Speculation: Roster Building Thread: Part XLII

[Beacon]

No one tries to rebuild the wrong way. Some are better at it than others and some have more assets available. $ and the lure of New York City are two assets few teams can match.

Did this luring ever work? Ever?

Gorton and Sather made it very clear last year they are not planning on a long rebuild. They are not following your blueprint. Nor should they.

No GM will admit we won't be good for several years. He will lose his job because fans will quit on the team, since (as you can see here), goal #1 for fans is always immediate gratification.

When the Rangers missed the playoffs in 1998, Neil Smith was asked by WFAN where the team is headed. "The future is very bright, VEEERY bright," he answered. It was only the beginning of the Dark Ages.

No team ever in the history of the NHL declared their rebuilding will be more than 1-2 years.

But either way, we're not making the payoffs in 2020 or 2021. We can walk away from that with 2 star prospects who will help us for 15-20 years to come or we can give out a huge contract, fail to make the playoffs and walk away with 2 mediocre prospects and a UFA contract that is more of an anchor each season.

 

[Beacon]

We are already doing it another way. Unless I have missed the previous rebuilds where we traded players at the deadline for several years and acquired high draft picks. And no, what the Rangers tried to do in the early 2000s is not the same

The "other way" is to lift up on our own youth, not to sign UFAs to contracts the other 30 GMs think are crazy.

 

[Amazing Kreiderman]

Does Panarin have a cheaper brother?

He can be the next Sean Pronger/Marcel Hossa/Brendan Smith/Marc Staal

 

[Amazing Kreiderman]

The "other way" is to lift up on our own youth, not to sign UFAs to contracts the other 30 GMs think are crazy.

Technically, there's not just 1 "other way". Boston signed Chara and Savard when Marchand, Lucic and Rask were still teenagers

 

[kovazub94]

I am not calling for tanking. I'm calling for us to climb up with cost controlled youth, not overpaid UFAs. How many times do we need to fail with expensive vets before we try just once in the franchise history another way?

After two consecutive years of sell offs your “no action” plan is more artificial (driven to tank again) than pretty much any proposal I’ve read here.

 

[Beacon]

What the hell does "collapsed into last place" mean?

It means they wound up in last place without a plan. If they had acquired Lias, K'Andre, Lundkvist, Howden, Hajek, Rykov, Lindgren, whoever we take with the Jets/Dallas/Tampa picks for their vets, then used their own picks to build, they would be in the crapper much less time.

Plus, Edmonton is an especially bad example since they traded Hall, Eberle and Barzal for Larsson and 2 garbagemen. Reverse that and they are probably contenders today.

Dude, your avatar is a tank and its headline is "embrace the tank". You aren't fooling anyone with what you expect out of this team, enough with the mental gymnastics and flawed assumptions to fit your narrative.

We are not making the playoffs either way, so embrace it and walk away with 2 star prospects instead of an albatross UFA contract.

 

[Calad]

Technically, there's not just 1 "other way". Boston signed Chara and Savard when Marchand, Lucic and Rask were still teenagers

In fact, they were signed in the same offseason that Marchand and Lucic were drafted, and when Rask(drafted in 05) was traded for. Bergeron was 20. Of course, we all know who was at the helm for these moves

 

[NYR Viper]

Vegas needs to clear cap. They're probably not taking Shattenkirk unless it's at 50% retention and they're dumping someone on us in addition to Miller.

I’d do that

I’d take Reaves if they want to clear some cap

 

[Amazing Kreiderman]

In fact, they were signed in the same offseason that Marchand and Lucic were drafted, and when Rask(drafted in 05) was traded for. Bergeron was 20. Of course, we all know who was at the helm for these moves

Whoever it was, we need to try and get him to do our rebuild

 

[NYR Viper]

What’s the value of young players learning and growing in a wining environment? Seems to have worked well for teams like the Bruins

 

[Calad]

We are not making the playoffs either way, so embrace it and walk away with 2 star prospects instead of an albatross UFA contract.

Lose the false dichotomy and maybe people would be interested in having a conversation with you

 

[Amazing Kreiderman]

What’s the value of young players learning and growing in a wining environment? Seems to have worked well for teams like the Bruins

"Bruins should never have signed Savard and Chara. They took the spot of a prospect who could have been better long-term"

 

[Savant]

Bruins also have had a great AHL program. Great AHL coaching at the least. This has helped contribute to that environment. The Rangers have not.

 

[Avery16]

I’d do that

I’d take Reaves if they want to clear some cap

The going price for Reaves has been established as a 1st rd pick

 

[Beacon]

Every team on this list would have interest in Shattenkirk if he played better this year. You are trying hard to move damaged goods.

The return for Shattenkirk, if a buyer exists, is other bad contracts.

Arizona is already old on defense and needs to dump payroll. Scratch them.

What's the difference one garbage or another. We need an RD regardless, cant have all rookies/sophomores at RD. Hold on to Shatty until the TDL 2021. His contract won't be an issue then, some team desperate for the most rare position [RD] will throw us a second or a prospect like Rykov.

 

[eco's bones]

I am not calling for tanking. I'm calling for us to climb up with cost controlled youth, not overpaid UFAs. How many times do we need to fail with expensive vets before we try just once in the franchise history another way?

You want the team to have a worse season next year so we'll end up with another top 5 pick. That's what you've been talking about. Take your premise to the main board or any board on HF and ask people what they'd call it? I'd bet that most everyone would call it tanking.

I like Chris Kreider by the way and I liked Zucc and Hayes. I understand why the last two got moved and I can understand why the team would move Kreider too. But I'm not into gutting the team just to get a lottery ticket to a possible top 5 and especially not after a season where you can see real progress on a lot of fronts. If we're moving Kreider I'd absolutely be doing my best to bring in as good or even a better replacement. So get a 1st rounder for Kreider--fine with that but then get Panarin too.....and the money's not the issue--we have more than enough cap space.

And the things is it's likely going to be the same bullshit next year--'just one more year--all we need is one more top 5'. There's a point where we should stand on our own feet and fight back. I have no use for the way the Sabres and the Oilers have done things or even how the Penguins were crap for years and years.

 

[Beacon]

Lose the false dichotomy

It is not a false dichotomy, these are the only 2 realistic choices, the rest is fantasy.

1. Panarin is not signing here for way below his other options. We will have to offer the best contract or something very close to it to get him. Since we are a crap team, we might need to outbid better teams by a good margin. Since 100% of GMs would want to add him, to sign Panarin, we'd need to offer a contract that 30 other GMs think is crazy (or at least 28-29 GMs if another bad team offers crazy money also). Think about it, why wouldn't a good team sign him and become a contender unless the contract we offer is insane in their mind.

2. Panarin will likely improve the Rangers this year, which is why the people seeking immediate gratification want him. But as you and others admit, it will be a marginal improvement that will still fail to put us in the playoffs.

Go to hockeydb.com and sort draftees by their draft spot. Then compare a 4-5 pick with a 9-10 pick. The gap is massive. No matter how big you think it is, I guarantee you that you'll find out that it is MUCH greater than your worst case scenario.

Phaneuf is the only player drafted at #9 since 1988 played 1,000+ games. Two in the last 30 years played 750+. Only 11 played 500+ games. At #4, four played 1,000+ games, and 8 played 750+ games. 18 of 30 played 500+ games, but most of those who didn't are still very young and likely will.

In terms of points, the median player drafted 10-30 years ago is 4th liner Michael Rupp with 99 career points.

 

[Calad]

It is not a false dichotomy, these are the only 2 realistic choices, the rest is fantasy.

1. Panarin is not signing here for way below his other options. We will have to offer the best contract or something very close to it to get him. Since we are a crap team, we might need to outbid better teams by a good margin. Since 100% of GMs would want to add him, to sign Panarin, we'd need to offer a contract that 30 other GMs think is crazy (or at least 28-29 GMs if another bad team offers crazy money also). Think about it, why wouldn't a good team sign him and become a contender unless the contract we offer is insane in their mind.

2. Panarin will likely improve the Rangers this year, which is why the people seeking immediate gratification want him. But as you and others admit, it will be a marginal improvement that will still fail to put us in the playoffs.

Go to hockeydb.com and sort draftees by their draft spot. Then compare a 4-5 pick with a 9-10 pick. The gap is massive. No matter how big you think it is, I guarantee you that you'll find out that it is MUCH greater than your worst case scenario.

Phaneuf is the only player drafted at #9 since 1988 played 1,000+ games. Two in the last 30 years played 750+. Only 11 played 500+ games. At #4, four played 1,000+ games, and 8 played 750+ games. 18 of 30 played 500+ games, but most of those who didn't are still very young and likely will.

In terms of points, the median player drafted 10-30 years ago is 4th liner Michael Rupp with 99 career points.

This is exactly what a false dichotomy is. You are framing your argument that there are only 2 possible outcomes, regardless of the many other variables involved, as if everything would hinge upon whether or not we sign Panarin, and if we do or don't that things would end up exactly how you propose they would. On top of that, you are making so many assumptions on the conditions in which he would sign, disregarding information that has been circulating for months now (He is only interested in signing in LA, NY, or Miami for personal reasons e.g. his longtime girlfriend's modeling career)

 

[Mac n Gs]

Using prior pick position from 20-30 years ago is completely irrelevant to hockey as it is today, and I really wish it'd stop being used for future draft analysis and probabilities. Look at the list of 9th overall picks I posted earlier this morning. Scouting has gotten better. Hockey has drastically changed. Binning these different eras in hockey together as though they're equivalent is idiotic.

And that's ignoring the fact that focusing strictly on who was chosen at what positions is terrible analysis to begin with.

 

[Calad]

Using prior pick position from 20-30 years ago is completely irrelevant to hockey as it is today, and I really wish it'd stop being used for future draft analysis and probabilities. Look at the list of 9th overall picks I posted earlier this morning. Scouting has gotten better. Hockey has drastically changed. Binning these different eras in hockey together as though they're equivalent is idiotic.

And that's ignoring the fact that focusing strictly on who was chosen at what positions is terrible analysis to begin with.

He's literally spewing a verbal diarrhea of logical fallacies in hope that people aren't able to keep up with it. Using whatever means necessary to fit his narrative of tank = good; everything else = bad

 

[Greg02]

I haven't looked at the math behind it, but assuming it's even remotely good, Corsica has Panarin as about a 4WAR player. Kreider is about a 2WAR player. Guess about how many points you think the Rangers are getting next year and see how much a four point swing changes things historically. Depends on where you're clustered, but it generally seems to be 2-3 draft spots.

 

[FIRE DRURY]

Boston signed a 1C like in Savard for 4 years. Chara was a 5 year deal. Boston had more vets in their line-up when they signed those guys.

Chara wasn't just a 1D either. He was a 40 point shutdown dmen that owned teams defensively. We don't have a dmen like Chara who can eat up 30 minutes a night.

When you look at the length of those contracts with the way their team was structured, it was definitely quite different than what we're going through right now. I get the analogy. Same same, but different.

*Just looked at Boston's 2006 roster. Jesus ****ing christ.

 

[effen]

idk why y'all be so hot to get a dude on the premise his 2 best remaining years will be spent out of the playoffs and he won't have a meaningful game until 2022.

cause that sounds like paying someone $20M+ to sorta sandbag and take a vacation before he actually starts earning his money.

just.... why.

 

[Calad]

idk why y'all be so hot to get a dude on the premise his 2 best remaining years will be spent out of the playoffs and he won't have a meaningful game until 2022.

cause that sounds like paying someone $20M+ to sorta sandbag and take a vacation before he actually starts earning his money.

just.... why.

Maybe because many of us don't agree with the premise you established? That's really the crux of the disagreement over Panarin here, many people think he will fall off a cliff the moment he turns 30, others think he will be an effective player for the duration of his impending contract

 

[effen]

Maybe because many of us don't agree with the premise you established? That's really the crux of the disagreement over Panarin here, many people think he will fall off a cliff the moment he turns 30, others think he will be an effective player for the duration of his impending contract

Panarin or no, I have a fairly hard time seeing this team being playoff contenders in 19-20 or 20-21. A lot of the team has a lot of growing to do. Playoffs means what, 96-100 points? Where the hell is that coming from.

Your position presupposes A LOT (he doesn't fall off badly ~ever, he can maintain focus and a high level while playing functionally meaningless games for a long time, doesn't get hurt, finds chemistry which doesn't happen all the time if you're being honest about things, the team is able to deftly manage contracts and the cap without his cap hit hurting them) while accounting for little. You just sort of assume he'll always be good and thats as far as it goes (???)