Speculation: Roster Building Thread: Part XLIII

[GAGLine]

We have 5 quality prospects from that draft. I didn't say that the Rangers drafted them.

It's completely disingenuous to claim that the rebuild started in 2016 because 2 years later we traded for players who were drafted in 2016.

 

[Edge]

He's one prospect and he's a goalie. There are 5 quality skater prospects from the 2016 draft. It absolutely marks the beginning of the rebuild from a personnel perspective... aka the only perspective that truly matters.

Eh, I think that gets tricky.

The Rangers have done a magnificent job of essentially "building" a 2016 draft for themselves, I've said as much multiple times. Likewise, I've also said that the 2016 draft might end up being just as important to our rebuild as the 2018 draft.

But it's hard for me to really consider that the start of the rebuild. I think because of the timing of when the Rangers started making moves, the kids from the 2016 draft were the assets that were found a balance between what the Rangers wanted and what other teams were willing to part with.

In that same mindset, if it was prospects from the 2015 draft that happened to occupy that cross section, I don't think we'd be viewing the 2015 as the start of our rebuild.

I mean if the 2014 draft gives us Shesterkin, ADA and Lemieux, where does that fit into things?

I tend to view the rebuild as starting when our specific focus turned toward actively focusing on the acquisition of young players, prospects and picks. For me that's 2018. Obviously not every kid is going to be 18, some will be 19 or 20 or even 21, so that's going to cover multiple drafts.

But beyond that, I think we've done a very good job of getting talent depth in our organization. The focus now is on getting that elite, higher-end talent as well. I think we started that in 2018, and will continue it in 2019 (though it's unknown to what extent).

For me though, there's one more draft left in that process --- and that's the 2020 draft. Based on where the Rangers are likely to finish organically, and the type of draft it is. I think we can come away with the potential for something special there as well.

 

[Edge]

Just because the team didn't declare they were rebuild doesn't negate the fact that it was a rebuild-esque move. Regardless of what their intention was at the time the move in hindsight is clearly within time frame to be relevant and clearly was a move that would be considered part of a rebuild in a vacuum. Parsing it out just because of other moves (or lack thereof) around it not necessarily jiving with your rebuild criteria is just semantics.

No, it's a mindset.

In a salary capped world with different contracts, teams do trade older talent for younger talent. That in and of itself doesn't necessarily mean it's the start of a rebuild. Trading Gaborik for Brassard and company wasn't a rebuild, and if we're going to go that direction, than technically wouldn't trading Brassard for Zibanejad be considered the start of the rebuild?

I go by the mindset, the Rangers moving of Stepan was as much to do about contract as anything else. That was documented and talked about at the time extensively.

The conversation in June 2017 was not about rebuilding. If anything, when you look at the threads, the debate was about whether Stepan was declining as a player vs. moved because of his contract. The whole rebuild aspect only gets retconned in because of what happened down the road.

 

[Tawnos]

Hypothetically, if we had been able to acquire Auston Matthews in 2018, would the beginning of the rebuild still be marked by that date?

How old the players are matters more than when the shift towards acquiring those players happened.

 

[NYR Viper]

They took the Stepan money and signed Shattenkirk. How has that signing worked out for the Rangers? Brooks reported Gorton tried to trade Shattenkirk a few months ago and teams offered their bad contracts in return. See that's the whole problem with the rebuild and retool idea at the same time.

Gorton made his job more difficult with the Shattenkirk and Smith signings.

The Rangers also tried to sign Thornton that summer before signing Shattenkirk. A rebuilding team shouldn't be signing a 38 year old player.

The rebuild started in February 2018.

Would you agree that the issue with this occurrence was the signing of the wrong player, not the thought process?

 

[GoAwayPanarin]

Hypothetically, if we had been able to acquire Auston Matthews in 2018, would the beginning of the rebuild still be marked by that date?

How old the players are matters more than when the shift towards acquiring those players happened.

If they had acquired Auston Matthews, I don't think there is a rebuild, period.

 

[Tawnos]

It's completely disingenuous to claim that the rebuild started in 2016 because 2 years later we traded for players who were drafted in 2016.

It's completely disingenuous to claim that we can't look towards moving to the next step of the rebuild because it's only been 1.25 years since we made our first moves of the rebuild, despite the fact that many of our solid prospects come from before that time. That's what I'm arguing against here.

Frankly, it doesn't really matter to me to define the beginning of the rebuild. I just believe the system is further along than the cautious crowd would have you believe. On June 22, we'll have multiple important prospects in the organization from each of the last 4 drafts, with the outlier being at a position that takes longer to develop anyway (goalie). That's what matters at the heart of all this.

 

[Ola]

Vesey should be easy to move with his cap hit

We will see, there are many teams out there that more or less must deal players and many of them forwards. There won’t be 15 forwards that will be traded this summer. There will be around 10 at the most. Frolik? Two of Brown/Jonsson/Kapanen/Kadri? Perrault? Wennberg? Kessel? Callahan? Zucker? Jarnmark? Burakovsky? Toffoli? And many many other candidates.

I think Gorts has done a tremendous job working the phones making trades happen. It’s not easy. Who knows what kind of magic he can work this summer. But it won’t be easy to get good value for Kreider at the draft or find takers for the others.

 

[RGY]

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

You want to go by cap % and thats fine, but the Rangers won’t be going by that on their side of the negotiations.

Theyre going to reference Kane signing his contract at age 26 and that through this season has produced more than Kreider has while also playing more career games even though he is younger.

If Kreider feels he is owed/worth $7 million aav then trade him. But I would guess he is much, much closer to $6 million aav.

Even looking at 7 years x $5.8 Million. Gives him a bit extra money than a 6 year x $6 million aav. $4.6 million more overall. Would he be getting that when his contract expires at age 34 after 6 years? Its a good deal for both sides.

 

[Edge]

Hypothetically, if we had been able to acquire Auston Matthews in 2018, would the beginning of the rebuild still be marked by that date?

How old the players are matters more than when the shift towards acquiring those players happened.

Yeah, I'm not sure I'm following that Auston Matthews one.

As for your second point, where do we draw that line though?

So if ADA is a top four defenseman, Shesterkin becomes our starting goalie, and Lemiuex a core player, does that move the starting line back to 2014? What if we trade for William Nylander and Sam Bennett? Does that count, or is there a threshold of games they can't have surpassed?

There was a time we had four former first round picks from 2011 in our organization, and all were age 23. Does that mean we tried rebuilding in 2016, but actually started in 2011?

 

[kovazub94]

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.

I disagree with pretty much all of it. The game plan is build on Quinn's vision to begin with, and IMHO the usage of these player would actually compliment the rebuild process by not putting unnecessary pressure on the developing kids, rather than adding to it. Also Gorton &Co. (or JD and Co. now?) should understand that 2020 playoffs will not happen unless the development naturally accelerates and goes above and beyond of what should be reasonable to expect, and so the dreaded middle is just a milestone on the way to the eventual goal of perennial contention. Whether it results in pick #12, 13 or later - it would be just an outcome of what should happen next, and in the long-term outlook - not much different if the Rangers drafted at #8-#11.

 

[Ola]

How hard can it be?

Kreider @50%, Howden, Pionk, Shatty@50% and 20 for Trouba and Ehlers



Kravy-Ziba-Buch
Ehlers-Chytil-Vesey
Lemieux-Lias-Kakko
Smith-Boo-Fast
Skjei-Fox
Staal-Trouba
Hajak-TDA

 

[RGY]

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

Well comments like those would not be made if there were not posters on this board who complete misinterpret what or how someone is providing their opinion.

My advice, don’t get involved.

 

[Mac n Gs]

No, it's a mindset.

In a salary capped world with different contracts, teams do trade older talent for younger talent. That in and of itself doesn't necessarily mean it's the start of a rebuild. Trading Gaborik for Brassard and company wasn't a rebuild, and if we're going to go that direction, than technically wouldn't trading Brassard for Zibanejad be considered the start of the rebuild?

I go by the mindset, the Rangers moving of Stepan was as much to do about contract as anything else. That was documented and talked about at the time extensively.

The conversation in June 2017 was not about rebuilding. If anything, when you look at the threads, the debate was about whether Stepan was declining as a player vs. moved because of his contract. The whole rebuild aspect only gets retconned in because of what happened down the road.

The Brassard for Zibanejad trade, IMO, was that “oh crap” moment where I realized the tides were starting to turn on the Torts/AV core. We rarely made those types of moves until then, and it was when I started to expect more to come *if* they couldn’t right the ship.

It’s why I think Gorton is hoping for another analogous move to add to the current core of Mika, Buch, and Skjei. We got Mika when he was 23-turning-24, or equivalent to the 2014 draft today.

I say Panarin as the easy move because he costs nothing but cap space, is really f***ing good, and I think his aging curve is different than other players his age because of the amount of games played and lack of an injury history. I don’t want any other player in restricted or unrestricted free agency this summer.
The other two I could see are Ehlers or Nylander since there have been rumors out there about both players. To me, they each give you a guy you plug next to Mika and ride for heavy minutes while being more lenient with the kids. Even for the next year or two, we’re still looking at kids that’ll be in their prime (not peak) when the 2017-20 draftees can slowly start turning over the roster for themselves. It paints a picture of a complete team from top-to-bottom that can win with depth and high-end skill.

I think we’re at the tail-end of the asset accumulation phase where I won’t really shed a tear if a kid gets used as a trade piece. It’s time to start forming this amorphous blob of talent into a team, so if a Lias or Pionk has to go for it to happen, then so be it.

If the fair and reasonable move is there, I want Gorton to make it. I also want to see how Quinn looks as coach with more talent on the team. He was dealt a shit sandwich for most of the year, but I still think there’s a lot to be desired tactic wise, and I hope we start seeing his identity truly take hold this season.

 

[Edge]

I disagree with pretty much all of it. The game plan is build on Quinn's vision to begin with, and IMHO the usage of these player would actually compliment the rebuild process by not putting unnecessary pressure on the developing kids, rather than adding to it. Also Gorton &Co. (or JD and Co. now?) should understand that 2020 playoffs will not happen unless the development naturally accelerates and goes above and beyond of what should be reasonable to expect, and so the dreaded middle is just a milestone on the way to the eventual goal of perennial contention. Whether it results in pick #12, 13 or later - it would be just an outcome of what should happen next, and in the long-term outlook - not much different if the Rangers drafted at #8-#11.

I know you and others disagree with pretty much all of it, that's why this board continues to debate this topic and probably will until it's either come to pass or not an option.

I don't forsee scenarios in which adding a player like Panarin, and everything that comes with him, doesn't alter things. The exact reason a team goes out and gets a Panarin, is because they want to alter things. It's the very nature of going down that path with a big contract, big talent free agent signing. And once again we are back at the same point I argued against a few weeks ago: Panarin is an amazing, never comes around level talent whose impact on the franchise will be....

Minimal?

Slight?

The difference of one or two slots in the draft?

Still don't see how the concept of an elite level talent, making 8 figures annually, to "elevate the young talent" coexists with the end result being the difference between 8-11, vs. 12-13.

Either the first concept in false, and Panarin isn't so talented that he's making a huge difference with this roster, or we're wishfully dreaming we can have our cake and eat it too - the elite talent we so desperately seem to want/need and all of things we hope to get our of a rebuild as well.

Because you can't sell me on the concept of Panarin's amazing ability and then point to a handful of slots difference as the result.

 

[GAGLine]

It's completely disingenuous to claim that we can't look towards moving to the next step of the rebuild because it's only been 1.25 years since we made our first moves of the rebuild, despite the fact that many of our solid prospects come from before that time. That's what I'm arguing against here.

Frankly, it doesn't really matter to me to define the beginning of the rebuild. I just believe the system is further along than the cautious crowd would have you believe. On June 22, we'll have multiple important prospects in the organization from each of the last 4 drafts, with the outlier being at a position that takes longer to develop anyway (goalie). That's what matters at the heart of all this.

Yeah, we traded for a number of players and prospects rather than just draft picks, giving us a leg up on the rebuild. Not all of them are going to become players and the ones that do, most will still need time to become impact players.

With or without a guy like Panarin, this is going to be a bad team next year, and quite possibly the year after as well. Even if we flirt with the playoffs, this team isn't close to ready to be legitimate cup contenders.

 

[TheBloodyNine]

It's completely disingenuous to claim that we can't look towards moving to the next step of the rebuild because it's only been 1.25 years since we made our first moves of the rebuild, despite the fact that many of our solid prospects come from before that time. That's what I'm arguing against here.

Frankly, it doesn't really matter to me to define the beginning of the rebuild. I just believe the system is further along than the cautious crowd would have you believe. On June 22, we'll have multiple important prospects in the organization from each of the last 4 drafts, with the outlier being at a position that takes longer to develop anyway (goalie). That's what matters at the heart of all this.

How is it further along? Is the defense near completion? Are Lias, Howden and Chytll the players that they are going to be? Are Kravtsov and Miller known quantities at the NHL level yet?

It's not even close to being defined.

 

[Tawnos]

How is it further along? Is the defense near completion? Are Lias, Howden and Chytll the players that they are going to be? Are Kravtsov and Miller known quantities at the NHL level yet?

It's not even close to being defined.

The defense is closer to being rebuilt than if our oldest D prospects were 2018 draftees. Those 3 centers are closer to being what they would be than if they were 2018 draftees. I didn't say our prospects corps had arrived. I said it was further along than it's being portrayed.

 

[Tawnos]

Yeah, we traded for a number of players and prospects rather than just draft picks, giving us a leg up on the rebuild. Not all of them are going to become players and the ones that do, most will still need time to become impact players.

With or without a guy like Panarin, this is going to be a bad team next year, and quite possibly the year after as well. Even if we flirt with the playoffs, this team isn't close to ready to be legitimate cup contenders.

If you give yourself a headstart, does that not count towards your progress?

I also never said they were close.

 

[Edge]

The defense is closer to being rebuilt than if our oldest D prospects were 2018 draftees. Those 3 centers are closer to being what they would be than if they were 2018 draftees. I didn't say our prospects corps had arrived. I said it was further along than it's being portrayed.

What exactly is further along?

That we have a bunch of guys who have potential?

That we have a bunch of guys who are giving a clear picture of who they are as an NHL players?

That we have a bunch of guys who are settling into roles and ready to take the next steps?

Because those three concepts above can all potentially be used to answer that question, but represent very different points in time.

And where do we see them?

Are the further along to become depth players?

Top line players?

Franchise players?

 

[Ola]

Hank@50% and Vesey to Florida for Dadonov, Luongo and 13.

 

[Tawnos]

What exactly is further along?

That we have a bunch of guys who have potential?

That we have a bunch of guys who are giving a clear picture of who they are as an NHL players?

That we have a bunch of guys who are settling into roles and ready to take the next steps?

Because those three concepts above can all potentially be used to answer that question, but represent very different points in time.

And where do we see them?

Are the further along to become depth players?

Top line players?

Franchise players?

Is a D+2 player further along in his progression than a D+1 player? What kind of questions are these?

 

[Edge]

Is a D+2 player further along in his progression than a D+1 player? What kind of questions are these?

Okay, so a D+2 player is further along. Which means we're closer to knowing the answers.

But closer to knowing doesn't mean close to knowing.

 

[Tawnos]

Okay, so a D+2 player is further along. Which means we're closer to knowing the answers.

But closer to knowing doesn't mean close to knowing.

Never said it does.

 

[Edge]

Never said it does.

You said certain areas of our team are further along than is being portrayed.

I agree with you in the sense that we are "closer", but I don't think we are "close" per se.

I think there's still a lot of work to be done here, and a lot of unknowns.