Toggle sidebar

Speculation: Roster Building Thread: Part XLI

  • 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
Not open for further replies.
smoneil said:
It's not about sentiment and nostalgia. It's about respecting a legend. We don't want the team to treat players like a math equation rather than a team. When that happens, teams draw players that approach the game the same way, and that's exactly the kind of player we had in spades in the early 2000s. You've got to have guys who would skate through a steel wall for the team and for each other. You don't get that by making EVERY decision in a cold, calculating manner.

Beyond that, it just makes sense to trade Georgiev. If he wants to be a starter in this league, it isn't going to happen here. He's rapidly going to be too expensive to be the backup. Get the value for him now, and have Henrik (Shesty's idol) backup/mentor the young buck.
Click to expand...

Couldn't agree more.

Why is it so imperative that we keep both Shesterkin and Georgiev? Shesterkin is clearly the number one and future in net. Georgiev's value to us is worth more in a trade than he is playing 25 games a year as a backup. We don't need Georgiev. Lundqvist fills the mentor/backup role just fine and he gets to complete the final year of his contract on the team and go from there. That role is also his best shot at a Cup with this team. Maybe he re-signs on a cheap one year deal after? Who knows.

I always found the entitlement with other Ranger fans amusing when we have one f***ing Cup in 80 years. Where does it come from? After the 1994 Cup, Lundqvist's career is the second best highlight of this franchise in modern memory and the only reason we've been relevant the last 15 years. And people wanna buy him out over trading a player with no future on this team? Sorry, but we shouldn't be breaking our balls over Georgiev's role at the expense of a modern Ranger legend.

I would roll with Shesterkin and Lundqvist and try to move Georgiev best I can.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Reactions: egelband, Kords, bobbop and 3 others
WearAMask said:
Couldn't agree more.

Why is it so imperative that we keep both Shesterkin and Georgiev? Shesterkin is clearly the number one and future in net. Georgiev's value to us is worth more in a trade than he is playing 25 games a year as a backup. We don't need Georgiev. Lundqvist fills the mentor/backup role just fine and he gets to complete the final year of his contract on the team and go from there. That role is also his best shot at a Cup with this team. Maybe he re-signs on a cheap one year deal after? Who knows.

I always found the entitlement with other Ranger fans amusing when we have one f***ing Cup in 80 years. Where does it come from? After the 1994 Cup, Lundqvist's career is the second best highlight of this franchise in modern memory and the only reason we've been relevant the last 15 years. And people wanna buy him out over trading a player with no future on this team? Sorry, but we shouldn't be breaking our balls over Georgiev's role at the expense of a modern Ranger legend.

I would roll with Shesterkin and Lundqvist and try to move Georgiev best I can.
Click to expand...

While I agree with most of what you saying--I believe there will be 2 factors into if Hank wants to stay or go.

How will the salary cap be affected next year by COVID-19 ? If there is no impact I could see where the Rangers keep Hank as the backup for 1 year and trade Georgiev. If there is an impact of some sort using the buyout on Hank to solve the cap could become a wise move. Bettman said it yesterday that the NHL is in good standings so hopefully the cap will stay the same or rise.

If the Rangers decide to keep Hank and there is a buyout in place I think it would be best to use it on Staal ( pipeline of defenseman that could replace Staal is there waiting in the wings ). I've said multiple times that most people have all of the love in the world for Hank my only issue is what if Hank wants to continue playing after next season this is where it could get dicey--do you resign Hank or let him go ? Now your back in the same boat of what to do with Lundqvist ?

Last it would be helpful if we really knew the value of Georgiev ( some believe he could have been dealt at the deadline ) but the Rangers didn't receive the offer they wanted--smart move on their part.

Just my viewpoint as I could see where Hank stays or goes but you did write and I agree 100% with you that Hank did keep us relevant and make for some exciting times over the last 15 years.
 
  • Like
Reactions: egelband
Joey Bones said:
Bettman saying in an interview on NBS Sports that the economy in the NHL is stable, but it obviously hurt with the pandemic. Every team owner is fine financially.
Click to expand...
Sure, the owners are fine....the teams are the trouble spots.
 
Tawnos said:
Here are several possible scenarios:
1.) Tor wins, Car wins, Rangers don't win lotto: Rangers will get the lower of the two picks. If either team makes it to the ECF or later, that pick will be 28-31. Otherwise, it'll depend on who else does. Highest the Rangers own pick can be is 9th... again, depends on what else happens.
2.) Tor wins, Car wins, Rangers win the lotto: Same deal for the Car/Tor pick. Rangers pick top-3.
3.) Tor wins, Car loses: The Rangers get the Toronto pick. Same playoff result implications, which now also apply to the Rangers own pick. The best the Rangers pick can be is 17th.
4.) Tor loses, Car wins, Rangers don't win lotto: The Rangers will get Carolina's pick. Same playoff result implications. Highest Rangers own pick can be is 9th.
5.) Tor loses, Car wins, Rangers win the lotto: Rangers get Carolina pick, their own pick is top-3
6.) Tor loses, Car loses, neither win lotto: Rangers get Carolina's pick, which can't be higher than 14th. Rangers own pick depends on playoff results, but can't be better than 17th.
7.) Tor loses, Car loses, Tor wins lotto, Car does not: We get Carolina's pick, which can't be higher than 14th. Rangers own pick depends on playoff results, but can't be better than 17th.
8.) Tor loses, Car loses, Car wins lotto, Tor does not: We get Toronto's pick, which can't be higher than 11th. Rangers own pick depends on playoff results, but can't be better than 17th.
9.) Tor loses, Car loses, Car wins lotto, Tor wins lotto: We get Carolina's pick, no matter what it is. Rangers own pick depends on playoff results, but can't be better than 17th.

I think I covered all the possibilities.
Click to expand...

So we really, really want Toronto to lose.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FartMilk
howztheglass said:
While I agree with most of what you saying--I believe there will be 2 factors into if Hank wants to stay or go.

How will the salary cap be affected next year by COVID-19 ? If there is no impact I could see where the Rangers keep Hank as the backup for 1 year and trade Georgiev. If there is an impact of some sort using the buyout on Hank to solve the cap could become a wise move. Bettman said it yesterday that the NHL is in good standings so hopefully the cap will stay the same or rise.

If the Rangers decide to keep Hank and there is a buyout in place I think it would be best to use it on Staal ( pipeline of defenseman that could replace Staal is there waiting in the wings ). I've said multiple times that most people have all of the love in the world for Hank my only issue is what if Hank wants to continue playing after next season this is where it could get dicey--do you resign Hank or let him go ? Now your back in the same boat of what to do with Lundqvist ?

Last it would be helpful if we really knew the value of Georgiev ( some believe he could have been dealt at the deadline ) but the Rangers didn't receive the offer they wanted--smart move on their part.

Just my viewpoint as I could see where Hank stays or goes but you did write and I agree 100% with you that Hank did keep us relevant and make for some exciting times over the last 15 years.
Click to expand...

Unless you need a ton of money that can only be opened up by buying out Hank, there is NO way that this FO can sell me on using a BO on him instead of Staal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FartMilk
GoAwayStaal said:
Unless you need a ton of money that can only be opened up by buying out Hank, there is NO way that this FO can sell me on using a BO on him instead of Staal.
Click to expand...
You're a better team if you use a buyout on Staal, replace him with basically anyone, then trade Georgiev and roll with Lundqvist than if you were to buy out Lundqvist to keep Georgiev.

Lundqvist
No Staal
Cheap replacement for Staal
Whatever you get for Georgiev (the above?)

>>>

Staal
Georgiev
No Lundqvist

JMO, anyway. And this has nothing to do with me not wanting to get rid of Hank--if I actually thought that was the best thing for the team, I'd support it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheDirtyH, NYR Viper, East Coast Bias and 4 others
WearAMask said:
(1) I always found the entitlement with other Ranger fans amusing when we have one f***ing Cup in 80 years. Where does it come from?

(2) After the 1994 Cup, Lundqvist's career is the second best highlight of this franchise in modern memory and the only reason we've been relevant the last 15 years. And people wanna buy him out over trading a player with no future on this team? Sorry, but we shouldn't be breaking our balls over Georgiev's role at the expense of a modern Ranger legend.

I would roll with Shesterkin and Lundqvist and try to move Georgiev best I can.
Click to expand...

1 - not sure that entitlement is actually there. The fan base is passionate and want to win. I’ve seen this fan base praise the talent of other teams and although they may bash a Super Mario type who takes a dramatic dive they’ll give him a standing ovation for netting five in the Garden after battling cancer.

2 - the letter went out over two years ago and the current roster has nobody besides Staal and Kreider which were part of the Hank prime years. The Rangers organization has been very respectful of Hank as they continue to allow him to dress as the backup while the two starters alternate dressing. Hank is past his prime and fans know if he’s gone within a year there is no reason to rush Georgiev out the door.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: egelband
Kind of bored this morning--lets play the guessing game while changing up the subject.

Georgiev some believe he gets a first--some believe he gets multiple picks--say a 2nd and 3rd.

Thinking of a few teams that could be looking for a long term future goalie--2 teams jump out in Ottawa and Detroit ( rock city ).

Ottawa multiple assets in the first round--most likely second and third picks or maybe they move up or slide. Detroit one first round pick--most likely in the top three. So lets say the draft plays out as Ottawa--1 Detroit--2 and Ottawa--3 again this is all subjective to the really draft.

I read in the Atlantic ( almost positive ) I believe weeks ago an article on how and if the Rangers can move up into the top 5 and if they thought that if the Rangers packaged both first rounds could they jump up. Now the article didn't believe it was enough to jump up that high.

So rolling out the crazy thoughts:

Would both first round picks plus Georgiev be enough to jump up to Ottawa third pick or Detroit's ? Dream scenario but highly unlikely. Some might even say this is way to much.

Now the possibilities:

Both Ottawa and Detroit have multiple second round and third round assets. Would Ottawa be will to trade their own second and pick and Winnipeg's third round pick for Georgiev--or would Detroit be will to part with their own second round pick and the Sharks third round pick ? Again I would always try to a better package but I don't believe either team would trade a first round pick that high or entertain trading 2 second round picks which leads me to ask is Georgiev worth a second and third round picks ? As I'm writing this I could see Ottawa making that kind of move more then Detroit. Ottawa has a ton of draft capital this year but each team does have multiple assets in both rounds.

I defer to the draft experts to tell me if there are players in the draft whom the Rangers could/would target if this happened. I'm not a draft expert and if the draft does not have highly rated players through-out each round maybe this is not the right move.

If and a big if this happened the Rangers would have 2--first round picks/ a second round pick and 3--third round picks.

Georgiev is one player whom the Rangers could pick up additional assets. I like Georgiev hell I'm not even sure I want to trade him but if Shesty number 1 and the Rangers don't want to move on from Hank we can't go with the crazy 3 goalie rotation again.

Which leads us back to deal or no deal.

Ok flame on.
 
  • Like
Reactions: egelband
nyr2k2 said:
You're a better team if you use a buyout on Staal, replace him with basically anyone, then trade Georgiev and roll with Lundqvist than if you were to buy out Lundqvist to keep Georgiev.

Lundqvist
No Staal
Cheap replacement for Staal
Whatever you get for Georgiev (the above?)

>>>

Staal
Georgiev
No Lundqvist

JMO, anyway. And this has nothing to do with me not wanting to get rid of Hank--if I actually thought that was the best thing for the team, I'd support it.
Click to expand...

Lately I'm thinking option A is better then option B.
 
Miamipuck said:
If they won that game, I think we would still be partying and screaming our heads off. The fact they won un typical Rangers fashion, I suppose made all of us have sit in disbelief for 4-5 hours after game 7 happened.

We were drinking in a Chinese restaurant across the street from the Garden. We thought it was an earth quake at first. It must have been amazing to be inside.

It's one of the big regrets of 1994. We used to win the playoff ticket lottery every year and have the ability to buy 2-4 tickets for every round of the playoffs without being a season ticket holder. We had been doing this for the past 6-8 years. However in 1994 they only allowed us to buy tickets to the first 2 rounds. lol Wonderful. At least we got to see the Islanders and Capitals get waxed.
Click to expand...
The flip side of this coin...I was going to games with media comps for four years. In January of 1994 I said this team looks awfully good, I better buy season tickets so I can get in to the playoffs.
 
howztheglass said:
Kind of bored this morning--lets play the guessing game while changing up the subject.

Georgiev some believe he gets a first--some believe he gets multiple picks--say a 2nd and 3rd.

Thinking of a few teams that could be looking for a long term future goalie--2 teams jump out in Ottawa and Detroit ( rock city ).

Ottawa multiple assets in the first round--most likely second and third picks or maybe they move up or slide. Detroit one first round pick--most likely in the top three. So lets say the draft plays out as Ottawa--1 Detroit--2 and Ottawa--3 again this is all subjective to the really draft.

I read in the Atlantic ( almost positive ) I believe weeks ago an article on how and if the Rangers can move up into the top 5 and if they thought that if the Rangers packaged both first rounds could they jump up. Now the article didn't believe it was enough to jump up that high.

So rolling out the crazy thoughts:

Would both first round picks plus Georgiev be enough to jump up to Ottawa third pick or Detroit's ? Dream scenario but highly unlikely. Some might even say this is way to much.

Now the possibilities:

Both Ottawa and Detroit have multiple second round and third round assets. Would Ottawa be will to trade their own second and pick and Winnipeg's third round pick for Georgiev--or would Detroit be will to part with their own second round pick and the Sharks third round pick ? Again I would always try to a better package but I don't believe either team would trade a first round pick that high or entertain trading 2 second round picks which leads me to ask is Georgiev worth a second and third round picks ? As I'm writing this I could see Ottawa making that kind of move more then Detroit. Ottawa has a ton of draft capital this year but each team does have multiple assets in both rounds.

I defer to the draft experts to tell me if there are players in the draft whom the Rangers could/would target if this happened. I'm not a draft expert and if the draft does not have highly rated players through-out each round maybe this is not the right move.

If and a big if this happened the Rangers would have 2--first round picks/ a second round pick and 3--third round picks.

Georgiev is one player whom the Rangers could pick up additional assets. I like Georgiev hell I'm not even sure I want to trade him but if Shesty number 1 and the Rangers don't want to move on from Hank we can't go with the crazy 3 goalie rotation again.

Which leads us back to deal or no deal.

Ok flame on.
Click to expand...
Detroit, Ottawa and San Jose have the first three picks of the second round. That’s a logical starting point for and Georgiev trade for futures.
 
WearAMask said:
Couldn't agree more.

Why is it so imperative that we keep both Shesterkin and Georgiev? Shesterkin is clearly the number one and future in net. Georgiev's value to us is worth more in a trade than he is playing 25 games a year as a backup. We don't need Georgiev. Lundqvist fills the mentor/backup role just fine and he gets to complete the final year of his contract on the team and go from there. That role is also his best shot at a Cup with this team. Maybe he re-signs on a cheap one year deal after? Who knows.

I always found the entitlement with other Ranger fans amusing when we have one f***ing Cup in 80 years. Where does it come from? After the 1994 Cup, Lundqvist's career is the second best highlight of this franchise in modern memory and the only reason we've been relevant the last 15 years. And people wanna buy him out over trading a player with no future on this team? Sorry, but we shouldn't be breaking our balls over Georgiev's role at the expense of a modern Ranger legend.

I would roll with Shesterkin and Lundqvist and try to move Georgiev best I can.
Click to expand...
Modern Ranger legend? All time Ranger legend. Hank might be the best player in franchise history. I'd rather roll with Shesty/Hank too knowing that we could get decent value for Georgie, who will never be our #1.
 
  • Like
Reactions: egelband
NYSPORTS said:
1 - not sure that entitlement is actually there. The fan base is passionate and want to win. I’ve seen this fan base praise the talent of other teams and although they may bash a Super Mario type who takes a dramatic dive they’ll give him a standing ovation for netting five in the Garden after battling cancer.

2 - the letter went out over two years ago and the current roster has nobody besides Staal and Kreider which were part of the Hank prime years. The Rangers organization has been very respectful of Hank as they continue to allow him to dress as the backup while the two starters alternate dressing. Hank is past his prime and fans know if he’s gone within a year there is no reason to rush Georgiev out the door.
Click to expand...
howztheglass said:
While I agree with most of what you saying--I believe there will be 2 factors into if Hank wants to stay or go.

How will the salary cap be affected next year by COVID-19 ? If there is no impact I could see where the Rangers keep Hank as the backup for 1 year and trade Georgiev. If there is an impact of some sort using the buyout on Hank to solve the cap could become a wise move. Bettman said it yesterday that the NHL is in good standings so hopefully the cap will stay the same or rise.

If the Rangers decide to keep Hank and there is a buyout in place I think it would be best to use it on Staal ( pipeline of defenseman that could replace Staal is there waiting in the wings ). I've said multiple times that most people have all of the love in the world for Hank my only issue is what if Hank wants to continue playing after next season this is where it could get dicey--do you resign Hank or let him go ? Now your back in the same boat of what to do with Lundqvist ?

Last it would be helpful if we really knew the value of Georgiev ( some believe he could have been dealt at the deadline ) but the Rangers didn't receive the offer they wanted--smart move on their part.

Just my viewpoint as I could see where Hank stays or goes but you did write and I agree 100% with you that Hank did keep us relevant and make for some exciting times over the last 15 years.
Click to expand...

Who knows. I wouldn't be surprised if Hank ultimately decides on staying here regardless of his role. He's had two years to think about it, and Georgiev's emergence is what's forcing the issue. Remove Georgiev from the equation (all due respect, I like him) and suddenly Lundqvist's role is more clear and Shesterkin is the number one and future. I'd bet Hank would rather split duties with Igor or be the backup/mentor than start elsewhere. I really would. His desire to be here is above all else.

I'm behind using the buyout on Staal. It absolutely makes more sense. We have one year with Hank at his cap hit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: egelband
I would imagine trading into the top 10 is going to be tough. No team is going to trade out of the top 5.

You could package Gerogeiv with the two 1st's to try, but Gordie better be sure their guy is worth giving up prime 3 assets for.
 
  • Like
Reactions: nsvoyageurs
Oscar Lindberg said:
You could package Gerogeiv with the two 1st's to try, but Gordie better be sure their guy is worth giving up prime 3 assets for.
Click to expand...
I actually do not see him doing that. I also do not think that as currently situated, no team is trading out of the top 5.

For better or for worse, I think that Gorton stand pat with what he has unless there is someone that they really love and that player is dropping.
 
WearAMask said:
Who knows. I wouldn't be surprised if Hank ultimately decides on staying here regardless of his role. He's had two years to think about it, and Georgiev's emergence is what's forcing the issue. Remove Georgiev from the equation (all due respect, I like him) and suddenly Lundqvist's role is more clear and Shesterkin is the number one and future. I'd bet Hank would rather split duties with Igor or be the backup/mentor than start elsewhere. I really would. His desire to be here is above all else.

I'm behind using the buyout on Staal. It absolutely makes more sense. We have one year with Hank at his cap hit.
Click to expand...
What has he had to think about over the past two years? Nothing. He made up his mind when The Letter went out, told management of his decision and has not moved from that. Because he has held fast to that decision, Gorts & Co. should have come up with an alternative solution rather than allowing themselves to be cause in the 3-headed situation.

I may be a minority of one, and I'm not giving him the bum's rush out the door, but I just do not see Henrik as an adequate backup.
 
zephyr said:
What has he had to think about over the past two years? Nothing. He made up his mind when The Letter went out, told management of his decision and has not moved from that. Because he has held fast to that decision, Gorts & Co. should have come up with an alternative solution rather than allowing themselves to be cause in the 3-headed situation.

I may be a minority of one, and I'm not giving him the bum's rush out the door, but I just do not see Henrik as an adequate backup.
Click to expand...

And Georgiev is? His stats aren't much better than Hank's.
 
  • Like
Reactions: egelband
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom