Speculation: Roster Building Thread: Part XLIII

[Edge]

Kreider probably lands you a teen pick and a prospect from a team who can actually see over the fence and into the playoff picture.

Teams that are picking higher, generally those in the top 10, aren't at that point yet.

 

[TheBloodyNine]

Would not surprise me in the least to see Colorado move #16 for immediate help. They aren't moving 4.

 

[TheBloodyNine]

Kreider probably lands you a teen pick and a prospect from a team who can actually see over the fence and into the playoff picture.

Teams that are picking higher, generally those in the top 10, aren't at that point yet.

This year is an interesting top 10 though. I think Buffalo, Edmonton and Anaheim are all teams that will attempt to make the playoffs next year. It wouldn't surprise me if LA thought that as well.

 

[eco's bones]

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.

1. If they're deserving of course. The only one right now I would say is fairly certain for that is Kakko (Hughes) but he will still be an ELC at that point. Kravtsov will still be an ELC in two years as well. Chytil, Shesterkin, Fox are maybes as far as getting really big contracts--keeping in mind also that Toronto has kind of done something like this only they've kind of cut Marner out of the loop for Nylander--a lesser player. If Andersson is 30-35 point third liner--a $5 mil per long term second contract is not justifiable.

2. more realistic to me. But speaking of picking up toxic contracts--I wouldn't want to take on anything longer than two years. And doing that favor for other teams we would need to make them really pay.

3. there will likely be no high profile UFA's two years from now. There isn't going to be anyone as good as Panarin anyway. Anyone can go over to cap friendly and check that out themselves though. Doesn't look that great to me.

 

[Jaromir Jagr]

This year is an interesting top 10 though. I think Buffalo, Edmonton and Anaheim are all teams that will attempt to make the playoffs next year. It wouldn't surprise me if LA thought that as well.

I don't think Kreider gets you there with only one year left, but I agree with the premise. Excessive parity in the NHL has made it more likely than ever that teams outside the playoff picture see a much easier way in.

And once in anything can actually seem to happen.

 

[NYR Viper]

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.

This is a fair and level-headed thought process. I guess for MY line of thinking, my offer to Panarin wouldn't be at a franchise altering cap hit ($9.5m) and that Trouba, even at a long-term contract of 7 x $7m would be paid at a 1st pairing level, but again, not a franchise altering cap hit. Would they be substantial investments? Of course.

 

[Edge]

This year is an interesting top 10 though. I think Buffalo, Edmonton and Anaheim are all teams that will attempt to make the playoffs next year. It wouldn't surprise me if LA thought that as well.

Anaheim I continue to find intriguing because I think they want to see if they can squeeze one last run out of Getzlaf and Perry.

 

[East Coast Bias]

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" bull****. Because it's been 15 mother-loving months.

We've had ONE draft. You've "suffered" through one season where we knew we weren't going to be going for it. If people want to stop being accussed 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?

I can see both sides of Panarin. Signing him doesn't mean I'm tired of losing and impatient. It would mean I think this team could be ready to compete in 2 years, and having him leading the kids would be great. That could be wrong. Who knows. But would be my thinking, not I can't stand losing get me all the UFAs! IF you disagree on the timeline and the impact he could make - great. I respect that completely.

I'd love to debate the nuances of the moves we all know we have to make to move ahead. How/when we do it is the difference. I have no issue with people feeling my opinion is wrong there. None.

But labeling every trade or UFA that is a big move as complete impatient is stupid. and if that's the debate, I really don't care to argue this further.

 

[TheBloodyNine]

I don't think Kreider gets you there with only one year left, but I agree with the premise. Excessive parity in the NHL has made it more likely than ever that teams outside the playoff picture see a much easier way in.

And once in anything can actually seem to happen.

Certainly not by himself no. Adding our other draft ammo, I think it's possible.
I think a better play might be use the 2nd's to move from 20 to say 15, and then couple Kreider with the 15 to move down further. Could make it more palatable for the team in the top 10.

 

[TheBloodyNine]

Anaheim I continue to find intriguing because I think they want to see if they can squeeze one last run out of Getzlaf and Perry.

Agree 100%. They are a team who, for all intents and purposes, should not be in Win now mode but most certainly are because of those 2 contracts. I think Kreider would be intriguing to them due to his size and scoring ability. Kreider +20 for 9 doesn't seem out of the realm of possibility to me.

 

[Edge]

I can see both sides of Panarin. Signing him doesn't mean I'm tired of losing and impatient. It would mean I think this team could be ready to compete in 2 years, and having him leading the kids would be great. That could be wrong. Who knows. But would be my thinking, not I can't stand losing get me all the UFAs! IF you disagree on the timeline and the impact he could make - great. I respect that completely.

I'd love to debate the nuances of the moves we all know we have to make to move ahead. How/when we do it is the difference. I have no issue with people feeling my opinion is wrong there. None.

But labeling every trade or UFA that is a big move as complete impatient is stupid. and if that's the debate, I really don't care to argue this further.

Having said all that I've said, I will tell you that I think the Rangers still go after Panarin. So for me, there's two approach to this topic: what I want/think, and I think the Rangers will do.

I think the Rangers would love to move Kreider's contract and apply that money toward Panarin. Let's say the going rate for Kreider is 7x7, which it very well could be. Likewise, let's say that Panarin wants to play in NY badly enough that he'll do 10x5, I think the Rangers would be over that like white on rice.

I think they'd love to flip Kreider for assets --- though I particularly think they're keen to move up in this draft and have a few guys that are high on their list.

I'm sure there's an interest in Trouba, but I get the feeling that Gorton might be inclined to pursue him as a free agent more than a trade target.

 

[McRanger]

If this were summer 2020 and we saw substantial growth from our young roster players I would be all in on Panarin.

I would love to make some noise before these ELCs and Zibs contract expires.

 

[DutchShamrock]

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.

I say this in all respect and with no intention of being curt, but I don't see how Lundqvist and that version of the New York Rangers does not still equal "The New York Rangers ". He is still a piece of that team.

I make that distinction because it is integral into the decision making process. I can only assume we dredge up the past to figure out the mindset and how it may influence the decisions made this summer. I think they got gaborik then because the sum of those parts were in fact better than the sum now. They wanted to capitalize on the peak of Lundqvist's career.

There is no equivalent now. Lundqvist is yielding his crease. No major impact player is trending down. There is no sense of urgency. Just my two cents.

 

[Off Sides]

Having said all that I've said, I will tell you that I think the Rangers still go after Panarin. So for me, there's two approach to this topic: what I want/think, and I think the Rangers will do.

I think the Rangers would love to move Kreider's contract and apply that money toward Panarin. Let's say the going rate for Kreider is 7x7, which it very well could be. Likewise, let's say that Panarin wants to play in NY badly enough that he'll do 10x5, I think the Rangers would be over that like white on rice.

I think they'd love to flip Kreider for assets --- though I particularly think they're keen to move up in this draft and have a few guys that are high on their list.

I'm sure there's an interest in Trouba, but I get the feeling that Gorton might be inclined to pursue him as a free agent more than a trade target.

I think the Rangers should stay away, yet I too think they will make an offer.

I see that as dangerous, not sure they are going to want to see their #2 pick or any other prospects who produces about the same as Panarin ask for ~11M at the end of their entry level because they feel they deserve the same level of compensation. I think there is a lot of pointing which has been going on in Toronto, and still is. I'd rather see the Rangers prospects pointing at Zibanejad's contract should they even reach his level.

 

[Edge]

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."

And here's the thing, the whole standing/draft position thing is only part of where of my concern comes into play. Aside from disagreeing that the difference between a high pick next year being important, it's the also the shift in mindset and priorities. And I don't know you don't see it that way, but when you commit nearly $20 million to a pair of players who you view as being keystone players in their position, there's no way that doesn't impact how you do business and how you view your timeline. And when you're talking about kids who are 18, 19, and 20 years old, that's an incredibly delicate situation, with long-term ramifications.

Because if we go down this path, it changes everything. There's no way it can't. Not with the money we're talking about. Not with the years. Not with the expectations, or the costs to trade for a certain player, or how we handle icetime, or what we expect and when we expect it. It will impact those things, and we are still very early in this process to be throwing those kinds of high-stakes elements into the mix.

 

[JimmyG89]

Rangers interest in Panarin will be similar to their interest in Shattenkirk. If he really wants to play here, they will get him on their own terms. If not, he can go to the highest bidder. I don't see them overpaying at this point, especially when it seems that JD is preaching exactly what Gorton and everyone has since the letter went out. Patience. Get the right kind of young players into the system.

We're more likely to add someone via a big trade vs add someone as a FA.

 

[Jaromir Jagr]

Having said all that I've said, I will tell you that I think the Rangers still go after Panarin. So for me, there's two approach to this topic: what I want/think, and I think the Rangers will do.

I think the Rangers would love to move Kreider's contract and apply that money toward Panarin. Let's say the going rate for Kreider is 7x7, which it very well could be. Likewise, let's say that Panarin wants to play in NY badly enough that he'll do 10x5, I think the Rangers would be over that like white on rice.

I think they'd love to flip Kreider for assets --- though I particularly think they're keen to move up in this draft and have a few guys that are high on their list.

I'm sure there's an interest in Trouba, but I get the feeling that Gorton might be inclined to pursue him as a free agent more than a trade target.

If the choice is Kreider or Panarin, I much prefer we allocate that money to Panarin + whatever assets Kreider returns.

If Panarin will take a 5 year term, I think even I could be enticed to bite on that.

However, I'm enormously skeptical that a guy will give up a 7-8 year deal at a similiar dollar amount, for a 5 year one.

Shattenkirk lived and played most of his life in the tri-state area. His family and friends are here. Panarin grew up thousands of miles away. He might like the idea of NY, but I have a hard time seeing how he would give up 20 million ish to play for us.

 

[Jaromir Jagr]

I think making an offer and going hard are also two very different things.

Offering 7x7...or 10x5 is much different than 10/11x7.

 

[Edge]

If the choice is Kreider or Panarin, I much prefer we allocate that money to Panarin + whatever assets Kreider returns.

If Panarin will take a 5 year term, I think even I could be enticed to bite on that.

However, I'm enormously skeptical that a guy will give up a 7-8 year deal at a similiar dollar amount, for a 5 year one.

Shattenkirk lived and played most of his life in the tri-state area. His family and friends are here. Panarin grew up thousands of miles away. He might like the idea of NY, but I have a hard time seeing how he would give up 20 million ish to play for us.

And that's the big question - how far do the Rangers want to go? Because we can debate Panarin's impact on the franchise all day long, but the contract is still a component.

Seven years and $77 million is a lot of money for a team whose stable of young talent has more potential than NHL production at the moment.

 

[Brooklyn Rangers Fan]

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.

Agree with this completely – with the caveat that while moves should not be avoided out of a fear they might interfere with "tanking" to finish 4th worst as opposed to 8th worst or whatever, that is very different from making moves that would take a team that would otherwise be a lottery team (whether 4th, 8th, or 12th) and prop them up to be a bubble playoff team. The latter we need to avoid at all costs.

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."

This is such a huge point.

I am a proponent for trying to make a deal for Trouba centered around Skjei not because I think Skjei's a fringe player, but because I actually think highly of him and believe he's quite valuable – and therefore actually makes sense as the centerpiece of such a transaction.

In my case, it's all about opportunity and resource allocation; if the Rangers' LHD prospects were all small-ish mobile guys like Fox, ADA, Pionk, Keane, and Lundqvist, and the RHD prospects were all bigger, stronger guys like Miller, Hajek, and Rykov, you couldn't pry Skjei away from me with a crowbar.

 

[Tawnos]

And here's the thing, the whole standing/draft position thing is only part of where of my concern comes into play. Aside from disagreeing that the difference between a high pick next year being important, it's the also the shift in mindset and priorities. And I don't know you don't see it that way, but when you commit nearly $20 million to a pair of players who you view as being keystone players in their position, there's no way that doesn't impact how you do business and how you view your timeline. And when you're talking about kids who are 18, 19, and 20 years old, that's an incredibly delicate situation, with long-term ramifications.

Because if we go down this path, it changes everything. There's no way it can't. Not with the money we're talking about. Not with the years. Not with the expectations, or the costs to trade for a certain player, or how we handle icetime, or what we expect and when we expect it. It will impact those things, and we are still very early in this process to be throwing those kinds of high-stakes elements into the mix.

Fundamentally, I disagree that it changes anything. I don't think it would be accompanied by a shift in mindset or priority... or more specifically, that it doesn't have to. The rebuild is still going to hinge on how those young players develop and how bringing in those guys now impacts those young players is a matter of the FO and coaching staff managing the situation.

 

[RangerBoy]

Trade him.

 

[Jaromir Jagr]

And that's the big question - how far do the Rangers want to go? Because we can debate Panarin's impact on the franchise all day long, but the contract is still a component.

Seven years and $77 million is a lot of money for a team whose stable of young talent has more potential than NHL production at the moment.

Would you do the 5 year deal?

 

[Jaromir Jagr]

Fundamentally, I disagree that it changes anything. I don't think it would be accompanied by a shift in mindset or priority... or more specifically, that it doesn't have to. The rebuild is still going to hinge on how those young players develop and how bringing in those guys now impacts those young players is a matter of the FO and coaching staff managing the situation.

If you are signing a player to a 7 year contract, and allocating 11 million dollars per year to him, he is a guy you are building around.

I don't see how that doesn't fundamentally change things.

 

[Tawnos]

If you are signing a player to a 7 year contract, and allocating 11 million dollars per year to him, he is a guy you are building around.

I don't see how that doesn't fundamentally change things.

Was Gaborik a player we were building around? Or was he part of the group when they started to hit their stride. It's the same contract with 2 extra years.