Speculation: Roster Building Thread: Part XLIII

[NYR Viper]

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.

I agree, it's not exactly the same scenario, just that this organization has done this type of move before where they trade a current piece, bring in younger players and then sign their guy

 

[Ghost of jas]

The letter is the demarcation point. Until the letter, the Rangers still spoke of ‘rebuilding on the fly’. After the letter, the playoffs were tossed aside, and asset accumulation became the order of the day. It was clear to me and a few others here that the mindset had changed. I maintain that the rebuild in its current form began with the letter. Moves were made prior to the letter, but everything went nuclear after the letter.

 

[Edge]

People don't view a lot of this as being impatient, and yet we see phrases like, "...we are here to win and let's get going. Now!" or talking about all of this is really two years old, and not a year and a half old, as if either one is a particularly long time.

And yet while we see guys like JD and Gorton getting up and using words like patience, I've yet to see single "push it forward" argument that includes any points that can even remotely be construed as preaching patience.

So if these type of moves are truly reflective of the path the Rangers have been talking about, why does the sales language seem so dramatically different?

 

[Crease]

Seems that every successful team with young stars also had core players in their late 20s/early 30s. Pittsburgh with Sykora. Chicago with Hossa and Sharp. LA with Williams and Carter. Assuming Kakko, Kravstov and Chytil are the Rangers stud ELCs over the next few years, who should the Rangers supplement them with? I get the argument against Panarin, but it has to be someone. Should it be Kreider and Zibanejad, or should they look outside the organization?

 

[Leetch3]

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

the terminology doesn't really matter but to me retooling and rebuilding on the fly are both the same thing, its a good team trying to reload to continue being good...completely different than a total rebuild

 

[SingnBluesOnBroadway]

I agree, it's not exactly the same scenario, just that this organization has done this type of move before where they trade a current piece, bring in younger players and then sign their guy

Right. But there's a different GM and they really have never come out and committed to a rebuild. I would also hope there's a little bit of learning from the past.

 

[Leetch3]

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.

and by making that tough decision to do that, the rangers have hopefully sped up the process greatly

 

[Lone Ranger]

My way of looking at it, YMMV, is that we'd be paying Panarin and Trouba ostensibly what we're currently spending on Hank, Smith, and Staal, all players whose contracts expire after 2021. Hank, Smith ,and Staal's internal replacements will all be on entry level deals. We would recoup most of whatever assets we gave up for Trouba by trading Kreider, and a large part of what we'd be paying CK, if we resigned him, is going to pay Panarin. I don't see the downside.

 

[TheBPA]

People don't view a lot of this as being impatient, and yet we see phrases like, "...we are here to win and let's get going. Now!" or talking about all of this is really two years old, and not a year and a half old, as if either one is a particularly long time.

And yet while we see guys like JD and Gorton getting up and using words like patience, I've yet to see single "push it forward" argument that includes any points that can even remotely be construed as preaching patience.

So if these type of moves are truly reflective of the path the Rangers have been talking about, why does the sales language seem so dramatically different?

What is the appropriate length of a rebuild? I'd say it varies entirely depending on the circumstances. Buffalo has seemingly been rebuilding for almost 8 years now. Edmonton and Arizona, god knows how long. The Rangers are one of few instances (if any) I can remember where the organization actively sold off a number of valuable pieces that still had substantial value in order to kick start their rebuild. They didn't start rebuilding from the absolute bottom of the barrel. In that instance, I would say the rebuild is necessarily going to be shorter than what is ordinarily seen. How short remains to be seen, but I think many would agree that at minimum we are nearing the end of "Phase 1" of the rebuild.

 

[Edge]

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

I've stated all of this multiple times before, but in a nutshell (and off the top of my head):

I think game plans shift to accentuate the abilities and styles of those players.

I think it almost certainly impacts usage, and ice time sooner rather than later.

I believe it has a high probability of leading to deployments that "don't mess with what's working."

I think it reduces the margin of error for younger players.

I think it prompts us to seek out moves that compliment those star players, rather than seeing how things develop organically.

I don't think it's enough to life us into the playoffs, but I do think it's enough to put us into that dreaded middle ground for next season and possibly the year after. And yeah, I'm not going to lie, with where this team is right now, I think having another top 5 picks is more beneficial over the long run than "pushing" things and finishing 14th or 15th in 2020. I don't even factor the lottery into that opinion.

 

[Leetch3]

Seems that every successful team with young stars also had core players in their late 20s/early 30s. Pittsburgh with Sykora. Chicago with Hossa and Sharp. LA with Williams and Carter. Assuming Kakko, Kravstov and Chytil are the Rangers stud ELCs over the next few years, who should the Rangers supplement them with? I get the argument against Panarin, but it has to be someone.

I think its more a question of when than who...hossa was signed in 2009, when kane was entering year #3 and was nearly a PPG player his first 2 years, toews was entering year 3...duncan keith was entering year 5, etc. They didn't sign him prior to even drafting kane and then hoping for the best. They let the kids develop and then added guys to that core

 

[Brooklyn Rangers Fan]

People don't view a lot of this as being impatient, and yet we see phrases like, "...we are here to win and let's get going. Now!" or talking about all of this is really two years old, and not a year and a half old, as if either one is a particularly long time.

And yet while we see guys like JD and Gorton getting up and using words like patience, I've yet to see single "push it forward" argument that includes any points that can even remotely be construed as preaching patience.

So if these type of moves are truly reflective of the path the Rangers have been talking about, why does the sales language seem so dramatically different?

Because it's not what I want, dammit!

 

[TheBPA]

I've stated all of this multiple times before, but in a nutshell (and off the top of my head):

I think game plans shift to accentuate the abilities and styles of those players.

I think it almost certainly impacts usage, and ice time sooner rather than later.

I believe it has a high probability of leading to deployments that "don't mess with what's working."

I think it reduces the margin of error for younger players.

I think it prompts us to seek out moves that compliment those star players, rather than seeing how things develop organically.

I don't think it's enough to life us into the playoffs, but I do think it's enough to put us into that dreaded middle ground for next season and possibly the year after. And yeah, I'm not going to lie, with where this team is right now, I think having another top 5 picks is more beneficial over the long run than "pushing" things and finishing 14th or 15th in 2020. I don't even factor the lottery into that opinion.

Let's say the Rangers have a season comparable to this year and end up with the 7th draft pick because they don't win the lottery. Is 7 better than 14/15 + Panarin for 6 more years?

 

[Off Sides]

the terminology doesn't really matter but to me retooling and rebuilding on the fly are both the same thing, its a good team trying to reload to continue being good...completely different than a total rebuild

Mostly I see different operations.

Brassard for Zbad was a retool on the fly move. They got younger but they did not trade for picks or non NHLers.

Trading Stepan, then turning around and buying out Girardi, signing Shattenkirk, extending Smith, signing Desharnais a retool with some motivation to add picks and prospects.

Keeping AV, Can Kicking


Trading every pending UFA and even some who have a year left for picks, prospects, cap dumps while signing Claesson, and hiring a non reclamation NHL coach, I see as a rebuild.

 

[Edge]

What is the appropriate length of a rebuild? I'd say it varies entirely depending on the circumstances. Buffalo has seemingly been rebuilding for almost 8 years now. Edmonton and Arizona, god knows how long. The Rangers are one of few instances (if any) I can remember where the organization actively sold off a number of valuable pieces that still had substantial value in order to kick start their rebuild. They didn't start rebuilding from the absolute bottom of the barrel. In that instance, I would say the rebuild is necessarily going to be shorter than what is ordinarily seen. How short remains to be seen, but I think many would agree that at minimum we are nearing the end of "Phase 1" of the rebuild.

I don't think there is an exact formula, but I sure as hell know it's not all that we currently have or what we've been through.

And for the love of all that is holy, we really need to sop with the Edmonton, Buffalo, etc. comparisons. What do ANY of those franchises have in common with the Rangers? The refuting of that has been beaten to death. Even if I were in agreement with your opinion, it's an absolutely worthless comparison to make.

The markets are different. The strengths are different. The budget is different. The scouting is different. The ability to find talent outside of a lottery pick is different. The management is different. The ownership is different. The free agency attraction/ability is different.

If one believes that augmenting a rebuild is the way to go, that's fine. But using those teams as comparisons is just asinine at this point.

 

[Edge]

Let's say the Rangers have a season comparable to this year and end up with the 7th draft pick because they don't win the lottery. Is 7 better than 14/15 + Panarin for 6 more years?

You know what, I'll even go further than that.

I'm more comfortable with this team making the playoffs without Panarin next season, but doing so with the best interest of our young talent at the core of everything we do, than I am signing Panarin and finishing with the first pick in the draft.

Why?

Because the further we venture from the mindset of the former, the greater the odds we screw up the whole damn thing.

 

[TheBloodyNine]

Let's say the Rangers have a season comparable to this year and end up with the 7th draft pick because they don't win the lottery. Is 7 better than 14/15 + Panarin for 6 more years?

Yes.

 

[TheBPA]

You know what, I'll even go further than that.

I'm more comfortable with this team making the playoffs without Panarin next season, but doing so with the best interest of our young talent at the core of everything we do, than I am signing Panarin and finishing with the first pick in the draft.

Why?

Because the further we venture from the mindset of the former, the greater the odds we screw up the whole damn thing.

I guess I don't view the signing of Panarin as the beginning of a slippery slope towards blowing up the rebuild.

I think if Gorton has shown that he's anything, it's that he's an opportunist. He went after and signed Hayes and Vesey because there was the opportunity to do so. He traded Brassard for Z because the opportunity arose. The Stepan trade, the Fox trade, etc. Now there's a potential elite free agent who has at least some desire to come to NY. Seizing that opportunity doesn't mean that every move from that point on is solely going to be "win now" focused.

 

[Matz03]

the terminology doesn't really matter but to me retooling and rebuilding on the fly are both the same thing, its a good team trying to reload to continue being good...completely different than a total rebuild

retooling and reloading was language used two season back, rebuilding is the official langue since the McDonagh trade. We are rebuilding through the draft.

 

[Beacon]

We've heard lots about how the teams in the Final Four don't have the big cap hits. What RangerBoy doesn't want you to know, however, is that the teams aren't build on top 5 draft picks, either.

The point is that they were built through the draft and if you do build by drafting, having a second overall gives you better odds of scoring a first liner than a 24 overall.

There are a ton of teams trying to find stars later in the draft. Most fail. Some succeed. If you're in the minority that succeeds at drafting an All Star at #20-25 for 3 out of the next 4 years, who cares where you drafted the All Stars. But the odds of that happening are slim, which is why most teams don't manage to do it.

But whether you draft 1st overall or last, you need to build through the draft with cost-controlled players who grow up building chemistry together in order to win the Cup.

 

[Ghost of jas]

Let's say the Rangers have a season comparable to this year and end up with the 7th draft pick because they don't win the lottery. Is 7 better than 14/15 + Panarin for 6 more years?

Considering that next year’s draft is being talked about having as many as seven franchise players , I’d say yes.

 

[TheBPA]

Considering that next year’s draft is being talked about having as many as seven franchise players , I’d say yes.

I haven't followed the 2020 prospects closely at all yet, but if that's the case then I certainly understand the argument.

 

[GeorgeKaplan]

Seems that every successful team with young stars also had core players in their late 20s/early 30s. Pittsburgh with Sykora. Chicago with Hossa and Sharp. LA with Williams and Carter. Assuming Kakko, Kravstov and Chytil are the Rangers stud ELCs over the next few years, who should the Rangers supplement them with? I get the argument against Panarin, but it has to be someone. Should it be Kreider and Zibanejad, or should they look outside the organization?

Seems like a question to answer when those young players prove they’re stars

 

[RangerBoy]

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

I heard that comments too but here is the problem. Tkachuk wasn't traded twice for a draft pick. The Blues traded Tkachuk to Atlanta in 2007. The Blues acquired Tkachuk's negotiating rights from Atlanta a few months later. Tkachuk's family was happy in St. Louis and he wanted to return to the Blues. He took less money to finish his career in St. Louis. Tkachuk played for three more seasons and retired.

 

[Off Sides]

You know what, I'll even go further than that.

I'm more comfortable with this team making the playoffs without Panarin next season, but doing so with the best interest of our young talent at the core of everything we do, than I am signing Panarin and finishing with the first pick in the draft.

Why?

Because the further we venture from the mindset of the former, the greater the odds we screw up the whole damn thing.

I'm also fine should they make the playoffs next year without Panarin or any of the other stuff. They are still not going to be real contenders. Yet just them making the playoffs would mean the youth took huge steps forward.

Also fine if they end up in the lottery, they need more good prospects.

Both are good outcomes.


Neither of those outcomes change should they sign an expensive UFA so I too have no idea what the hurry is.

Until the stockpiling provides a core roster worthy of contention the outcomes remain the same, either they are bad, decent or good, yet not contenders. Fail to ever stockpile well enough the outcomes never change.