Speculation: Roster Building Thread: Part XLV

[Tawnos]

I want to see what they can do as well. But I feel like there’s a way to do that that doesn’t include just throwing some of these kids out there on a left side like that.

We didn’t do that when we had McD, Staal or other rookies, and I don’t think that’s the best approach now.

I don’t mind if Hajek has a season under his belt and is already playing on a second pair. But he’s got 5 games. Rykov has zero. Lindgren a handful. That’s a very different scenario.

The irony in all this is that we’re talking about trading a fairly young guy who was thrown in over his head and who we’ve been talking about needing to get back to a more acceptable role. So our response is to trade him and then do the same thing with several players who are even younger and less experienced that he was when we went with that approach.

No me gusto.

Staal was our #1 LD as a rookie.

 

[Leetch3]

Staal was our #1 LD as a rookie.

I don't remember the pairings back then but looking at TOI/game, he played less than roszival, girardi, tyutin, malik (only played 42 games) and backman (only 19 games). staal played 18:48/game which I think is a fine number for a rookie

 

[Edge]

What makes me even uneasier is cobbling together a right side out of DeAngelo, Fox, Shattenkirk and Pionk. They're all small--they all get outmuscled often. They (assuming in Fox's case as a first year pro) all have defensive issues. Of that bunch the only one who got significant penalty kill time last year Pionk is the player that's disliked the most but how the other three would handle the penalty kill is pretty much an unknown but I suspect would be even worse. So Trouba would represent to me a guy who you could give major minutes to--who could help out both on offense and defense, play physically and play in all situations. That's why I see him as someone who can stabilize our D and yeah I think he 'could' be as good as McD was--but no it's not something that would be a certainty either--but then again I think if Buchnevich and DeAngelo our going the other way they are risky players as well if we're talking about reaching projections.

Trading for Trouba we should also expect he's going to get a max term contract for a lot of $'s. There's no point in giving up that kind of package for a player who is going to walk away the next year. That's part of the deal too.

I don’t “love” that cobbled together right side either. Frankly, there are a few areas of our team I don’t love or feel are less than ideal.

Having said that, I am somewhat at peace with those elements, for now, as we sort through things. Rebuilds and young teams are almost always messy as a team figures out what works, what doesn’t, whose translating their talent, who isn’t, who is meeting expectations, exceeding them, not meeting them, who has chemistry with whom, etc.

Do I want the 2021 Rangers to feel as cobbled together? No. But I think it’s to be expected with the 2019 Rangers. You can’t acquire that much young talent and not have be messy.

Let’s see what we have in Fox first, and when we might have it. Let’s see what direction ADA is heading, and then make an informed opinion.

I feel like there is this mounting pressure we’re putting on ourselves, from multiple angles, involving multiple players. Things are going to be messy for a little while longer. And while stability is the goal, I don’t think we can underestimate scenarios in which we are making decisions based around a knowledge of young players that has only begun to scratch the surface.

In these different conversations on these topics, I see people using key words like “assume” or “speculate” and it kind of reinforces my belief that we need to find out more.

Let’s eliminate some of the speculation and assumption, and let’s do that by actually seeing what the hell we have and not guessing about how it will or won’t perform. In order to do that, we need to get these damn kids into actual pro or NHL games first. We need to give them more than 60 or 80, or even 5 NHL games.

I’m seeing proposals where we are moving rookies, draft picks we just acquired, former 7th overall picks with not even a full NHL season under them, placing a lot of emphasis on rookies to replace experienced guys. We’re arguing for support for our young forwards in one thread, while trading said young forwards in another. Then saying the guy we just traded for, will support the young defensemen, some of whom we will be playing on a side where we don’t value the support provided by one of the veterans we proposed trading.

Frankly, reading through several threads with arguments for which established player to pursue, I gotta be honest with you - our board is all over the place. And that’s not really doing much to convince me that this is a strategy I can get behind.

 

[Tawnos]

I don't remember the pairings back then but looking at TOI/game, he played less than roszival, girardi, tyutin, malik (only played 42 games) and backman (only 19 games). staal played 18:48/game which I think is a fine number for a rookie

I seem to remember it being Staal-Roszival... ES TOI will tell you how guys were played. Staal played 16:18 to Malik's 16:20, so it's probably that they split time in the role.

 

[NernieBichols]

It's far more likely that Trouba gets traded than it is he signs a 1 year deal in Winnipeg. In that event, the team that trades for him is more likely to sign him to a long term deal rather than for 1 year. So in all, I'd say it's pretty unlikely that he ends up with a 1 year deal. It could certainly happen, but I think the trade and long term deal with his new team is the most likely outcome.

I think he’s getting traded to. You don’t get the full gist of what I’m getting with the OP. But I agree with you that trouba getting traded, see my posts from yesterday on the Jets cap situation

 

[Edge]

Staal was our #1 LD as a rookie.

Eh, let’s provide some context to that comment:

1. Staal finished that season fifth in ice time for defenseman.

2. Among LD’s he finished he finished third behind Tyutin and Malik,

3. That defense also featured Rozy, Girardi on the right side. So there’s a bit of experience and ability there to help out.

4. That scenario was partially brought about because of injuries. The Rangers didn’t actively trade an experienced LD to throw Staal into that role. He grew into that role nicely, but his becoming first pair LD was a focal point to start the season.

5. Not disrespect to Hajek, but Staal was a better prospect than Hajek, and there’s a good gap there.

6. Flaws and all, that was a much better and experienced overall team than what the 2019-20 roster is going to be, and won 42 games coming of a 42 win season.

So context is a very big part of these types flashbacks.

 

[kovazub94]

Trouba is a bad fit for this team. I like him as a player but it doesn't really make much sense. I wouldn't play him on the PP at all if he were on this team and it's kind of rough to pay so much money to a player and not want to use him there. The team needs LHD far more than RHD anyway. I'd obviously do something like Skjei+ (depending on the +) regardless just because he's much better though.

IMHO, he’d be a great fit for the Rangers. As @eco's bones mentioned in numerous posts Trouba is the type of RD the Rangers don’t have neither on the team nor among the prospects. Not playing on PP? But the Rangers already do have 2 right handed Ds, not even counting Shattenkirk. However he’d be minute eater at 5x5 vs other team’s top line and first PK unit.

I’ve been in pro camp in Panarin discussion (with conditions), but to me Trouba is much more of a priority and if there was a restriction that only one could to - I’d go with the defenseman.

 

[Edge]

I seem to remember it being Staal-Roszival... ES TOI will tell you how guys were played. Staal played 16:18 to Malik's 16:20, so it's probably that they split time in the role.

They did, as the season wore on (if I remember correctly).

But that still puts Staal third on TOI on the left side, and fifth overall.

At best, if we want to say he and Malik were too close to call, he’s second and fourth respectively.

 

[NernieBichols]

I want to see what they can do as well. But I feel like there’s a way to do that that doesn’t include just throwing some of these kids out there on a left side like that.

We didn’t do that when we had McD, Staal or other rookies, and I don’t think that’s the best approach now.

I don’t mind if Hajek has a season under his belt and is already playing on a second pair. But he’s got 5 games. Rykov has zero. Lindgren a handful. That’s a very different scenario.

The irony in all this is that we’re talking about trading a fairly young guy who was thrown in over his head and who we’ve been talking about needing to get back to a more acceptable role. So our response is to trade him and then do the same thing with several players who are even younger and less experienced that he was when we went with that approach.

No me gusto.

Staal is the anchor (I know I know)

Staal
Hajek
Lindgren/ rykov

And sign a vet on a year or two year deal who can play 2nd pair minutes in a pinch or if need be as the insulation, or on the 3rd pairing regularly if needed

That’s what this year would look like if skjei’s traded. I hear ya but, I think the rangers can find a capable LD for a year or two and be alright trading skjei now.

I like Brady. I think he’s a good 3 great 4. Wouldn’t mind keeping him, Kreider or Mika.

But we’re talking roster building possibilities and it takes to get

 

[Tawnos]

Eh, let’s provide some context to that comment:

1. Staal finished that season fifth in ice time for defenseman.

2. Among LD’s he finished he finished third behind Tyutin and Malik,

3. That defense also featured Rozy, Girardi on the right side. So there’s a bit of experience and ability there to help out.

4. That scenario was partially brought about because of injuries. The Rangers didn’t actively trade an experienced LD to throw Staal into that role. He grew into that role nicely, but his becoming first pair LD was a focal point to start the season.

5. Not disrespect to Hajek, but Staal was a better prospect than Hajek, and there’s a good gap there.

6. Flaws and all, that was a much better and experienced overall team than what the 2019-20 roster is going to be, and won 42 games coming of a 42 win season.

So context is a very big part of these types flashbacks.

Like I just mentioned to the other poster, total TOI/G doesn't really tell you what role a guy was being utilized in. ES is a far better indicator. He and Malik were virtually playing the same role. Malik did get injured, which is what boosted Staal's playing time. But what is the tangible difference between having a guy injured and having the spot open in training camp?

Girardi wasn't experienced. He was still eligible for the Calder Trophy in Staal's rookie year.

Isn't this conversation in the context of having Trouba on the team? A rookie-Trouba pairing isn't all that bad of an idea for a rebuilding team.

 

[gravey9]

Let me explain:

The argument for Panarin is that no other UFA like him was available before or will be again, which is false, but at least it's an argument that could be made with a straight face. That argument is exposed as a lie because the same people want Trouba and others who are obviously not once in a lifetime opportunity. When people argue for every big name on the market, it is obvious they just don't want to go through rebuilding and wish to do it the old Rangers way of trying to buy the Cup, which never works.

As a huge fan of rebuilding the "right way"-- whatever that means... I totally get the narrative that signing Panarin or trading for Trouba is going back to the NYR old way of doing things. But there are different trains of thought about the best way to rebuild.

One train of thought is go almost entirely with youth, rely on that youth in most top6 and top4 positions and have some decent character vets to help them along. This is akin to edmonton oilers or arizona coyotes style rebuild.

Another train of thought is somewhat similar to our roster this past season, which is to rely on vets with most of the responsibility until the youth is ready to take over. The vets in this version are ones that can easily get relegated to lesser positions on the roster or traded at deadline. (Zucc, Hayes, McQuaid).

The third train of thought is to bring in younger vets who are the go-to players. Guys who can be relied on for the next 4-5 years to shoulder the heat. Guys who will keep kids like Kakko or Kravtsov from being asked to lead the team. Keep in mind, those kids no matter how good they might be this season and next are still 4-5 years from hitting their prime still.

My guess is, the Rangers prefer the third option. We will need to have a few more vets on this team no matter what. Ideally, you'd want guys to take some of the pressure off of the kids who need time to develop. Especially in an environment like New York.

But if the cost is too high for guys like Trouba or Panarin, the team will settle for option #2. But option #2 is scarier than option #1. It could a lot of ways. Is option #2 giving out 5+ year deals to Duchene or Hayes? Or is it 2-3 year deals for guys similar to Strome and Namestnikov? Neither option is ideal. We most likely have to be okay with overpaying or over-term the Duchene's and Hayes'. And those deals may be really hard to move. And the lesser support role players will not really shelter the kids that much and we will be looking at the 2nd tier of those guys as many may want more stability long term.

As far as Trouba goes -- he makes a lot of sense. We have nothing in the system like him on the right side. The only kid whose not an undersized puck mover is Keane and he's just 6'. Trouba would be first pairing guy who can shelter Fox, D'Angelo, Lundkvist. He can PK. He's still only 25. He's ideal as a long term piece that can shoulder the burden until surpassed by a kid or two down the road. Finally, bringing in Trouba allows the team to focus on adding skill, size and speed upfront with #20OA and a vast majority of the picks over the next 2 drafts. If we don't trade for a guy like Trouba then I could see us targeting Seider at #20 or others later in the draft. But if we traded for Trouba, pick #20 could be a guy like Dorofeyev.

The real issue is, what does Trouba cost? Would we be willing to trade Kreider and create another hole?

 

[GAGLine]

The consensus seems to be that if and when Kreider gets traded, it will involve a 1st round pick in the upcoming draft. There has been talk of us getting back into the top 10 and Kreider is our biggest trade chip.

That said, I was thinking of an alternate move should we not be able to make that happen: Kreider for Zucker.

From what I've read, Zucker has good underlying numbers. He's coming off a down year, but he had 33 goals and 64 points the year before. He's 27, a year younger than Kreider. He has 4 years left at 5.5 mil, which is less money and term than Kreider will require on a new contract, and thus less risk.

There's an article in The Athletic that talks about the Wild trying to trade Zucker and how it is likely to be another mistake, like the Niederreiter trade.

How trading Jason Zucker would show the Wild haven't learned...

Zucker’s value in the possession game is where he really shines and it’s here where the Wild would likely lose any deal that included him. Not many players influence a team’s expected goals rate at both ends of the ice as well as Zucker has over the last few seasons, especially not Kessel and Marchessault who simply aren’t as strong offensively and nowhere near as staunch defensively.

If we aren't able to parlay Kreider into another 1st round pick, do we make this deal? It seems like something Minnesota would go for, given their interest in Kessel and Marchessault.

 

[The Crypto Guy]

The consensus seems to be that if and when Kreider gets traded, it will involve a 1st round pick in the upcoming draft. There has been talk of us getting back into the top 10 and Kreider is our biggest trade chip.

That said, I was thinking of an alternate move should we not be able to make that happen: Kreider for Zucker.

From what I've read, Zucker has good underlying numbers. He's coming off a down year, but he had 33 goals and 64 points the year before. He's 27, a year younger than Kreider. He has 4 years left at 5.5 mil, which is less money and term than Kreider will require on a new contract, and thus less risk.

There's an article in The Athletic that talks about the Wild trying to trade Zucker and how it is likely to be another mistake, like the Niederreiter trade.

How trading Jason Zucker would show the Wild haven't learned...



If we aren't able to parlay Kreider into another 1st round pick, do we make this deal? It seems like something Minnesota would go for, given their interest in Kessel and Marchessault.

Not really interested in trading Kreider to get a 27 year old. Rather get a top 18 year old prospect.

 

[JimmyG89]

We have an abundance of RHD that are smaller and are move the puck types. Yes, we don't have the traditional shut down type, but we've acquired the harder to get type of player.

Puck movers are always needed by teams. It needs to be reiterated that we need to see Fox and ADA play full seasons. Shattenkirk needs to be moved, if not in the offseason, during the season to a contender. Pionk can be sold off to the highest bidder.

We're going to have options to get a more complete RHD by just letting ADA and Fox play. Acquiring a more defensive minded RHD is something we can find. Think about how we got our right side in the past: Klein was a trade, Girardi was an UDFA signing and Stralman had 1 foot out the door in the NHL. We may not have it now, but getting players like Fox, ADA, etc are harder due to their ability on offense.

Rebuilding is about getting the hard to find pieces for cheap. We can go out and get the type of player everyone is desiring on the right side after we make sure we found the hard to get player.

 

[kovazub94]

Eh, let’s provide some context to that comment:

1. Staal finished that season fifth in ice time for defenseman.

2. Among LD’s he finished he finished third behind Tyutin and Malik,

3. That defense also featured Rozy, Girardi on the right side. So there’s a bit of experience and ability there to help out.

4. That scenario was partially brought about because of injuries. The Rangers didn’t actively trade an experienced LD to throw Staal into that role. He grew into that role nicely, but his becoming first pair LD was a focal point to start the season.

5. Not disrespect to Hajek, but Staal was a better prospect than Hajek, and there’s a good gap there.

6. Flaws and all, that was a much better and experienced overall team than what the 2019-20 roster is going to be, and won 42 games coming of a 42 win season.

So context is a very big part of these types flashbacks.

I want to put a lot of emphasis on your bullet 3. re upcoming season. With Trouba on board it should not only take a lot of pressure off of ADA, Fox / Pionk and put a good ice time allocation on the right side, it should also help LD rookies Hajek, Rykov and Lindgren.

 

[GAGLine]

Not really interested in trading Kreider to get a 27 year old. Rather get a top 18 year old prospect.

Which is why I said if we can't parlay Kreider into a 1st round pick. Trading him for Zucker would be like re-signing Kreider, but for less money and term. We could then trade Zucker in 2 or 3 years if/when he becomes expendable.

 

[Edge]

I want to put a lot of emphasis on your bullet 3. re upcoming season. With Trouba on board it should not only take a lot of pressure off of ADA, Fox / Pionk and put a good ice time allocation on the right side, it should also help LD rookies Hajek, Rykov and Lindgren.

And the other 5 bullets?

 

[kovazub94]

That’s what I’ve been saying...Andersson and Skjei.

Same. Maybe the Rangers also add Pionk for a 2/3 round pick back. I’m not as down on Pionk as many here but with ADA and Fox already here and a couple of promising prospects in the pipeline he wouldn’t be a dealbreaker for me in Trouba discussions.

 

[Edge]

Like I just mentioned to the other poster, total TOI/G doesn't really tell you what role a guy was being utilized in. ES is a far better indicator. He and Malik were virtually playing the same role. Malik did get injured, which is what boosted Staal's playing time. But what is the tangible difference between having a guy injured and having the spot open in training camp?

Girardi wasn't experienced. He was still eligible for the Calder Trophy in Staal's rookie year.

Isn't this conversation in the context of having Trouba on the team? A rookie-Trouba pairing isn't all that bad of an idea for a rebuilding team.

That’s fine, but the fact remains those other factors still have a cumulative effect. And again, nothing against Hajek, but Staal was still a superior player up to this same point.

And the whole of a concept of a rookie-Trouba pairing is the hope, it’s not necessarily a given. We’ve seen this time and time again.

That’s exactly what I am talking about when I say that I’d like to have more time to see what we actually have and don’t have. Not what we hope/think/project/speculate what we have or don’t have. Make no mistake, there’s always going to be some element of the unknown. But we’ve got a lot of right now, and that’s part of what this part of the process is about.

This isn’t a forever approach, this is an approach for this point in time.

 

[kovazub94]

And the other 5 bullets?

What other 5 bullets.

Seriously I agree with them too. Staal wasn’t expected to be slotted as a top pair D but he just became a fit there not only based on his play but also how D got paired up with him there.

 

[haveandare]

Trouba isn’t a bad player but he’s going to cost a lot to acquire and then he’s going to want a stupid contract. One or the other is doable but both isn’t worth it imo.

 

[FIRE DRURY]

Trouba isn’t a bad player but he’s going to cost a lot to acquire and then he’s going to want a stupid contract. One or the other is doable but both isn’t worth it imo.

I don't think the Pionk/Buch/Pick will work. If we want Trouba I fear a guy like Chytil or Kravtsov will be the starting point.

 

[Tawnos]

That’s fine, but the fact remains those other factors still have a cumulative effect. And again, nothing against Hajek, but Staal was still a superior player up to this same point.

And the whole of a concept of a rookie-Trouba pairing is the hope, it’s not necessarily a given. We’ve seen this time and time again.

That’s exactly what I am talking about when I say that I’d like to have more time to see what we actually have and don’t have. Not what we hope/think/project/speculate what we have or don’t have. Make no mistake, there’s always going to be some element of the unknown. But we’ve got a lot of right now, and that’s part of what this part of the process is about.

This isn’t a forever approach, this is an approach for this point in time.

Now is the time to find these things out though. The only way to find out what we have is to create opportunities for players to show us. Being too careful about this stuff can hinder player's development just as much as putting them into a situation they're not ready for.

Also, it's not like we have a veteran who can fill that role adequately right now either, so I'm not seeing how this would change anything.

 

[Synergy27]

I still think this team’s best chance for long term sustained success is having another premium draft pick in 2020. Not sure how to best make that happen, be it trading Kreider for a 2020 pick or avoiding the lure of the UFA this year, but we are so close to coming out of the other side of this rebuild in amazing shape and I’d really hate to miss the mark by screwing up the end game.

 

[RGY]

I don't think the Pionk/Buch/Pick will work. If we want Trouba I fear a guy like Chytil or Kravtsov will be the starting point.

Which would be a HUGE pass.

Draft RHD with the second 1st round pick. Hope Trouba makes it to free agency and/or reevaluate next offseason. Cant afford to give up anything of significance and then pay him as well.