Speculation: Roster Building Thread: Part XLIII

[Shesterkybomb]

I think for us moving Kreider for assets and using his cap space plus, for Panarin is a smart move for the franchise as the difference is roughly 4 mill or so and then we also get some assets. Panarin plus say a Puuijarvi or a pick is what we would end up with for roughly and additional 4 mill

 

[ETTER DE]

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.

No, only 3. At least 2 according to Gorton, all though he does not specify when it started:
The Rangers admit they are trying to rebuild on the fly

 

[ETTER DE]

The rebuild started with the Stepan trade.

They wanted to start it in 2016 but was not able to trade Stepan and McDonagh for the right price.

 

[NYR Viper]

The Rangers have done this Panarin + assets from Kreider trade for Kreider line of thinking a few times over the last 5-6 years.

Stepan for DeAngelo + Andersson --> used cap space on Shattenkirk

Gomez for McDonagh + Higgins --> used cap space on Gaborik

So this idea of trading Kreider for assets and then signing someone like Panarin is not foreign and honestly, for a team like the rangers who can attract UFA's, it's a good method to help re-stock and build depth in the system.

 

[Leetch3]

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.

he also pointed out that after bring tkachuk back they traded him again the following year for another 1st

 

[Off Sides]

It is often speculated that retooling, rebuilding on the fly, and rebuilding with the inclusion of a letter stating that intent may have different meanings

 

[Shesterkybomb]

When people talk about "the plan", I feel they thing that Gortons has a map of how they are going to do it, they don't, it's very fluid and things change based on what is put in front of them, ie prospects that fail or overachieved, interesting UFA players, trades etc. "The plan" is to get younger and compete for a cup, how they do it could change with options that are presented to them so I wouldnt expect the franchise to build solely though the draft even if that is what people are expecting "the plan" to mean, it is the main foundation but expect them to use any tools they have to get better.

 

[Edge]

Those teams never raise the bar because they have bad management.

And often also have poor drafting outside of lottery picks, an inability to attract free agents, and spend years relaying on high draft picks to keep their heads above water.

Right now we haven't even completed our second draft since "the letter."

 

[Edge]

Would you do the 5 year deal?

While the terms are so certainly more friendly, there's still that overarching concern about its impact on our approach. That's a real concern for me.

 

[Edge]

The rebuild started with the Stepan trade.

I'm not sure I fully agree with that.

I think they hedged their bets a little bit, but I see a team that wasn't operating under the same mindset just 8 months later.

While we remember Andersson and Chytil, we also didn't pick again until the 4th round and then went out and signed Shattenkirk.

I think Gorton started to have his doubts around that time, talking about the dreaded middle and whatnot, but this wasn't a team that was beating on every bush to see what was available, or actively shopping their players. Frankly, should that team not take a nose dive the way they did, I don't think 2017 would be on our radar much at all as a starting point.

 

[DutchShamrock]

Gaborik was brought in because the team lacked a dangerous, high level scorer. They had a HOF level goalie in his prime, a known quantity on defense and at the very least veteran, and steady, depth, consistent forwards. The Rangers knew they lacked a scorer because they watched these pieces meld for a few years and saw hopefuls flame out.

What do we have? What do we lack? We haven't even drafted the #2OA yet. In terms of the next contending team, the defense is in diapers, the forwards are more theoretical and we have hope in net.

The questions were clear when Gaborik was acquired. I'm not so sure we are even at that point yet. Panarin (or Karlsson) is a massive commitment when it's not even clear we will lack a scoring winger. It's not clear what our haves or needs on defense are.

If timing is everything with a cap league, you better be sure your major investment was right. Because it may prevent you from addressing that glaring hole when you are on the cusp.

 

[GoAwayPanarin]

They wanted to start it in 2016 but was not able to trade Stepan and McDonagh for the right price.

They had trades in line for both of them but the draft didn’t play out the way they wanted it to.

 

[eco's bones]

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!

Another terrific post. And I don't it would be just the kids that would get a boost--I think Zibanejad would too.

 

[kovazub94]

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.

I don't think that acquisition of Panarin / Trouba will have such a profound shift in approach, mindset and priorities SPECIFICALLY as far as 2019-2020 season is concerned as you imply. You might be right when it comes to a general fandom, but the Gorton and FO should not be significantly affected. General fandom didn't stop Gorton to send out the letter and begin the rebuild even though the team could've stayed competitive for a playoff spot for another few years. I mean you wouldn't expect they'd go and start signing mid-range UFAs at a premium or trade for expiring contracts with prospects and picks at TDA.

On the other hand bringing Panarin (especially if Kreider is moved) and / or Trouba could help with prospects development in multiple ways.

 

[Edge]

Gaborik was brought in because the team lacked a dangerous, high level scorer. They had a HOF level goalie in his prime, a known quantity on defense and at the very least veteran, and steady, depth, consistent forwards. The Rangers knew they lacked a scorer because they watched these pieces meld for a few years and saw hopefuls flame out.

What do we have? What do we lack? We haven't even drafted the #2OA yet. In terms of the next contending team, the defense is in diapers, the forwards are more theoretical and we have hope in net.

The questions were clear when Gaborik was acquired. I'm not so sure we are even at that point yet. Panarin (or Karlsson) is a massive commitment when it's not even clear we will lack a scoring winger. It's not clear what our haves or needs on defense are.

If timing is everything with a cap league, you better be sure your major investment was right. Because it may prevent you from addressing that glaring hole when you are on the cusp.

The Rangers right now, are not a team featuring 22 or 23 year olds who are already at a certain level in the NHL and looking to take the next steps.

The Rangers right now are a team with their hopes pinned on teenagers and a lot kids who are 20 or 21 and still making the jump to the NHL, let alone take the next steps.

Just a reminder:

Our top prospect hasn't actually even been drafted yet, and won't be drafted for another month.

Our second best prospect is 19, just signed his first pro contract and on his way from Russa. He hasn't even seen an NHL game yet.

Ditto for our third and fourth best prospects, who depending on the order you have them, are either en route to the live in the U.S. or gearing up for their second year of college.

And the rest go on from there --- at various levels in the minors, overseas, or in college.

Needless to say, we really don't even know what we have or don't have yet.

 

[kovazub94]

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.

Did Chicago build around Hossa? Did Pens build around Kessel? High priced signing could be supplemental too. And please don't say that these signing came after these team's core was in place because it wasn't the assertion in your post.

 

[SingnBluesOnBroadway]

The Rangers have done this Panarin + assets from Kreider trade for Kreider line of thinking a few times over the last 5-6 years.

Stepan for DeAngelo + Andersson --> used cap space on Shattenkirk

Gomez for McDonagh + Higgins --> used cap space on Gaborik.

Couple of things:

1) Those moves were made at different times than we're in now.

2) There was a desire to move Gaborik and his contract. There's a desire to move Shattenkirk's contract.

 

[TheBloodyNine]

Did Chicago build around Hossa? Did Pens build around Kessel? High priced signing could be supplemental too. And please don't say that these signing came after these team's core was in place because it wasn't the assertion in your post.

I'll say it. Penguins and Blackhawks were WELL more established when they brought in those players than we are now. We are not even on the same planet as where those teams were.

 

[TheBPA]

And often also have poor drafting outside of lottery picks, an inability to attract free agents, and spend years relaying on high draft picks to keep their heads above water.

Right now we haven't even completed our second draft since "the letter."

You may not agree that the rebuild started with the Stepan trade, but "the letter" is a totally arbitrary point in time to point to as the start of the rebuild. It may have been a signal to the fans that this was the direction in which the Rangers were heading, but it's not as if on February 7, 2018 the Rangers were still in "all-in" mode, and then a switch was flipped on February 8, 2018 when the letter was sent out.

You yourself have pointed out how many players we now have in the organization that were selected in the 2016 NHL draft. 2017 is the Andersson/Chytil draft, along with 5 other picks. 2018 was Kravtsov/Miller/Lundqvist, along with 7 other picks. And now we have the upcoming 2019 Kakko/Hughes draft. So it's not unfair for people to point to our drafts and restocking of the prospect pool and say that the rebuild has already compiled 3 or so years worth of assets, whether that has happened in the past 15 months, 24 months, or not.

 

[Edge]

I don't think that acquisition of Panarin / Trouba will have such a profound shift in approach, mindset and priorities SPECIFICALLY as far as 2019-2020 season is concerned as you imply. You might be right when it comes to a general fandom, but the Gorton and FO should not be significantly affected. General fandom didn't stop Gorton to send out the letter and begin the rebuild even though the team could've stayed competitive for a playoff spot for another few years. I mean you wouldn't expect they'd go and start signing mid-range UFAs at a premium or trade for expiring contracts with prospects and picks at TDA.

On the other hand bringing Panarin (especially if Kreider is moved) and / or Trouba could help with prospects development in multiple ways.

I'm sorry but when you sign a guy described a "bonafide number one defenseman" and a winger the likes of which "never comes around" things don't operate the same they would without those two guys. Not after you just gave them close to $20 million, and sacrificed some combination of what's being proposed around here (Skjei, Kreider, prospects, roster players, etc.).

You also can't compare it to what we had because, A. We already went where we were going to go with those guys; B. We didn't just re-up or trade for those guys as our big moves; and C. We weren't trying to develop a roster where as many half our players had played two NHL seasons or less.

 

[kovazub94]

The Rangers rebuild is a bit unique in that Gorton didn't wait until the Rangers bottomed out to start it. The team had quite a few valuable assets, most of which have been turned into potential 1st round (or the 1st round redraft equivalents) rebuild pieces starting with 2016. And if we exclude a single erroneous (in retrospect) move signing Shattenkirk at a huge discount, the rebuild is already two years old and EVERYONE is considering the next year to be a part of it again so we'd be talking about 3 years before 2020-2021 season rolls out.

 

[Edge]

You may not agree that the rebuild started with the Stepan trade, but "the letter" is a totally arbitrary point in time to point to as the start of the rebuild. It may have been a signal to the fans that this was the direction in which the Rangers were heading, but it's not as if on February 7, 2018 the Rangers were still in "all-in" mode, and then a switch was flipped on February 8, 2018 when the letter was sent out.

You yourself have pointed out how many players we now have in the organization that were selected in the 2016 NHL draft. 2017 is the Andersson/Chytil draft, along with 5 other picks. 2018 was Kravtsov/Miller/Lundqvist, along with 7 other picks. And now we have the upcoming 2019 Kakko/Hughes draft. So it's not unfair for people to point to our drafts and restocking of the prospect pool and say that the rebuild has already compiled 3 or so years worth of assets, whether that has happened in the past 15 months, 24 months, or not.

The letter is arbitary, the mindset and approach is not.

And we're not comparing February 7th to February 8th, we're coming June 2017 to February 2018.

And yes, we have a good number of prospects in our system. But they're also exactly that --- prospects. Not young, emerging NHL talent. We're not at that point yet. And that's a very big difference.

 

[kovazub94]

I'm sorry but when you sign a guy described a "bonafide number one defenseman" and a winger the likes of which "never comes around" things don't operate the same they would without those two guys. Not after you just gave them close to $20 million, and sacrificed some combination of what's being proposed around here (Skjei, Kreider, prospects, roster players, etc.).

You also can't compare it to what we had because, A. We already went where we were going to go with those guys; B. We didn't just re-up or trade for those guys as our big moves; and C. We weren't trying to develop a roster where as many half our players had played two NHL seasons or less.

How would they operate differently in 2019-2020 that would be different and detrimental to the rebuild?

 

[kovazub94]

I'll say it. Penguins and Blackhawks were WELL more established when they brought in those players than we are now. We are not even on the same planet as where those teams were.

Eh, as I said that wasn't the point of the post I was replying to.

 

[TheBPA]

How would they operate differently in 2019-2020 that would be different and detrimental to the rebuild?

The main thing I see being different is Larry Brooks writing articles stating that the Rangers HAVE to make the playoffs or the signing of Panarin/trade for Trouba is an absolute failure. Other than that, not much in my opinion.