Speculation: Roster Building Thread: Part XLIII

  • 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
  • We're expecting server maintenance on March 3rd starting at midnight, there may be downtime during the work.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Pittsburgh didn't do it on the big guys' first contract. Chicago won 2 more on big contracts.

I'm not just poo pooping free agents, but I think Toronto messed up going with Tavares. They should have kept Bozak and used the extra $6m on defense and depth. Matthews, Bozak, and kadri is great.

That's not to say JT and the leafs can't get it done. It's a progression for these guys. A season to acclimate, a season or 3 to fail in the post season, then knock on the door. Chicago is the exception to the rule.

If Florida has to choose between Bobrovsky and Panarin and choose Panarin it might be the same with them as Toronto with Tavares. They can probably do both but if they have to choose they need goaltending a lot more than they need another scoring forward.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DutchShamrock
They kind of did, though, lol.
We signed Gaborik to like 13.5% of the cap when our team was much worse then compared to what it is today. We got two 40 goal seasons out of him and then flipped him for Brassard, Moore, and Dorsett. Those three pieces all were key pieces on a SCF team. Moore was used as a piece to get Yandle. Dorsett was a piece of the best 4th line we’ve had in a decade. Brassard was a great 2C/3C for us and was obviously flipped for Zibanejad.

Gaborik: another UFA bust by the Rangers. Fire Sather!
 
I think there's probably just as much evidence that D's peak in their late 20's as anything counter to that. If Trouba is peaking in 3 years then that's in your window at his peak. Girardi is actually a poor example for you to use since his best years (and only Norris trophy votes) were years 27 & 28. Klein, at his best, is a 4/5 D so not really comparable. Stralman had his best years at 28-30. Chara developed into a monster in his late 20's. Carslon, Caps, had his two best years (so far) at 28 & 29. And on and on.

Speculating about our competitiveness - yay or nay - three years down the road is pure folly unfortunately. Neither you nor I have any idea which of our draft crop will meet or exceed expectations and which won't work out at all, who we'll re-sign, who we'll sign as UFA's, who we'll trade for, etc... We won't recognize half the roster in 3 years from today in all likelihood. I'd say, though, that if it's taking another 3 years to be "competitive" (everyone seems to have a different definition of this word) then I'd say that our rebuild isn't going as well as Gorton would've hoped.

Good argument and points.

At the end of the day, I guess I would just prefer that we continue gathering as many assets as possible for now. I see Trouba as the type of guy you add to cement a cup run (like how we added Yandle). I think guys like him are available every so often and that without a doubt, once our window opens, he or others will be there.

I don't feel we are far enough along to be giving up assets for established players who are 25 or over at this point, considering they will be hitting their late 20's by the time our window should open. Signing in FA, OK depending on price. Keeping Ziba and the ones on our roster already there, for sure.

But spending from our cupboard that we have just re-stocked seems premature to me currently and I'd rather we build a playoff team, before we start spending those assets. I don't see Trouba (or any player for that matter sans McDavid and the like) making us a playoff team next season. We need more time to marinate and for our prospects to grow. Then we can start supplementing them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: egelband
We signed Gaborik to like 13.5% of the cap when our team was much worse then compared to what it is today. We got two 40 goal seasons out of him and then flipped him for Brassard, Moore, and Dorsett. Those three pieces all were key pieces on a SCF team. Moore was used as a piece to get Yandle. Dorsett was a piece of the best 4th line we’ve had in a decade. Brassard was a great 2C/3C for us and was obviously flipped for Zibanejad.

Gaborik: another UFA bust by the Rangers. Fire Sather!

The Rangers were a playoff team when they signed Gaborik. They missed the playoffs in his first season by one point. The year prior they came in 7th in the conference and got knocked out by Washington. How is that 'much worse than compared to today?'
 
The Rangers were a playoff team when they signed Gaborik. They missed the playoffs in his first season by one point. The year prior they came in 7th in the conference and got knocked out by Washington. How is that 'much worse than compared to today?'
Erik Christensen. 1C.

But let’s please not rehash the conversation about how a godlike young Lundqvist buoyed this franchise to heights this team should’ve never reached in the late Renney and Torts years.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RGY
Erik Christensen. 1C.

But let’s please not rehash the conversation about how a godlike young Lundqvist buoyed this franchise to heights this team should’ve never reached in the late Renney and Torts years.
100%.

Without Hank, this team was not going anywhere in the year before we signed Gaborik.

The overall roster (younger and more promising talent) has made for a much brighter outlook moving forward. Signing a player to add to that roster would make just as much sense if not more to sign a player to that % of the team’s cap hit today as it was then.

Just my opinion. Dont want anyone to think im yelling at them.
 
There is nearly zero chance that Karlsson will be a Ranger.

Yeah, this speculation comes after assuming that Gorton can move like 3-4 players this summer. Gorts deserves all credit in the world if he can do that. But is it likely? Hardly. All teams are looking to dump players and there won't be many takers.

If we look at our roster as it stands today, we get something like:
Kravy-Ziba-Buch
Kreider-Strome-Kakko
Lemieux-Chytil-Vesey
Names-Howden-Fast
Lias / Boo

Staal-TDA
Skjei-Fox
Smith-Shatty
Pionk / Claesson / Hajak / Rykov

Gorts said that he is trying to trade players. That should come as no surprise when we look at the above line-up. About 15 NHLers were traded last summer. That summer had a lot of action. 0.5 per team. All teams basically has a couple of players they will try to move this summer. If you can move 1 of 4 you have done a good job.

And when we look at the above line-up -- for a rebuilding team, more vets is not what it needs.
 
In light of LeBrun’s article today re: Colorado- does a package of Kreider and one of the 2nd founders get us the #4 pick? Gives them a serious depth scoring threat as they try to compete now. Would they take Pionk too with a minor add on their side?
 
Erik Christensen. 1C.

But let’s please not rehash the conversation about how a godlike young Lundqvist buoyed this franchise to heights this team should’ve never reached in the late Renney and Torts years.

This is the same argument as saying that today's Rangers are better than Colorado or Columbus.

It doesn't matter that the future of today's Rangers might appear brighter than the future of the 2009 Rangers, the fact is, that as of today, that team was better than the this team in its current context. It's not even close.

You can invoke Lundqvist's 'god-like' performances to try and create a different narrative, but the reality is that Lundqvist was the centerpiece of those teams. The Pens don't win the cup without Crosby. You can subtract the best player on any team and they would be significantly worse. The Rangers specifically built around Lundqvist for more than a decade because of his level of talent.

I don't really see how anyone could argue that a team that made the playoffs is worse than a team that just finished near the bottom of the league.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LannyMcdonald
Probably will get run out of the thread but I would trade Kreider as a rental before I resigned him for a 6-8 year deal.

I am right there with you

Hagelin would be a nice addition to the 3rd line if we are to move out Vesey and/or Nams at the draft or leading up to free agency.

I'd sign him as a 4th liner and overpay him on cap hit in order to keep the term down

In light of LeBrun’s article today re: Colorado- does a package of Kreider and one of the 2nd founders get us the #4 pick? Gives them a serious depth scoring threat as they try to compete now. Would they take Pionk too with a minor add on their side?

I would totally be into Kreider for the COL 1st + Prospect/Zadorov
 
In my ideal world, they trade Kreider to help the 2019 draft. Not sure he has the value to do so but if so make the deal. If not just keep him non extended and add him to the pending UFAs.

Zucc hopefully signs in Dallas and they get their 1st for 2020.

And they do pretty much nothing else other than explore moving out the pending UFAs along with the three D contracts.

2019-20 season, they use the pending UFAs, Vesey, Name, Fast, Beleskey, maybe Kreider as stopgaps until the deadline where they either extend one short term and cheap, or they move them all out for rental returns. That process opens up forward spots for several prospects. There is no rushing the prospects, they had vets with them until the deadline.

The 2020 draft sees them in the lottery again with their own pick, maybe the Dallas pick too if they falter. They have extra picks from selling the previous deadline too. The 2020 draft is supposed to be a good one.

Rangers utilizing four drafts in a row where they had early and multiple first round picks is going to pay dividends. Maybe they get lucky again and move up to draft another possible elite player? Rangers with two possible elite players, maybe more?

The 2020 off-season is work-stoppage possible if either side opts out, and the last contract years of Lundqvist, Staal, Shattenkirk, Smith.

Why is the NHL not going to opt out before the 2020 season, if not the official end of the CBA would be right before Seattle's 2nd season. They are not going to want a work-stoppage to slow any momentum there. They are not going to give the PA the leverage of not playing that season. The NHL is going to want to get the CBA ironed out with term on it before they expand.

The 2020 season may be a shortened season, many of the players have guarded up by getting bonus money that season which would be paid out regardless.

Who knows what becomes of the cap, do they artificially lower the mid point? Do they take away the escalator to deal with escrow? Does a work-stoppage effect any TV deal, does ESPN want in? What about LTIR? Where do they set a cap for the next season artificially since revenue would be effected by any work-stoppage? Olympics? There is too much uncertainty there to count on much of anything except that is the last season of the 4 big contracts if not moved prior.

The 2021 expansion draft, Rangers are in good shape, much of their stuff is exempt. The next CBA is in effect with tweaked rules. Rangers can know the rules before they set their sights on finalizing the rebuild. Does expansion open up trading opportunities? Do the new rules of the CBA make for player movement?

2021 off-season is a big one, they have many entry levels ending, have opened up tons of space from the departed. It's not like after they sign those entry levels they would not have a ton of room for other stuff.

Are we really worried about the Rangers not meeting a floor which we do not even know the level of? Like it would be difficult for them to add cap hits if they are under the unknown floor? That may be the worst augment I've seen for them filling up cap space prior.

I know it seems like an eternity to wait two years, yet it's not the dark ages where they are missing the playoff without a means to the end, they are doing so so they can really compete with the best rosters in the NHL for many years straight.

Maybe if they do it right and avoid big mistakes they don't feel the need to spend all their 1st round picks to rent every deadline because they have already deep enough rosters. Feel less need to sign super expensive UFAs because they are producing players of that caliber on their own. If they set the cap structure and salary environment correctly perhaps their best players do not ask for the most they could possibly get to extend. They can just be a team who every year is in the contention conversation instead of having windows?

Maybe they even have stuff go right for them in the playoffs some of those years and they win some Cups. It's worth giving that a chance. Even if it fails, they can go right back to signing expensive UFAs, making trades for "star" players who want out of wherever they are. Buying at every deadline. Why not try it the other way when they have an opputunity?
 
Last edited:
I wonder if this Blues run starts a trend around the league of drafting bigger d-men. Bigger, mobile, puck moving d-men.

not sure if one year is enough to change the trends league wide...but its been well documented what jeff gorton's role was in building the bruins. JD was the blues president from 06-12 when they drafted parayko, schwartz, tarasenko, pieterangelo....so there is a good chance that the blues and bruins are a glimpse into how the rangers might look in the future considering the foundations for both teams were built by the guys building our team
 
  • Like
Reactions: kovazub94
If Kreider goes in a similar trade to Hayes, it's not going to result in an all-teen lineup. You get a 22-23 year old third liner plus a first round pick. No rookies get added to the lineup, but you do get younger and add a future asset.

Even if you trade Kreider for a first and second, still just 1 spot.

Names Zibanejad Butcher
Kakko Chytil Strome
Kravtsov Lias Lemieux
Vesey Howden Fast
* Nieves
(This can be changed depending on chemistry.)

Even without Kreider or a replacement for him, there's no overload of youth pushed into spots they can't handle or too many kids playing together.

It seems to me you're assuming a lot here. Hayes got moved at the deadline to a playoff bound team looking to upgrade it's center depth and make a run for a Stanley Cup. Those conditions are not in place right now and not going to be in place at the draft either. I would expect that if we move Kreider around draft day we would get a 1st somewhere in the teens----I wouldn't expect more. The likelihood of getting more is better at the trade deadline assuming he is healthy and there is more than one team interested.

Speaking of which Namestnikov, Strome, Vesey and Fast are also potential rentals that we risk losing for nothing if we don't re-sign or trade. Do we move them all? and then the next year will be the defense's turn with Henrik, Shattenkirk, Staal and Skjei. Then we'll have everyone with the exception of Zibanejad either on their ELC or second contract. It will be an interesting to see how we get to a $65-70 mil cap floor.
 
Are we really still in the asset accumulation phase of the rebuild? I mean, we have one good trading chip left in Kreider. How much more asset accumulation could possibly happen? Moving other mid-20s vets for 2nd and 3rd round picks? That doesn't really move the needle. I think we're in the next phase of this. I know, I know, we've only been doing this for barely over a year... but when you look at continuing to accumulate young assets and draft picks, signing a UFA like Panarin doesn't alter that course. Making a hockey trade for a player like Trouba or Nylander doesn't alter that course. You're still going to keep your own picks and use them. These are picks you'd have whether you make other moves or not.

This isn't about instant gratification, which is the phrase thrown around for people who consider these to be potentially good moves. This is about considering where the team might be in the next 2-5 years. The real difference, to me, is between "waiting until we see what we have" and "acting as if things will go according to plan." If you want to wait to see what we have, you're going to want to hold off. To me, I don't think there really is another choice besides acting as if the youth you've accumulated is going to develop the way that you expect. I would be surprised if Gorton disagreed, because GMs tend to have faith in what they're doing.
 
True, but get enough of these guys and someone makes it. If in 30 days we have ADA, Fox, Pionk, Lundkvist, Keane and Seider, I think it is realistic that in a few years we get a 1RD and 2RD (but also a few busts) out of it.

you are right we don't know how good our kids could be and ada, fox and lundqvist have good potential...but one thing that I can safely say that they won't be is 6'3 200+ lbs.

for me my interest in a guy like trouba isn't that its a quick fix but that he adds a dimension to the right side of our blueline that we don't currently have....same reason why seider peeks my interest despite a bigger need for forward depth
 
In light of LeBrun’s article today re: Colorado- does a package of Kreider and one of the 2nd founders get us the #4 pick? Gives them a serious depth scoring threat as they try to compete now. Would they take Pionk too with a minor add on their side?
Not even close. We'd have to give up the 20, both 2nds AND another player...and not Pionk.
 
Namestnikov, Strome, Vesey and Fast are also potential rentals [...] and then the next year will be the defense's turn with Henrik, Shattenkirk, Staal and Skjei [...] It will be an interesting to see how we get to a $65-70 mil cap floor.

1. Sign our own promising kids to long term deals instead of bridges.

2. Acquire an overpriced vet that a team is looking to dump. Could be a bad player you take for 1-2 years in return for a pick, or a quality player who is still overpaid, but can help the team if you don't care about his cap hit for the next year or two.

3. In 2 years, if prospects are developing well, I may not be opposed to signing a star UFA whose timeline will fit much nicer with our core if he arrives here in 2021-22 instead of this summer.
 
Are we really still in the asset accumulation phase of the rebuild? I mean, we have one good trading chip left in Kreider. How much more asset accumulation could possibly happen? Moving other mid-20s vets for 2nd and 3rd round picks? That doesn't really move the needle. I think we're in the next phase of this. I know, I know, we've only been doing this for barely over a year... but when you look at continuing to accumulate young assets and draft picks, signing a UFA like Panarin doesn't alter that course. Making a hockey trade for a player like Trouba or Nylander doesn't alter that course. You're still going to keep your own picks and use them. These are picks you'd have whether you make other moves or not.

This isn't about instant gratification, which is the phrase thrown around for people who consider these to be potentially good moves. This is about considering where the team might be in the next 2-5 years. The real difference, to me, is between "waiting until we see what we have" and "acting as if things will go according to plan." If you want to wait to see what we have, you're going to want to hold off. To me, I don't think there really is another choice besides acting as if the youth you've accumulated is going to develop the way that you expect. I would be surprised if Gorton disagreed, because GMs tend to have faith in what they're doing.

we are nearing the end of the sell off phase since kreider is the only one left to sell...

asset accumulation isn't a phase imo...that is an ongoing thing forever. even when the team is good and contending again you are still looking to accumulate assets and good players thru the draft, signings and trades. that is how you remain a good team and avoid having to blow it up and rebuild
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad