Great post, SML. I agree. Let them make their mistakes. Let them learn. Let what will be the future core come together. Only after the core is together and its leaders are established can you start to add UFA pieces. Stay the course. Trust the process.
Speculation: Roster Building Thread: Part XL
- Thread starter Fugazy
- Start date
-
Xenforo Cloud will be upgrading us to version 2.3.5 on March 3rd at 12 AM GMT. This version has increased stability and fixes several bugs. We expect downtime for the duration of the update. The admin team will continue to work on existing issues, templates and upgrade all necessary available addons to minimize impact of this new version. Click Here for Updates
- Status
I don’t see any rush to move staal. He’s solid in this system. When Miller is ready that’s a different story but I think miller is at least a year or two more likely away.
Next year skjei Staal Hajek with Smith the 7thD/12th forward works fine for me on that side of the ice.
I’m not as high on Lindgren as others are. I think he’s a decent depth piece
Next year skjei Staal Hajek with Smith the 7thD/12th forward works fine for me on that side of the ice.
I’m not as high on Lindgren as others are. I think he’s a decent depth piece
haohmaru
boomshakalaka
Miller committed to staying in school next year already so I would think 2020-21 at the earliest. Lundkvist might be here first.
I feel like trading Kreider and signing Panarin makes sense. Swapping 1st line wingers and gaining assets in the process.
If they think we can start competing now, adding Panarin to this team while we still have these guys on ELCs and 2nd contracts isn’t a bad idea either. The defense is way too questionable for me to think they can compete now though. Also we have to start transitioning from Hank to Georgie/Shesty
If they think we can start competing now, adding Panarin to this team while we still have these guys on ELCs and 2nd contracts isn’t a bad idea either. The defense is way too questionable for me to think they can compete now though. Also we have to start transitioning from Hank to Georgie/Shesty
- Jan 18, 2012
- 35,306
- 53,965
We more than likely have Rykov coming over... heard he took major steps this past season.
Staal will more than likely be blocking someone
pld459666
Registered User
To top it off, that was in response to the line that DeBoer sent out and then (deboer) tried to play innocent
I don't think the Rangers are in as much of a hurry to move Staal as the fans are. Despite being a shell of his former self, he's still an intelligent veteran player who has spent a lot of time matching up against some of the best players in the league. Not a bad guy to be mentoring your up-and-coming group of Rykov, Lindgren, Hajek, and Miller.
This.
Staal’s biggest problem is his contract. Take away that number and he is a reasonable 4-5=defenseman in the league.
Smith is the guy taking up space. He’ll be gone soon enough.
Shattenkirk will probably get one more season to rehabilitate his career. He’s still a brand name, albeit tarnished. He could recover some value. He could also help the team and mentor some of the young RHD.
Inferno
Registered User
Staal was a flaming bag of shit the 2nd half of the season.
He should be an extra if guys step up and prove they're ready for NHL minutes.
He should be an extra if guys step up and prove they're ready for NHL minutes.
I think Staalsy is probably a bottom-pairing option on a middle of the pack team. He's just not fast enough anymore and he regularly gets beat in the corners, which used to be the strongest part of his game.
Shattenkirk is in the same boat as Staal. A veteran with loads of experience that was once one of the better players of his ilk during his career. He can mentor guys like Pionk and DeAngelo, perhaps Fox if that comes to fruition, and then maybe be a rental option for some teams in 2021. Maybe a team bites on him in the summer of 2020 if he has a big year but I'd be a little surprised. I think the cat is out of the bag for what he is: A PP specialist who can be on the 2nd pairing in a pinch, but isn't a guy you want seeing meaningful minutes against top-six forwards.
Beacon
Embrace the tank
- May 28, 2007
- 13,676
- 1,454
Immediately before getting Fleury, Quintal, Lefebvre, Kevin Hatcher in July 1999, we had 3 top-10 picks in 1998 and 1999. We also had a top prospect in Mike York who went on to score 50 points as a rookie that year (because you know how no rookie ever regresses or stops improving at the age of 21?). We had Nedved in his prime getting about ppg for years. We had Schneider in his prime. Todd Harvey just had .9 ppg as a 23 year old. We had a very highly hyped 22-year-old Dvorak. Burke Henry was talked up as a blue chip prospect after 2 seasons with over ppg in the Juniors as a two-way defenseman. Holmqvist was the original Swede picked in the 7th round who was supposed to become our star goalie of the future after getting 2.59 GAA as a teenager in the Swedish league, then second-best in the world.
Now, those names mean nothing to people today. I'm sure most of those too young to remember 20 years ago are thinking, "why are you bringing up random scrubs? What could Burke Henry have in common with K'Andre when one is a minor leaguer and the other is a great prospect? What does Malhotra have in common with Lias? Brendl with Kakko? Those guys are all minor leaguers or garbage NHLers." Except that's not at all how anyone viewed them in the summer of 1999 when the Rangers went on a massive UFA shopping spree. There was just as much hype in 1999 as in 2019, maybe more. Now we know those guys were a disaster. But we do not know what the future holds for the current group. First, we find out, then we buy UFAs. Not for nothing, but even if they succeed, how do we know that we need wingers and not defensemen? Centers and not goalies?
Great post!
I also think along those lines when I see the debate if Gorton should get us into the POs next season or not. For — all — rebuilding teams it has been really really hard to get back up the standings and into the POs.
There is one big difference, back then we had a totally flawed structure. We were just entering the midst of the trapping era, but ‘you couldn’t trap in NY’ and we kept on playing like normal, without much structure. The kids and vets were put in a really bad position.
We have been exceedingly fortunate in our coaching decisions over the last 15 years. Each as added something that has allowed the following coach to build upon. After the earlier era of Muckler, Low, and Trottier, each did a really fine job.
Renney: established a defensive responsibility to a team wallowing in chaos. Set high standards of professionalism. IMO, an outstanding coach who was perfect for the team at that time.
Torts gave us a hard edged work ethic and junk yard dog mentality. Those early teams of the Torts years with Cally, Dubi, et al are among my favorite Ranger teams and I go back to the late 1950s and early 1960s.
AV opened the team offensively.
The success Torts had would not have been possible without the foundation that Renney built. The success AV had would not have been possible w/o the work that Renney and Torts did. The sustained success we had was the product of each adding their brick to the wall.
But, coaches have a shelf life. Renney was outstanding...until he wasn’t. Torts was just what we needed...until he wasn’t. AV’s system worked...until it didn’t.
DQ seems the perfect coach for where we are now and where we will be over the next few years. He will do a fine job...until he doesn’t.
As the saying goes, “hired to be fired.”
Renney: established a defensive responsibility to a team wallowing in chaos. Set high standards of professionalism. IMO, an outstanding coach who was perfect for the team at that time.
Torts gave us a hard edged work ethic and junk yard dog mentality. Those early teams of the Torts years with Cally, Dubi, et al are among my favorite Ranger teams and I go back to the late 1950s and early 1960s.
AV opened the team offensively.
The success Torts had would not have been possible without the foundation that Renney built. The success AV had would not have been possible w/o the work that Renney and Torts did. The sustained success we had was the product of each adding their brick to the wall.
But, coaches have a shelf life. Renney was outstanding...until he wasn’t. Torts was just what we needed...until he wasn’t. AV’s system worked...until it didn’t.
DQ seems the perfect coach for where we are now and where we will be over the next few years. He will do a fine job...until he doesn’t.
As the saying goes, “hired to be fired.”
Beacon
Embrace the tank
- May 28, 2007
- 13,676
- 1,454
We are probably going to be better this time than in 1999. Gorton is just a better GM than Neil Smith. He stepped into a team that already had Leetch, Richter, Amonte, Sandstrom, Granato, Patrick, Dahlen, Turcotte, among others. Smith kept missing in the first round on Rice, Stewart, Ferraro, Brown, Brendl, Lundmark, even Sundstrom (8OA), Malhotra (7OA), Cloutier. He got lucky with Zubov, Norstrom, Savard and Weight in the later rounds, but dealt them all away in terrible trades. Had he merely stayed the course with the kids, the Rangers would've been contenders until at least y2k, likely until the second lockout.
Yeah, but you sometimes see people talk about how Torts gave us a work ethic we had lacked. Our 3rd and 4th line under Renney were tremendously gritty and worked really really hard. Hollweg-Betts-Ortmayer, Orr-Betts-Ward and co.
I think Torts can be an excellent coach in many situations, but he has focused on the wrong things, cut down on all type of creativity in the transition game etc.
More stuff on the ‘there won’t be any good UFAs available but there will be many trades front:
I do not disagree, but his playingtime needs to be reduced. The Rangers need to find out what they have in Hajek and Lindgren. They cannot both get in if Staal plays every day. He can still be a leader and mentor, but not play all the time. Just like the Rangers reduced the amount of games that Henke was playing. Same conversation needs to be had with Staal.
Yeah, and I think your original point still stands. Just because I don’t we aren’t EDM/NYR late 90s badly managed it’s still not easy to get out of a rebuild.
I think this is very well said. There is just no need to rush out in search of immediate gratification. Let's first discover what is underneath the hood, before we decide to add on the assessors. We have no idea if Georgiev regresses next season. We have no idea of how much of a step forward the 'yutes take. Or if someone takes a step back. UFAs come and go all the time. The franchise embarked on a true rebuild. Let nature take its course.
Smith got here in 1989 and won the Stanley Cup in 1994. The second half of his resume wasn't good. Gorton has a long way to go to match the first half.
I agree that his minutes should be managed, but it should come as a result of someone showing they deserve more minutes. Hajek definitely showed well in his limited stint and was rewarded with more minutes. Lindgren played okay, but I think he could use more time to cook. I just don't want them to throw the kids ahead of Staal in the lineup until they show they've earned it.
- Aug 5, 2010
- 13,857
- 9,487
Are you trying to make a comparison between now and summer of 1999? I didn’t even need to be a fan 20 years ago to tell you it’s not even close.
First, based on the names of UFAs it’s clear that the Rangers defense was in shambles and there were absolutely no impactful prospects to talk about.
Second, 3 first round picks in two years is far cry, mildly put, from what looks like 9-10 picks in ‘17-‘19, one of which is top2!
I don’t want to go into debate and so let’s call Nedved even to Zibanejad, even though I will take the Swede over the Czech because the later never had desire, acumen or skill to compete against the other team’s top-liners on defense.
The rest? York was undersized in the era when it counted and his upside was never of a 1st liner. He was good in his rookie year but no one was expecting a lot of upside. Harvey was a pest that belong on a third-line, maybe second if he unexpectedly reached his ultimate ceiling. Dvorak was talented but clearly carried by Nedved and had similar defensive issues.
Brendl and Lundmark were huge whiffs and together with how Malhotra developed it became devastating to the organization. Is it possible that Chytil, Kravtsov and Andersson busted this hard after what they showed in their D+2/1 seasons across NHL, AHL and KHL? Let’s say Andersson becomes Malhotra as you suggested as a possibility but Chytil and Kravtsov already have done more than those ‘99 draftees to virtually guarantee a much better outcome. And this without even mentioning Kakko and all defensive prospects and other picks in the current era.
haohmaru
boomshakalaka
Just for reference - whatever worked/didn't work 20 years ago has little bearing now. That NHL and this NHL aren't remotely similar for a thousand reasons.
Does this philosophy apply to any vet Panarin's age? I mean, are you not signing a 27 year old Gretzky because of his age, past demons, and hesitancy about his production moving forward?
At some point, if you want to win a Cup you have to make some bold moves and take some chances. Is Panarin a risk? Yes. So is every other player because you simply don't know.
I get the Panarin trepidation. I really do. But we really need to get past the Drury/Gomez/Redden comparisons as the situations they were brought in under and what they brought to the table really aren't comparable.
- Status
