Toggle sidebar

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 expeting server maintenance on March 3rd starting at midnight, there may be downtime during the work.
Status
Not open for further replies.
JD talked about patience and resolve. Sticking to the plan. Young players. Draft picks. He talked about the draft and trades. The only time he mentioned free agency was when the Blues traded Tkachuk to Atlanta because they desperately needed young assets and they re-signed Tkachuk.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Leetch3
Tawnos said:
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.
Click to expand...

2 extra years is a significant difference. And Gaborik was the key offensive cog on those teams. So I'd argue that yes, the team more or less was built around him and Lundqvist during their time together.
 
Beacon said:
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.
Click to expand...
Who are the two centers in 2020? Just curious.
 
Faceless said:
2 extra years is a significant difference. And Gaborik was the key offensive cog on those teams. So I'd argue that yes, the team more or less was built around him and Lundqvist during their time together.
Click to expand...

Eh, I don't really view it as much different.

And you'd argue that, but you'd be wrong. The successful Rangers teams we had when Gaborik was here were built around Lundqvist, strong forward depth, insane work ethic, and high end defensive play. Gaborik was a part of it, not the center of it.
 
Edge said:
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.
Click to expand...
Actually, I have a much different perspective. Making one or two major acquisitions raises the bar significantly in my eyes and I believe it also raises the bar for young players. The rebuild, rebuild, rebuild teams in Arizona. Edmonton, Buffalo and Florida never raise the bar. Their young players are counted on to drive the pile forward, mostly by themselves. I thin k it teaches the young players that we are here to win and let's get going. Now!
 
  • Like
Reactions: eco's bones
bobbop said:
Actually, I have a much different perspective. Making one or two major acquisitions raises the bar significantly in my eyes and I believe it also raises the bar for young players. The rebuild, rebuild, rebuild teams in Arizona. Edmonton, Buffalo and Florida never raise the bar. Their young players are counted on to drive the pile forward, mostly by themselves. I thin k it teaches the young players that we are here to win and let's get going. Now!
Click to expand...
Those teams never raise the bar because they have bad management.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Edge and Off Sides
I honestly think Kreider is going to get 7/$7.5-8. Not that I think he deserves it but I can see him trying for it for sure.

RGY said:
100%.

Just my opinion. Dont want anyone to think im yelling at them.
Click to expand...

Can't wait for this Panarin saga to be over so we don't have to see passive aggressive posts like this from grown men lol
 
Tawnos said:
Eh, I don't really view it as much different.

And you'd argue that, but you'd be wrong. The successful Rangers teams we had when Gaborik was here were built around Lundqvist, strong forward depth, insane work ethic, and high end defensive play. Gaborik was a part of it, not the center of it.
Click to expand...

That's a strong statement to make. These are opinions, so neither of us are right or wrong, considering there's no factual evidence that can be gathered to quantify this.

Gaborik was the center piece of that offense. Was he built around in the same way Lundqvist was, no. But he was still 'the guy' when it came to the offense. When the Rangers signed him, they were signing him for that purpose. In my definition, that's someone they are building around.

Just because it's to a lesser extent than other players, doesn't mean it isn't so. And if we sign Panarin to a huge contract like you are proposing, it will be a similar situation, but for an even longer term.

Finally, I don't really see how a contract that is 40% longer in term is not much different. There is significantly less risk in signing a player to a 5 year deal, than a 7 year deal. Besides the fact that you are invested for a shorter period of time, the player is much easier to trade after year 2 or 3, if things don't work out and the implications of a buy-out are significantly less.
 
RangerBoy said:
The Rangers rebuild will be entering a second full season. The letter came out 15 months ago. Some people around here act like the Rangers have been rebuilding for the last five years.
Click to expand...

Considering we've never had a real rebuild before, seasons for some feel like dog years.
 
Faceless said:
That's a strong statement to make. These are opinions, so neither of us are right or wrong, considering there's no factual evidence that can be gathered to quantify this.

Gaborik was the center piece of that offense. Was he built around in the same way Lundqvist was, no. But he was still 'the guy' when it came to the offense. When the Rangers signed him, they were signing him for that purpose. In my definition, that's someone they are building around.

Just because it's to a lesser extent than other players, doesn't mean it isn't so. And if we sign Panarin to a huge contract like you are proposing, it will be a similar situation, but for an even longer term.

Finally, I don't really see how a contract that is 40% longer in term is not much different. There is significantly less risk in signing a player to a 5 year deal, than a 7 year deal. Besides the fact that you are invested for a shorter period of time, the player is much easier to trade after year 2 or 3, if things don't work out and the implications of a buy-out are significantly less.
Click to expand...

Cmon :laugh: right and wrong are objective concepts. They're 100% subjective, which I why I didn't feel the need to put a disclaimer that it's my opinion that you're wrong.

I consider a player a team has built around to be either, a.) a player whose skills the team's strategy is designed to maximize or b.) a player who a team brings in other players to compliment. After the first couple of months, a wouldn't be true and b was never true.

Percentages are silly when you're talking about small numbers like that. The difference between 1 year and 2 years is 50%, but the real life difference is negligible.
 
bobbop said:
Actually, I have a much different perspective. Making one or two major acquisitions raises the bar significantly in my eyes and I believe it also raises the bar for young players. The rebuild, rebuild, rebuild teams in Arizona. Edmonton, Buffalo and Florida never raise the bar. Their young players are counted on to drive the pile forward, mostly by themselves. I thin k it teaches the young players that we are here to win and let's get going. Now!
Click to expand...

I don’t necessarily agree. All of those teams went into the free agent market and signed the likes of Goligoski, Lucic, Okposo and Yandle.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Berserk
Tawnos said:
Cmon :laugh: right and wrong are objective concepts. They're 100% subjective, which I why I didn't feel the need to put a disclaimer that it's my opinion that you're wrong.

I consider a player a team has built around to be either, a.) a player whose skills the team's strategy is designed to maximize or b.) a player who a team brings in other players to compliment. After the first couple of months, a wouldn't be true and b was never true.

Percentages are silly when you're talking about small numbers like that. The difference between 1 year and 2 years is 50%, but the real life difference is negligible.
Click to expand...

I disagree considerably that the difference between 5 and 7 is negligible.

As for the other remarks, agree to disagree.
 
Edge said:
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.
Click to expand...

And this, for me, is way too much. My hard line is $9.5m
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom