Speculation: Roster Building Thread: Part XIII

[Graves94]

When Gorton was running the Bruins with Chiarelli, rebuilding that team, which ultimately won the SC, they drafted Bergeron, Marchand, Krejci, etc...BUT, they also signed Chara as a FA from Ottawa. Without Chara, the Bruins don't win the cup, even though it took a few years to win it!
The point I'm trying to make, is that I think the Rangers will sign a true elite player if it makes sense $$/length wise. I'm also thinking that they trade SOME of the current young guys they've drafted/acquired, if they get other similar aged players, that fill holes in other positions.

 

[BleedinBLUEsince92]

That's fair, but I'll counter and say Panarin isn't pulling this roster out of the muck by himself.

He's a superstar winger no doubt, but next year the defense will still be bad, and I love Hank but he ain't getting any younger. And as good as Shestyorkin may be, I'd be surprised if he starts lighting it up immediately next year.

Even if they signed him, I'd bet on them being a bottom 5 team, maybe a little better like bottom 8. This is the year to be complete garbage

Here’s why I think people concerned about us being stuck in the middle of the pack if we sign Panarin are wrong. This isn’t the same when we signed guys like Gaborik. 1) Panarin is much closer to a franchise player than say Gaborik who was a pure goal scorer. 2) We have already loaded up on picks + prospects. We had 5 1sts the past two years. Added another 1st in Howden. That’s 6 1sts right there and that’s not including the other 2 at least that we’ll have this year. That’s a ton of 1sts + prospects. If people expect we’re going to just keep loading up much more than that for years to come they’re going to be disappointed.

 

[BleedinBLUEsince92]

Here’s why I think people concerned about us being stuck in the middle of the pack if we sign Panarin are wrong. This isn’t the same when we signed guys like Gaborik. 1) Panarin is much closer to a franchise player than say Gaborik who was a pure goal scorer. 2) We have already loaded up on picks + prospects. We had 5 1sts the past two years. Added another 1st in Howden. That’s 6 1sts right there and that’s not including the other 2 at least that we’ll have this year. That’s a ton of 1sts + prospects. If people expect we’re going to just keep loading up much more than that for years to come they’re going to be disappointed.

One other thing I’ll say. It is a fallacy to assume that by not signing a guy like Panarin we will get a top 5 pick and draft our own elite stud. Nothing is a guarantee. If you can bring in an elite player in his prime for just money. You do it. We have not had a guy like Panarin who can dictate the game since Jagr. My opinion is that the best thing to do is sell Hayes and Zuccarello rather soon and then hope for that top 5 pick this year. Add a guy like Dach, Cozens, etc + Panarin in offseason and I think that’s an excellent rebuild/retool.

 

[Tawnos]

@Inferno

You and I were having a conversation, I think last week, about Nylander in which I said that $8m is for complimentary players, which you disputed, and I said you have to look at comparable cap hit percentages, not cap hits. Complimentary, at this level, refers to players who will never be centerpieces to Cup teams, but still probably important components. I didn't have the time to do the research until today. $8m represents 10.06% of the current cap. Here is a list of players who signed at 9.5-10.5%. The represents ranks 33-50 among skaters cap hit %.

Bobby Ryan
David Krejci
Ryan O'Reilly
Dustin Byfuglien
Evgeny Kuznetsov
Aaron Ekblad
Vladimir Tarasenko
Erik Karlsson
Alex Pietrangelo
John Carlson
Jordan Staal
Taylor Hall
Jordan Eberle
Duncan Keith
Ryan Kesler
Brent Seabrook
Tyler Seguin
Jeff Skinner

It's pretty mixed. There are some truly top players on this list. Half are either #1 D or PPG caliber forwards. The other half are either complimentary 1st line forwards, #2 level D, or high-end 2nd liners. Plus, many of the top players (Tarasenko, Karlsson, Pietrangelo, Hall, Seguin) signed during a time where RFAs legitimately signed for less money. That's really changed over the last 3 years or so and is no longer the reality.

I would say that William Nylander fits into this group pretty well.

 

[BobMarleyNYR]

Here’s why I think people concerned about us being stuck in the middle of the pack if we sign Panarin are wrong. This isn’t the same when we signed guys like Gaborik. 1) Panarin is much closer to a franchise player than say Gaborik who was a pure goal scorer. 2) We have already loaded up on picks + prospects. We had 5 1sts the past two years. Added another 1st in Howden. That’s 6 1sts right there and that’s not including the other 2 at least that we’ll have this year. That’s a ton of 1sts + prospects. If people expect we’re going to just keep loading up much more than that for years to come they’re going to be disappointed.

I don't think they're done. The next draft will probably be the year they try and move up as far as possible... by the looks of things, they don't seem to have a future winner in just the last couple years... all could be bust.

 

[offdacrossbar]

you add jack hughes and panarin next season plus shesty as hanks backup and imagine if we could somehow add kravtsov too. heck even without shesty keep george.

those 4 guys would change the entire dynamic of this team.

subtract hayes and zucc for 1st round picks in 2019

zib
hughes
howden
LA

that's pretty sound down the middle

adding panarin and kravtsov adds a ton of skill and scoring on the edge. buch CK chytil vesey thats 6 solid top 9 wingers right there.

after the 2019 draft this organization could be filthy with prospects.

its not that far fetched.

heck our 4th line could be quickie LA names. that right there is one heck of a 4th line.

 

[BobMarleyNYR]

you add jack hughes and panarin next season plus shesty as hanks backup and imagine if we could somehow add kravtsov too. heck even without shesty keep george.

those 4 guys would change the entire dynamic of this team.

subtract hayes and zucc for 1st round picks in 2019

zib
hughes
howden
LA

that's pretty sound down the middle

adding panarin and kravtsov adds a ton of skill and scoring on the edge. buch CK chytil vesey thats 6 solid top 9 wingers right there.

after the 2019 draft this organization could be filthy with prospects.

its not that far fetched.

heck our 4th line could be quickie LA names. that right there is one heck of a 4th line.

Kravtsov doesn't seem ready to just barge in and do more than Chytil has thus far...

 

[Paulie Walnutz]

Did they really believe Hayes was going to take that next step at the age of 26 and in his 5th year in the league?

Gorton should have moved Hayes in the summer at the draft or before July 1.

That is not a second guess.

What if there were no good offers? I’m with you on moving Hayes but at the same time you can’t just give him away for nothing just because you want to get rid of him. It also didn’t hurt to have him on the team as a fail safe in case the kid centers weren’t ready. At the same time you can try to build up his value during the season.

 

[Tawnos]

What if there were no good offers? I’m with you on moving Hayes but at the same time you can’t just give him away for nothing just because you want to get rid of him. It also didn’t hurt to have him on the team as a fail safe in case the kid centers aren’t ready. At the same time you can try to build up his value during the season.

Also, Derrick Brassard did take that next step at age 26 after being in the league for more than 5 years. It's not exactly unheard of.

 

[LaffyTaffy]

Kravtsov doesn't seem ready to just barge in and do more than Chytil has thus far...

I gotta disagree with you there. I think if Kravtsov plays next season, he will produce at the same rate as Howden if not better.

 

[East Coast Bias]

I often fear this is the type of path the Rangers are on. And, even with the benefit of the best goalie of this generation, it still didn't put them over the top.

From 2011-2017, the Rangers were in 3 ECF (won 1, lost to NJ and TB) in a 4 year stretch. They obviously lost in one SCF. Using 2 totally different coaching styles, with a lot of the same core.

Because it didn't result in a cup people have just thrown out that period as everything bad, which I don't agree with. You can say "build a cup winner" all you want but that only means something after the fact. What we're trying to do is build a perennial cup contender. There's randomness involved, with injuries and matchups that you can't account for in building. There's individual games where they didn't execute, and coaching blunders that cost us, but I don't think

Maybe this doesn't make a lot of sense. I just get this feeling that people are so hurt by not winning the cup they're on this idea that everything has to be different. and they're chasing this model idea of what a SC winner has to look like. Our whole strategy was/is flawed and that core wasn't good enough, and I just don't agree with it. There's definite lessons to be learned from that period, namely when to cut bait with aging players. But a lot of things went right, and I'll take my chances at playing in 3 ECF in 4 years any day. I'm also someone who believes in randomness and luck having a much larger role in things than most people though.

 

[BobMarleyNYR]

I also think it's erroneous to assume Lundqvist will always be there anyhow. He WAS the best of a generation now in its twilight.

 

[BobMarleyNYR]

I gotta disagree with you there. I think if Kravtsov plays next season, he will produce at the same rate as Howden if not better.

That' be nice, for sure.

 

[Tawnos]

From 2011-2017, the Rangers were in 3 ECF (won 1, lost to NJ and TB) in a 4 year stretch. They obviously lost in one SCF. Using 2 totally different coaching styles, with a lot of the same core.

Because it didn't result in a cup people have just thrown out that period as everything bad, which I don't agree with. You can say "build a cup winner" all you want but that only means something after the fact. What we're trying to do is build a perennial cup contender. There's randomness involved, with injuries and matchups that you can't account for in building. There's individual games where they didn't execute, and coaching blunders that cost us, but I don't think

Maybe this doesn't make a lot of sense. I just get this feeling that people are so hurt by not winning the cup they're on this idea that everything has to be different. and they're chasing this model idea of what a SC winner has to look like. Our whole strategy was/is flawed and that core wasn't good enough, and I just don't agree with it. There's definite lessons to be learned from that period, namely when to cut bait with aging players. But a lot of things went right, and I'll take my chances at playing in 3 ECF in 4 years any day. I'm also someone who believes in randomness and luck having a much larger role in things than most people though.

That team wasn't built all that differently than the Bruins, even though they played a different style of game. It can work, for sure. The biggest difference is that the Luongo collapsed in 2 games for the Canucks in 2011. I still maintain that the margin in 13-14 and 14-15 was super small. In 14, if they play the Blackhawks, I think they win. LA was matched up better against the Rangers and the series was essentially a standstill. In 15, if Zuccarello doesn't get hurt on a freak play, they at least make it to the SCF and possibly win there too. I mean it. I think we were a two toss-ups away from having back-to-back Cups. I consider the way that team was built to be a success, not a failure.

 

[offdacrossbar]

Kravtsov doesn't seem ready to just barge in and do more than Chytil has thus far...

see now i disagree.

if we are all about developing players, hes a kid we should develop and soon. if chytl can stay then kravtsov can stay as well. andersson should also be up and playing.

chytl to me has been misused and has been subpar so far. he needs top 9 minutes and some pp.

the talent is there with these kids. just have to use it properly.

also, with buch, George, maybe shesty, maybe panarin thats a whole lot of support for the kid

 

[Amazing Kreiderman]

I gotta disagree with you there. I think if Kravtsov plays next season, he will produce at the same rate as Howden if not better.

I still think staying another year in the KHL is best for his development. Not because he isn't good enough, but because of his role in Chelyabinsk.

 

[HatTrick Swayze]

Even if one or two of those picks turn into elite or near-elite, the Rangers are still going to have to acquire another skater or two at the same level. I was making this point in a post yesterday. When you look at the teams that have won Cups, the number of elite or near-elite players they drafted is 2 or 3 but that's always supplemented by a player at the same level acquired from outside the organization.

In other words, the calculation is the same. If you draft and develop 2 or 3 top-end players, you need to acquire at least one more from somewhere else. If you draft and develop 1 or 0 top-end players, you need to acquire at least one more from somewhere else. If we have to do it anyway, why not do it when the opportunity is there and it definitely doesn't cost any assets?

I think we are 90% on the same page because I agree with most of this.

Assuming Panarin is one (which I think he is) the math comes down to:

How many do they have now in the org?

How many will they have at time of signing Panarin (2019 draft outlook)?

Does Panarin affect your ability to draft another one?


If they feel between Chytil/Kravtsov they have one, and with their 2019 pick they have one, I’d do it.

If both are “eh maybe” it’s less straightfoward.

Dead horse but wow Pettersson would have made a difference. At least it was out of their hands.

 

[East Coast Bias]

That team wasn't built all that differently than the Bruins, even though they played a different style of game. It can work, for sure. The biggest difference is that the Luongo collapsed in 2 games for the Canucks in 2011. I still maintain that the margin in 13-14 and 14-15 was super small. In 14, if they play the Blackhawks, I think they win. LA was matched up better against the Rangers and the series was essentially a standstill. In 15, if Zuccarello doesn't get hurt on a freak play, they at least make it to the SCF and possibly win there too. I mean it. I think we were a two toss-ups away from having back-to-back Cups. I consider the way that team was built to be a success, not a failure.

Totally agree with all of this. I'm completely on board with the rebuild - it was time. Going to the well for another run wasn't going to work. I just think as we approach this rebuild, burning the history books isn't the right way to think about it. Looking at a kid and saying "he's a Stepan type player" or a "Brassard type guy" and then deeming them not good enough because we didn't win isn't the right way to look at it.

Nailing the 1st pick and getting Hughes would be absolutely the best step forward we can take. But the moves that surround that to build the rest of the roster are equally important, and in some cases, more in our control.

 

[Tawnos]

I think we are 90% on the same page because I agree with most of this.

Assuming Panarin is one (which I think he is) the math comes down to:

How many do they have now in the org?

How many will they have at time of signing Panarin (2019 draft outlook)?

Does Panarin affect your ability to draft another one?


If they feel between Chytil/Kravtsov they have one, and with their 2019 pick they have one, I’d do it.

If both are “eh maybe” it’s less straightfoward.

Dead horse but wow Pettersson would have made a difference. At least it was out of their hands.

In my opinion, if we don't have one in the org now, the rebuild is either going to look like the last one (a team built more on depth than high-end talent) or it will fail anyway. Panarin isn't going to change that outcome.

Well, unless we get two from the 2019 draft.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

From 2011-2017, the Rangers were in 3 ECF (won 1, lost to NJ and TB) in a 4 year stretch. They obviously lost in one SCF. Using 2 totally different coaching styles, with a lot of the same core.

Because it didn't result in a cup people have just thrown out that period as everything bad, which I don't agree with. You can say "build a cup winner" all you want but that only means something after the fact. What we're trying to do is build a perennial cup contender. There's randomness involved, with injuries and matchups that you can't account for in building. There's individual games where they didn't execute, and coaching blunders that cost us, but I don't think

Maybe this doesn't make a lot of sense. I just get this feeling that people are so hurt by not winning the cup they're on this idea that everything has to be different. and they're chasing this model idea of what a SC winner has to look like. Our whole strategy was/is flawed and that core wasn't good enough, and I just don't agree with it. There's definite lessons to be learned from that period, namely when to cut bait with aging players. But a lot of things went right, and I'll take my chances at playing in 3 ECF in 4 years any day. I'm also someone who believes in randomness and luck having a much larger role in things than most people though.

A Stanley Cup winner has to have (usually multiple) elite position players to win a cup. This is just my personal opinion, but I think the Rangers came about as close as a team can to winning it all considering a pronounced lack of the type of players I am referencing. Rick Nash was supposed to be that guy and barely showed up in 2014. Anyway, Im not saying theres a right and a wrong way - and this could be a coincidence - but it's very rare to see a team win it all where the elite talent is imported from elsewhere.

Its a fascinating argument, but right now at least, Im just hoping the Rangers can develop ANY sort of NHL depth over the next year or two.

 

[GoAwayPanarin]

Kravtsov doesn't seem ready to just barge in and do more than Chytil has thus far...

Based on what?

 

[East Coast Bias]

A Stanley Cup winner has to have (usually multiple) elite position players to win a cup. This is just my personal opinion, but I think the Rangers came about as close as a team can to winning it all considering a pronounced lack of the type of players I am referencing. Rick Nash was supposed to be that guy and barely showed up in 2014. Anyway, Im not saying theres a right and a wrong way - and this could be a coincidence - but it's very rare to see a team win it all where the elite talent is imported from elsewhere.

Its a fascinating argument, but right now at least, Im just hoping the Rangers can develop ANY sort of NHL depth over the next year or two.

Yeah I don’t disagree here. I wasn’t singling you per say. More of a collective mindset thing I’m seeing.

I just see a lot of people kinda jumping at this “elite” concept where if a player doesn’t look it, they’re ready to scrap them and hit next.

If Lias and Howden develop into Stepan type two way players that hit 50 pts, that’s great. We’re going to need that as much as the elite guy.

 

[Off Sides]

From 2011-2017, the Rangers were in 3 ECF (won 1, lost to NJ and TB) in a 4 year stretch. They obviously lost in one SCF. Using 2 totally different coaching styles, with a lot of the same core.

Because it didn't result in a cup people have just thrown out that period as everything bad, which I don't agree with. You can say "build a cup winner" all you want but that only means something after the fact. What we're trying to do is build a perennial cup contender. There's randomness involved, with injuries and matchups that you can't account for in building. There's individual games where they didn't execute, and coaching blunders that cost us, but I don't think

Maybe this doesn't make a lot of sense. I just get this feeling that people are so hurt by not winning the cup they're on this idea that everything has to be different. and they're chasing this model idea of what a SC winner has to look like. Our whole strategy was/is flawed and that core wasn't good enough, and I just don't agree with it. There's definite lessons to be learned from that period, namely when to cut bait with aging players. But a lot of things went right, and I'll take my chances at playing in 3 ECF in 4 years any day. I'm also someone who believes in randomness and luck having a much larger role in things than most people though.

I don't see it as everything was bad, it was just not good enough.

I think of luck as more of probability. If coin flips are 50/50 the probability to win 4 flips in row is about ~6%.

Did the Rangers really go into 4 straight playoff series ever with 50/50 odds of winning each one?

I don't think so but I am sure some do.


The only way I see them getting there under the cap is to use some entry level deals on players who are elite/near elite in production in the playoffs. Mostly every Cup winner since the salary cap has had some group of skaters that went near to a point per playoff game, sometimes a little less or more.

While Panarin could be one of them, I'm not sure they have any others or will produce any others during his prime years for it to become a group. Again I am just less optimistic on their current prospect pool than most. I am happy they improved it, it was needed, but I'm not confident in saying the top end of it is going to match up to what other teams they will face in the playoffs will have, Panarin or no Panarin.

 

[Waivers]

I don't see Kravtsov playing in the NHL next October. He may get a few games throughout 2019-2020, but I imagine he will be in Hartford for at least a year to get antiquated with North American style hockey.

 

[GoAwayPanarin]

I don't see Kravtsov playing in the NHL next October. He may get a few games throughout 2019-2020, but I imagine he will be in Hartford for at least a year to get antiquated with North American style hockey.

I asked this to someone else and I'll ask this here...

Based off of what? The assumption that he'll need to adjust to the NA rink?