That RW hole has never been the defining factor holding this team back.

 

[noncents]

We don't win the Cup with Buchnevich any of the last three years. That RW hole has never been the defining factor holding this team back.

whatever makes you feel better.

Blais at the time was a player who played a noticeable role on a recent cup team, and it wasn't out of the realm of possibility that he could be a good player for us that brought a physical element that we lacked. They recognized the difference in value which is why we also got a 2nd for him. They also knew Blais would cost less, and with us thinking at least 1 of Kakko and Laf would be playing major roles in 21-22, you can start to understand the logic

this be that shit again.

it wasn't plausible or defensible then, and still isn't now, that blais' value would begin to approach what buch brought. it's insanity and a total condemnation of the teams ability to valuate hockey players.