Speculation: Roster Building Thread: Part XLIII

[Beacon]

In a few years, I'd expect Lias Howden Lemieux as a Cup quality third line. Chytil and Kravtsov could be anything from busts to first liners, but I think second line projections are most likely. So Kravtsov Chytil Butcher on line 2. Kakko hopefully on line 1. Is Zibanejad a 1C on a true Cup contender?

If Chytil develops into a center better than Zibanejad, we can throw money at a UFA first line wing, but that is far, far from certain today.

On the other hand, there are 2 centers in the 2020 draft who are superior to Kakko as prospects. Nothing is guaranteed about the lottery, but the odds should be pretty reasonable if we trade Kreider and get nobody big.

 

[Leetch3]

I mean he is not more productive.

Kane is a .63 PPG player in his career.

Kreider is a .58 PPG player in his career.

Kreider is a year older and has played less games.

He is also signing his contract at age 28 and Kane signed his at age 26. That plays a factor.

He should not be getting Kane money.

what was the cap %? the same $7 mil per this year would be a lower %

 

[Edge]

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.

I think we're at the end of the asset acquiring stage, mainly because I think the return for Kreider is pretty decent, and because we still have anywhere from 2-5 first round picks over the next two drafts, at least one of which will be high, and with another to be a lottery pick again.

And yeah, it kind of is about instant gratification because 15 months isn't a hell of a lot of time for what we're doing and these conversations have been going on for about 13 of those months. We haven't seen a morsel that this board has salivated over yet.

 

[Off Sides]

Nylander is the only player I've seen that seems to be on some want lists I'd actually like to see the Rangers explore. And it's partially because he is already signed to a contract that will carry a cap hit of about what a 2nd line player will going forward. Yet the trade cost I think would be far more than I think most would want to give up.

Looking into Toronto's RFAs I do not dislike either, not an offer-sheet, yet if they want to trade them, and either would be willing to sign a decent contract, there could be some value there. Not sure I really love either player's ceiling yet at least that would be more in line with what I believe the Rangers should be looking into.

 

[NYR Viper]

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.

I've said this before ,but I don';t see why they can't sell off their mid-20's vets for what they can get AND start adding the right pieces to move the process along

 

[Edge]

I've said this before ,but I don';t see why they can't sell off their mid-20's vets for what they can get AND start adding the right pieces to move the process along

The disagreement and debate is usually centered on the second part of your statement.

Because once we get beyond painting with broad strokes, disagreements on most subjects usually come down to the details, the method and the definition of what "right pieces" means.

It's why you see debates about BPA, religion, politics, pizza toppings, music, beauty, laws, finances, etc.

Because it's one thing to say, "Let's go out and add the right pieces" and another thing to agree on what those pieces are and how much they should cost.

 

[East Coast Bias]

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.

100% this.

I feel like people have this idea a switch can be turned on to win a cup. Like it will be

2020 - top 5 pick, 2021 - top 5 pick, 2022 - top 10 pick, 2023 - CUP WINNER

In reality, it's going to look more like this

missed playoffs, 1st round exit, 2nd round exit, 2nd round exit, hopefully Cup

 

[Tawnos]

I think we're at the end of the asset acquiring stage, mainly because I think the return for Kreider is pretty decent, and because we still have anywhere from 2-5 first round picks over the next two drafts, at least one of which will be high, and with another to be a lottery pick again.

And yeah, it kind of is about instant gratification because 15 months isn't a hell of a lot of time for what we're doing and these conversations have been going on for about 13 of those months. We haven't seen a morsel that this board has salivated over yet.

It's not kind of like that. It isn't like that at all. Instant gratification would be about improving the team in the immediate future, but these moves are about improving the team in the mid- and long-terms.

The amount of time we've spent talking about this has no bearing on it. We're about to be 4 drafts into this thing. If that's not long enough of a time frame to start thinking about mid- and long-term acquisitions, I don't know what will be.

 

[Brooklyn Rangers Fan]

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?

The article made it seem like there’s almost no chance he’ll move the 4.

 

[Edge]

It's not kind of like that. It isn't like that at all. Instant gratification would be about improving the team in the immediate future, but these moves are about improving the team in the mid- and long-terms.

The amount of time we've spent talking about this has no bearing on the conversation.

Actually it's vital to the mindset.

Almost from the minute we started trading players and picks, there have been people trying to figure out a way to improve this team under the guide of "improving it for the mid- and long-term" with some kind of miracle tonic. Which is an interesting approach because if you don't even know what you have and don't have, how can you say you're improving anything for the mid- and long-term.

 

[Rongomania]

Kreider/Vesey/Smith/Shatty @ 50%/Pionk

Plus we have #2 & #20

This draft is going to be f***in’ bananas.

 

[Off Sides]

Everyone seems to want to gloss over things the Rangers have little control over, expansion and the next CBA.

It's going to change some dynamics and no one can predict what will take place.

No idea if there are compliance buyouts, no idea about escrow, the cap level, if there will be a work-stoppage, different contract rules, LTIR, why not let that play out as it fits in the same timeline as to when the 4 big contracts end?

How can anyone predict what carrying an ~11M contract throughout that will do? Who knows what the unintended consequences could be?

Two years to see what all these prospects do? That is not going to give the Rangers a ton more information about what they should do next?

 

[Edge]

Everyone seems to want to gloss over things the Rangers have little control over, expansion and the next CBA.

It's going to change some dynamics and no one can predict what will take place.

No idea if there are compliance buyouts, no idea about escrow, the cap level, if there will be a work-stoppage, different contract rules, LTIR, why not let that play out as it fits in the same timeline as to when the 4 big contracts end?

How can anyone predict what carrying an ~11M contract throughout that will do? Who knows what the unintended consequences could be?

Two years to see what all these prospects do? That is not going to give the Rangers a ton more information about what they should do next?

Right now we've had a grand total of one draft under the rebuild. One.

We didn't even get half-way to the second before we started talking big free agents and multi-asset trades. This hasn't been a long process at all and yet you'd almost think we're on year four of this endeavor.

 

[Tawnos]

Actually it's vital to the mindset.

Almost from the minute we started trading players and picks, there have been people trying to figure out a way to improve this team under the guide of "improving it for the mid- and long-term" with some kind of miracle tonic. Which is an interesting approach because if you don't even know what you have and don't have, how can you say you're improving anything for the mid- and long-term.

Because you're only targeting players who will absolutely help in those time frames. That's why we only talk about an elite UFA like Panarin or a bonafide 1RD like Trouba (those of us that believe he already is, I know you think differently). And that's why we spend very little time talking about players like Ferland or Myers.

Very few people are discussing these things as if they were "miracle tonic" acquisitions. The bulk of the people who think that's what's being discussed are the people who are against it. The people who are for it generally aren't thinking that way.

 

[Edge]

Because you're only targeting players who will absolutely help. That's why we only talk about an elite UFA like Panarin or a bonafide 1RD like Trouba (those of us that believe he already is, I know you think differently). And that's why we spend very little time talking about players like Ferland or Myers.

Very few people are discussing these things as if they were "miracle tonic" acquisitions. The bulk of the people who think that's what's being discussed are the people who are against it. The people who are for it generally aren't thinking that way.

So let's focus on those guys for a second:

How do you think Panarin impacts the 2019-2020 NY Rangers?

What do you think your cost for a bonafide 1 RD defenseman like Trouba is going to be?

 

[Off Sides]

Right now we've had a grand total of one draft under the rebuild. One.

We didn't even get half-way to the second before we started talking big free agents and multi-asset trades. This hasn't been a long process at all and yet you'd almost think we're on year four of this endeavor.

I just don't know how else to say it at this point, making choices based on incomplete information is difficult. They'd be making choices without any information as most of their prospects have not even stepped onto the NHL ice yet, and the ones who have for more than a cup of coffee did not exactly set the NHL world ablaze.

It's going to take time for them to adapt to the NHL, it's going to take more time for them to reach their prime and that is only among the ones who make it in the first place. The more time that takes the more wasted prime years of any UFA signing.

 

[Edge]

I just don't know how else to say it at this point, making choices based on incomplete information is difficult. They'd be making choices without any information as most of their prospects have not even stepped onto the NHL ice yet, and the ones who have did for more than a cup of coffee did not exactly set the NHL world ablaze.

It's going to take time for them to adapt to the NHL, it's going to take more time for them to reach their prime and that is only among the ones who make it in the first place. The more time that takes the more wasted prime years of any UFA signing.

And that speaks to the timing and expectation concern I've had for a while.

When you make moves for guys like Panarin, the immediate expectations change and the timeline gets altered significantly. And that inevitably trickles down to rookies and young players and whether they are taking longer to develop, and whether they can come in and match what usually ends up become optimistic projections to start their careers.

 

[Tawnos]

So let's focus on those guys for a second:

How do you think Panarin impacts the 2019-2020 NY Rangers?

What do you think your cost for a bonafide 1 RD defenseman like Trouba is going to be?

Bold: I don't care.

On the second, it's worth exploring. The main piece being Skjei or Kreider and the add being one of our other mid-20s forwards. I don't think the Jets have any interest in futures, which is why it could work.

 

[East Coast Bias]

I'm not Pro-Panarin as much as I am anti-lottery. Not making moves b/c you're worried about the 3-4% change in lottery odds is foolish, imo.

The other thing is, Panarin or not, the entire future rests of the draft picks and prospects. Which is what everyone wants. In order to be cup contenders Chytil/Krav/Kakko (or Hughes)/Miller/etc have to pan out. Signing Panarin doesn't change that.

The patience narrative is annoying. It's just a difference in opinion. I'm not even sure where I stand on Panarin. But goddamn is it annoying being repeatedly told you're not patient enough or you don't wanna do this right because you'd, gasp, consider something other than sitting around doing nothing for 5 years. Stop worrying about being mediocre. You're not going to be able to engineer the next 10 years of being either Top 5 or Bottom 5. It's not going to happen, sorry.

 

[Edge]

Bold: I don't care.

On the second, it's worth exploring. The main piece being Skjei or Kreider and the add being one of our other mid-20s forwards. I don't think the Jets have any interest in futures, which is why it could work.

And I do care. Because next season is essential to what we're building. Not caring about a season that is right at the heart of what we're doing is EXACTLY why I and others remain unconvinced.

As for the second, if Trouba is indeed a bonafide 1RD, would you trade him for Skjei/Kreider and a mid-20s forward. Because Skjei and the mid-20s forwards only seem to be worth something when we want to package them for a player we like. Otherwise they're apparently nothing special the other 23 hours and 55 minutes of the day.

 

[NYR Viper]

And that speaks to the timing and expectation concern I've had for a while.

When you make moves for guys like Panarin, the immediate expectations change and the timeline gets altered significantly. And that inevitably trickles down to rookies and young players and whether they are taking longer to develop, and whether they can come in and match what usually ends up become optimistic projections to start their careers.

Couldn't one also make the argument that higher expectations and being more competitive can often, or sometimes, bring out more in young players than just allowing them to learn at their own pace?

If Gorton finds a player or two who he thinks will be part of this organization when they are ready to compete this off-season at a reasonable price (read this as utilizing pieces that they may not feel are part of the long-term future of this team), than he should go for it. If it means they go from #4 overall next year to #8, fine. But those same pieces may very well be the difference of a 1st round exit or a 2nd round exit in 3 years time.

They aren't going to be able to find all the right pieces in a single off-season

 

[Edge]

I'm not Pro-Panarin as much as I am anti-lottery. Not making moves b/c you're worried about the 3-4% change in lottery odds is foolish, imo.

The other thing is, Panarin or not, the entire future rests of the draft picks and prospects. Which is what everyone wants. In order to be cup contenders Chytil/Krav/Kakko (or Hughes)/Miller/etc have to pan out. Signing Panarin doesn't change that.

The patience narrative is annoying. It's just a difference in opinion. I'm not even sure where I stand on Panarin. But goddamn is it annoying being repeatedly told you're not patient enough or you don't wanna do this right because you'd, gasp, consider something other than sitting around doing nothing for 5 years. Stop worrying about being mediocre. You're not going to be able to engineer the next 10 years of being either Top 5 or Bottom 5. It's not going to happen, sorry.

First of all, we haven't even sat around for 15 months. So let's stop with the "I don't wanna wait for five years or ten years" bullshit. Because it's been 15 mother-loving months.

We've had ONE draft. We've "suffered" through one season where we knew we weren't going to be going for it. If people want to stop being accused of wanting instant gratification, than they need to stop acting like we've been done such a long and horrible road. Because I've got new for you, this is is NOTHING in the grand scheme of how things usually go.

Now, that first line. So you're going to go out and sign a guy to a mega contract and you think the difference is only 3-4% change in lottery odds? Where does Trouba fit into that? So we're going to give two players, a combined $17-$18 million dollars a year, players who we are led to believe are a #1RD and an elite winger, both in their primes, and the difference is only going to be a handful of wins?

 

[Edge]

Couldn't one also make the argument that higher expectations and being more competitive can often, or sometimes, bring out more in young players than just allowing them to learn at their own pace?

If Gorton finds a player or two who he thinks will be part of this organization when they are ready to compete this off-season at a reasonable price (read this as utilizing pieces that they may not feel are part of the long-term future of this team), than he should go for it. If it means they go from #4 overall next year to #8, fine. But those same pieces may very well be the difference of a 1st round exit or a 2nd round exit in 3 years time.

They aren't going to be able to find all the right pieces in a single off-season

More competitive yes, but you don't go out and get guys like Panarin and Trouba in the same offseason because you think it's going to be a nice little competitive boost.

And I am fine adding pieces here and there, but we're not talking about adding pieces. We're talking about guys who will cost a lot because they are being paid to lift a franchise, not just improve it. And that's part of the big problem I have --- we argue it both ways when we talk about guys like Panarin and Trouba.

They're amazing talents who don't come around often, and they're likely going to cost nearly $20 million to get under contract, but the difference won't be a big deal at first and it won't change anything too substantially.

When you pay that kind of money, and believe you are getting that level of talent, you're expecting something substantial for your investment. There's no way around it.

 

[GAGLine]

The article made it seem like there’s almost no chance he’ll move the 4.

Yeah, he specifically said:

So unless a team absolutely propels Sakic off his draft table seat in Vancouver with an offer for the ages, he seems intent on selecting at No. 4.

In no way is Kreider + a 2nd round pick an "offer for the ages". Even if Sakic was inclined to move the pick for more immediate help, he could do a lot better.

 

[Tawnos]

And I do care. Because next season is essential to what we're building. Not caring about a season that is right at the heart of what we're doing is EXACTLY why I and others remain unconvinced.

As for the second, if Trouba is indeed a bonafide 1RD, would you trade him for Skjei/Kreider and a mid-20s forward. Because Skjei and the mid-20s forwards only seem to be worth something when we want to package them for a player we like. Otherwise they're apparently nothing special the other 23 hours and 55 minutes of the day.

What I meant is that I don't care what impact Panarin would have on the team in the standings. Obviously, there's an impact on those around him, but that impact (in my mind) would be positive. But where we finish in the standings next year is NOT essential to what we're building. It's important, yes... but as @East Coast Bias mentioned, making decisions based on how it affects your lottery standing is a fool's errand. I mean, it's similar to how many people were off the wall upset when the Rangers picked up 3 points in their last 4 games at the end of the year. Yet, without that, the Rangers don't get the 2nd pick in the draft. You don't make decisions about personnel, whether on the ice or on paper, based on aiming to improve that, because whatever the odds, the outcome is still random.

If I couldn't sign my 1RD without having to sacrifice other pieces on the team... or couldn't sign him long-term to begin with, that is definitely a package I would consider. It's debatable that the Jets are better with Trouba + bargain bin D or Skjei + Myers. Given the situation in Winnipeg, the latter is a better option, IMO. And if people think those players aren't worth anything most of the time, those people are idiots. My guess, though, is that you're misconstruing the feeling that these players are superfluous for the Rangers right now for "nothing special the other 23 hours and 55 minutes of the day."