Speculation: Roster Building Thread: Part XIV

[Edge]

It's a bigger risk when the average age of your top 9 is like 21, but for some reason, nobody talks about that as a risk.

I agree on the risk of being too young and inexperienced, but I think the concern is also that the Rangers don't really have a great history with players, elite or otherwise, heading into their age 33-34 seasons.

While having a prospect bust can have a significant impact on the roster, it usually doesn't extend to the financial side of things or handcuff a team. The risk with big contracts to older players is that you can have situation where there is a significant impact on the roster AND a significant impact on a team's ability to make other moves.

Now that's not to say we go to the extreme and just dump everyone over a certain age and go with all kids, because that would present its own set of high-risks. But that's probably where at least a few people are coming from, at least on a base level.

 

[LeetchisGod]

RB is 100% right on this. The only route to a SC winning team is having elite or near elite talent in your top 5 along with a supporting cast of talent.

No short cuts. Stay the course for how ever long it takes

I believe that there are some people here who are perfectly happy just making the playoffs every year and never winning anything.

 

[nyr__1994]

The last 3 drafts the NYR have identified a target and tried to get it. Keller, Petterson and Kravtsov. They were unable to move up high enough to get the first two, but were comfortable waiting until 9 for Kravtsov. I would venture to guess that if they felt Vitali was going to go before 9 they would have moved up to get him.

Say this year they finish around the 6-8 mark and pick at # 6. They have the ammo to move up if there is a player there that they really like.

The low expectations for this team has brought in a whole different type of intrigue.

Will Hayes get traded and if so for what?

What will the other deadline rentals return?

RE: Hayes and Zucc - One possibility is a team on the bubble that is feeling the heat to get in the playoffs gives up a package including a 1st rounder and miss out, giving the NYR another chance in the lottery.

 

[EpicDing]

RB is 100% right on this. The only route to a SC winning team is having elite or near elite talent in your top 5 along with a supporting cast of talent.

No short cuts. Stay the course for how ever long it takes

He wants to trade everyone over like 24 though. That's absolutely asinine.

And I say that as someone who supports the tank. Look what happened when the Oilers tried that.

 

[TheTakedown]

When the Rangers signed Pirri he already had a 20-goal season in the NHL under his belt.

An that season was largely proven to be a fluke and most people know that--hence why he was a free agent to begin with

 

[Shesterkybomb]

Pirri was a pp specialist. He couldnt be counted on 5on5. He had a hard shot, but couldnt compete unless it was a pp. I don't see Letterri and him as similar, Letterri works hard to compete and is better defensively than Pirri but neither really contribute offensively 5 on 5 and that's something Letterri has to work on.

 

[Shesterkybomb]

Zuc is getting traded, McQuaid is getting traded, Hayes if he isn't signed is getting traded and hopefully Smith and spooner. Whatever you get back from all of that is the help we will get at the draft.

 

[Off Sides]

I too agree with RB in many regards, but I don't have any suggestions on how they can facilitate getting those early picks.

It's not like they are going to lose on purpose or make poor return trades just to be worse.

I don't really like it from a logical rebuilding perspective yet I am struggling to come up with a whole lot I'd like to see them doing differently. (at least things I think could be realistic)

 

[GoAwayPanarin]

The Rangers are not winning without drafting difference making forwards. So many “people” here are nothing but Rangers apologists. They rationalize everything.

Those players are found at the top of the draft. The Rangers have tried to trade for high draft picks. Edmonton and Phoenix in 2016 to select Keller. They were able to acquire the 7th in 2017 but Pettersson went 5th. Vancouver was working on a deal with Buffalo to drop down from 5th to 8th and take Pettersson at #8 but they got cold feet when the Rangers traded for #7.

You guys act like the Rangers are the Red Sox and have won 4 championships in the last 14 years.

It’s about winning a championship. Nothing else matters.

I will be going to the game tonight to see Pettersson. Awesome player. The Rangers need skill and elite levels forwards like him.

We’ve been winning games despite playing like ass.

If the latter continues, the former will cease.

Calm yo self.

 

[Shesterkybomb]

Cant lose on purpose and we cant trade into the top 3 so it is what it is, let the chips fall where they may. I have faith they will not pursue winning in playoffs unless it happens accidently, ie we still move the players we dont feel will be useful to a rebuild.

 

[Tawnos]

RB is 100% right on this. The only route to a SC winning team is having elite or near elite talent in your top 5 along with a supporting cast of talent.

No short cuts. Stay the course for how ever long it takes

There's literally no one who disagrees with that. There's a two-fold problem here. First, drafting high isn't the only way to get that talent. Unless you draft top-2, drafting high isn't even a guaranteed way to get that talent. And because of the lottery, finishing low doesn't even guarantee drafting that high anymore. Second, you have to balance finding a way to get into the higher draft picks without creating a situation where that high-end talent can't develop properly and starts to underperform. Talking about what's happened with other high-end players in bad situations.

 

[BBKers]

It's a bigger risk when the average age of your top 9 is like 21, but for some reason, nobody talks about that as a risk.

Panarin (28) - Zibanejad (26) - W Nylander (23)
Kravtsov (20) - Chytil (20) - Buchnevich (24)
Andersson (21) - Howden (20) - Pool Party (21)

Average age at start of 2019-2020 season = 23
Young, but not 21
Resign McLeod if you wish as well. Then the average goes up...

Vesey (26) - Fogarty (26)/Nieves (25) - Fast (27)

 

[DutchShamrock]

No one disagrees that you get access to elite talent with top 5 picks or that is an effective way to build a winner. But getting mad at the team for winning is like shaking your fist at the sky and yelling at the weather. They are all paid to perform and win.

I think the criticism against the organization is for not putting a guaranteed loser out there. Specifically, Zuccarello and Hayes are still here. The irony is Zucc is having no impact and Hayes is playing up his value. The market wasn't there in the off season so we must wait. Gorton wants to keep his job so if he has a terrible season he needs to trace the vet trades back to big returns.

Again, the irony with the complaints is the young guys are carrying the play. Gorton didn't straddle the line by keeping veteran performers, he built a bad team that played well because of the newer crop.

Maybe that's apologist talk, but maybe I trust same guy that identified Keller and Petterson. Or the label thing is all about where you happen to be standing.

 

[Edge]

I too agree with RB in many regards, but I don't have any suggestions on how they can facilitate getting those early picks.

It's not like they are going to lose on purpose or make poor return trades just to be worse.

I don't really like it from a logical rebuilding perspective yet I am struggling to come up with a whole lot I'd like to see them doing differently. (at least things I think could be realistic)

Strangely enough, in mind, I don't think they'll have to do much differently.

I have a feeling that this is team that is catching some teams by surprise right now, getting some good bounces, and overachieving a bit.

Not that any of that is a bad thing; I'm just not sure it's really sustainable over an 82 game season.

I have a feeling that this team has a reasonable probability of stumbling as we get into December and January. I always use the college basketball analogy --- lesser teams can usually hang close for the first half, but it's the second half where the better teams start to pull away.

I don't want to diminish what this team has done thus far --- winning is winning, no matter how ugly it sometimes looks. But I also find myself trying to focus on the bigger picture and I still have a hard time seeing this team rack up wins as teams adjust for them and start getting a read on what they do well, and what they don't do well.

Considering I never really saw this team finishing 29-31 in the league, I can't say that its ever been my measuring stick. I've always felt this was a team that more likely in the 28-25 range and I think that's about where they'll still end up.

 

[SA16]

RB is 100% right on this. The only route to a SC winning team is having elite or near elite talent in your top 5 along with a supporting cast of talent.

No short cuts. Stay the course for how ever long it takes

The Rangers made the SCF without having elite talent outside of goalie. If you can make the SCF then you can also win it.

Also, he's never right.

 

[East Coast Bias]

I believe that there are some people here who are perfectly happy just making the playoffs every year and never winning anything.

Why because post-game threads are generally positive after wins? Because people keep suggestions hypothetical trades in the roster building threads? Because people look for the upside in our prospects? Because people hope we hit on some guys and this turns around sooner than later?

The incessant screaming by a few because people find joy in their fandom on here is laughable. Are we all supposed to hibernate for 3 years and then come back? I understand the best way forward is the highest pick possible. But that's largely predicated on luck and fortune. And success is more so on the tens of other moves that get made with other picks, trades, development, coaching, etc.

I'm not going to begrudge people who find small pockets in joy in something that a lot of us use to escape the daily grinds of actual real life.

And if your or anyone else's reaction to that is that these people don't want to win as much as you do - than that's on you. Not everyone else.

 

[Tawnos]

The Rangers made the SCF without having elite talent outside of goalie. If you can make the SCF then you can also win it.

In the Rangers case, I think there's a really reasonable case to be made for them being as good as the Kings in 2014, but I don't agree with the idea that if you make it you can win it. I don't think the Golden Knights had a chance last year. I don't think the Devils had a chance in 2012. I don't think the Flyers had a chance in 2010. I don't think the Hurricanes had a chance in 2002. I don't think the Capitals had a chance in 1998, nor the Panthers in 1996.

I'm not sure if you can point to a single SCF in NHL history where the lesser team won. Plenty of teams where it's close enough to be debated, but none where the clear underdog won the series.

 

[DutchShamrock]

RB is 100% right on this. The only route to a SC winning team is having elite or near elite talent in your top 5 along with a supporting cast of talent.

No short cuts. Stay the course for how ever long it takes

I completely disagree with speaking in absolutes. Following blueprints of others is how you draft McIlrath, because the reigning champ was bigger and battled. I'm a broken record, but we were a Cheripanov, keeping Strahlman over Staal and Boyle, and a fair schedule away from winning a cup. Then this whole rigid path is shot to pieces.

Otherwise, I completely agree. Improve your odds. The old core was not winning so trade them in for assets and prospects. But don't get roped into following others.

 

[nyr__1994]

In the Rangers case, I think there's a really reasonable case to be made for them being as good as the Kings in 2014, but I don't agree with the idea that if you make it you can win it. I don't think the Golden Knights had a chance last year. I don't think the Devils had a chance in 2012. I don't think the Flyers had a chance in 2010. I don't think the Hurricanes had a chance in 2002. I don't think the Capitals had a chance in 1998, nor the Panthers in 1996.

I'm not sure if you can point to a single SCF in NHL history where the lesser team won. Plenty of teams where it's close enough to be debated, but none where the clear underdog won the series.

1995 - Despite the fact that the regular season was cut severely short by the owners' lockout, both the season and the finals were saved at the eleventh hour–this would be the latest in June that the Stanley Cup was awarded (matched in 2013). The Devils won their first Stanley Cup, after 21 seasons and two franchise relocations. It was also the first of three for the Devils in less than a decade. The win was made more impressive by the fact that the Devils won it holding the lowest seed ever to win the Stanley Cup with the fifth seed, which remained the record until 2012, another Final which not only involved the Devils, but also saw the Stanley Cup won by a team that did not have home ice advantage in any of the four rounds of the playoffs, as the Devils lost to the Los Angeles Kings. Their regular-season winning percentage was also the lowest since the 1967Toronto Maple Leafs. They were the underdogs going in, winning their first two games on the road.

 

[BBKers]

Wonder what Georgiev could net from LAK right now? They must be desperate... might be a good opportunity although there will be other suitors

 

[DutchShamrock]

The Rangers had a 2 goal lead in the 3rd period of two games they lost in OT. They had a 1 goal lead in another game they lost in OT. AV turtled and lost three leads. That is a far, far cry from having no chance in the final.

 

[Edge]

I completely disagree with speaking in absolutes. Following blueprints of others is how you draft McIlrath, because the reigning champ was bigger and battled. I'm a broken record, but we were a Cheripanov, keeping Strahlman over Staal and Boyle, and a fair schedule away from winning a cup. Then this whole rigid path is shot to pieces.

Otherwise, I completely agree. Improve your odds. The old core was not winning so trade them in for assets and prospects. But don't get roped into following others.

Yeah, I've always struggled with viewing things in absolutes.

I think there are things that more probable, sometimes by a wide margin, but not necessarily absolute.

I think there are so many variables at play and the goal is to give yourself as many options as possible to survive them.

 

[SA16]

Sorry to say but if you don't agree with "if you can make the final you can win the final" you are just wrong. No team is ever going to be more than like 70-75% to win in a Stanley cup final and that would be really lopsided in the first place. The home team is pretty much always going to be the favorite in any individual game because this isn't the NBA and there's no super team that would ever be a lock. This is math and not really debatable. Picking out previous serious really does not prove anything because we should expect some percentage of the time that the favorite always wins in a sample of 5 or 6 or whatever you choose.

 

[Tawnos]

1995 - Despite the fact that the regular season was cut severely short by the owners' lockout, both the season and the finals were saved at the eleventh hour–this would be the latest in June that the Stanley Cup was awarded (matched in 2013). The Devils won their first Stanley Cup, after 21 seasons and two franchise relocations. It was also the first of three for the Devils in less than a decade. The win was made more impressive by the fact that the Devils won it holding the lowest seed ever to win the Stanley Cup with the fifth seed, which remained the record until 2012, another Final which not only involved the Devils, but also saw the Stanley Cup won by a team that did not have home ice advantage in any of the four rounds of the playoffs, as the Devils lost to the Los Angeles Kings. Their regular-season winning percentage was also the lowest since the 1967Toronto Maple Leafs. They were the underdogs going in, winning their first two games on the road.

The Devils were the second best team in the league in 1993-94. They came within a double OT of likely winning the Cup themselves the year before. That team might have underperformed in the shortened regular season (so did the reigning Cup and President's Trophy winning Rangers, for that matter), but I think they fall in the debatable category.

 

[Tawnos]

Sorry to say but if you don't agree with "if you can make the final you can win the final" you are just wrong. No team is ever going to be more than like 70% to win in a Stanley cup final and that would be really lopsided in the first place. The home team is pretty much always going to be the favorite in any individual game because this isn't the NBA and there's no super team that would ever be a lock. This is math and not really debatable.

You absolutely cannot apply generic mathematics to an individual series. Falls in the "lies, damn lies and statistics" category.