Speculation: Roster Building Thread: Part XLV

[kovazub94]

Literally what people say. It may not be your argument, and I dont know what yours is (what is it?), but literally 100% of the responses to "why cant we wait until Kakko and others are at least 22-23?" is that 1) there will not be someone like that available; 2) no comparison to past UFAs can be made because nobody else of his age and caliber was available before.

Answer these questions:

1. How would you handicap the Rangers chances to get Panarin right now?

2. How would you handicap the number of players of Panarin caliber (not just “big names” as you put it) being available each season?

3. How would you handicap the Rangers chances to get such player in two years from now?

4. If Panarin signs for $10+m, do you think in two years the salary cap hit of such player would be $12+m?

 

[Beacon]

I see you haven't stopped using your straw mans to make a point.

In what sense is it a strawman? Tell me how it is inaccurate? Write in 1 sentence why we can't wait to sign UFAs when our core are in their prime rather than teens?

P.S. Straw man's? Seriously? Mans and not men? I never did this before, but holy crap!

 

[QJL]

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.

I’m inclined to wait on Trouba unless it’s Kreider straight up or he can be acquired without giving up the moon. I don’t see a trade there unfortunately.

The only thing missing from our league best prospect pool is a two-way RHD with size. I’ll say it over and over again, Seider is the player I’m moving up 6-10 picks for. He’s got all the tools and I think he’s closer than people think. I pin him for a 2 year development track similar to Miller. I actually think they are eerily similar players stylistically.

 

[bobbop]

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?

Here's a tip...there is no right way.

If rebuilding a hockey team was nothing more than a foolproof formula we wouldn't have the Edmontons, Floridas, Arizonas and Buffalos of the world. It involves good decisions, coaching skill, some good luck doesn't hurt and ultimately is dependent a group of players, however acquired, to rise to the challenge.

I'm rooting for the Rangers to make all of those things happen. I'm not going to try and force the rebuild into a funnel because it doesn't fit the narrative of the day.

 

[Thirty One]

Hate all those fans who say they want to rebuild the wrong way.

 

[kovazub94]

Hate all those fans who say they want to rebuild the wrong way.

Need to report these assholes.

 

[Beacon]

kovazub94 questions and my answers in bold.

Answer these questions:

1. How would you handicap the Rangers chances to get Panarin right now?

Pretty low. He wants to live in Miami, so we only get him by outbidding the crap out of the Cats. That would be one of the secondary reasons not to get him.

2. How would you handicap the number of players of Panarin caliber (not just “big names” as you put it) being available each season?

At some point while Kakko and company are in their prime, there will be great players available via free agency or trade. Keep in mind that Panarin is 10 years older than Kakko & the Jets pick, and 9 years older than Kravtsov, K'Andre and Lundkvist, so by the time these guys are close to even the start of their prime at the age of 23-24, he'll be in his mid-30s. I'm fairly certain in 2024 there will be better players available than a 33 year old Panarin.

3. How would you handicap the Rangers chances to get such player in two years from now?

Unlike Panarin, for many players New York is their #1 destination. I'm certain at some point when Kakko is 22-29 years old, we can find a great UFA who wants to play here.

4. If Panarin signs for $10+m, do you think in two years the salary cap hit of such player would be $12+m?

Panarin probably won't sign here for under $11. Based on what we know, the only team that can reasonably hope to get him for less is Florida. And yes, I'd rather pay a star UFA a couple million more when Kakko is in his prime than pay a couple million less today when we have no hope to make the playoffs.

 

[QJL]

I don’t think the tax in Florida gives the Panthers a leg up on New York. The sponsorship dollars in the city alone should be enough to make up that gap for a star player. It’s all about which one he prefers. Signs are pointing to the Panthers, but I’m not convinced.

 

[pld459666]

Proposed this on the main board and people said this was an overpayment
Skjei+20th+Howden for a signed Trouba

I’d do this pretty easily, Jets get a solid middle pair dman behind Morrissey on a decent contract, 20th overall, and a middle 6 C to replace Little. We get a top pairing RHD likely at 8 million

Not a snowball chance in hell I make that offer.

No effing way

 

[pld459666]

I’m not sure management feels DeAngelo is as good as some fans think

Then that's a serious indictment on our front office.

They would be stupid to move him.

Hes going to get better. Hes still going to get stronger and his compete level is what they have been preaching about wanting more of.

His a solid 2nd pair defender. Pionk is not.

 

[HFsNumber1Heel]

For those that want Stralman back, remember this is not the old Stralman. He's in his 30s and ok, no longer is he "the best kept secret in the NHL."

 

[Beacon]

If rebuilding a hockey team was nothing more than a foolproof formula we wouldn't have the Edmontons, Floridas, Arizonas and Buffalos of the world.

Nobody is saying theres a foolproof way: you still need to execute it correctly. If a builder tells you that your new house needs a foundation, your response can't be, "that's not the right way to do it because a guy down the block screwed up his foundation, collapsing the house, so obviously a house having a foundation is wrong."

If you draft poorly, it almost doesn't matter where you draft. Edmonton managed to screw up every non-obvious pick except Draisaitl and maybe a couple more, then made a series of bad trades. Poor execution will result in the house collapsing.

However, if you have a bad plan to begin with, you can be pretty good at drafting, but still go nowhere. So if your team has 40% success in the second round (compared to 20% on average) and 20% success in the third round (compared to 20% average), you will still never rebuild if you trade your firsts for aging, overpaid vets.

You need a good plan, and you need to execute it well.

 

[Tawnos]

Literally what people say. It may not be your argument, and I dont know what yours is (what is it?), but literally 100% of the responses to "why cant we wait until Kakko and others are at least 22-23?" is that 1) there will not be someone like that available; 2) no comparison to past UFAs can be made because nobody else of his age and caliber was available before.

You got both #1 and #2 wrong. #1... "there MIGHT not be someone like that avaiable, because players like that being available is rare." That's been proven over and over on here.

#2... people bring this up because fundamentally, previous UFAs don't tell you anything about future UFAs. People act like it's the set thing of "learn from past mistakes"... except Brad Richards (for example) has nothing to do with Artemi Panarin. We get into this same conversation about the draft. What happened with 2011's #7 overall pick doesn't give you much of a guide for what will happen with 2019's #7. These are individuals and because they're individuals, their future is not able to be projected using another person's past.

 

[Tawnos]

I generally agree with you. I think the difference might be when we feel comfortable with the accuracy of what we anticipate.

Speaking for myself, I’m not quite there yet. Do I feel we can do it at this point? Yes, we can. Do I feel we should do it at this point? No, not really.

I’d like us to have a little more evidence first. And I know that runs the risk of potentially closing certain doors that are open now. Personally, I am okay with that risk.

I don’t love that risk. I wish we were faced with these same decisions exactly one year from now.
It’s one of the reasons I am more agreeable to visiting a Trouba option as an UFA. But I can’t change that, so I take a deep breath and accept the risk.

Whether it’s Panarin or Trouba, the irony is that I am not inherently opposed to the concept.

The real difference between our opinions is that I don't believe that "there's a point where we should"... I believe that we're ALWAYS at that point.

 

[RGY]

For those that want Stralman back, remember this is not the old Stralman. He's in his 30s and ok, no longer is he "the best kept secret in the NHL."

If he comes at a very reasonable contract, i would much rather him over Claesson 7 days of the week and twice on sunday

 

[kovazub94]

kovazub94 questions and my answers in bold.

Answer these questions:

1. How would you handicap the Rangers chances to get Panarin right now?

Pretty low. He wants to live in Miami, so we only get him by outbidding the crap out of the Cats. That would be one of the secondary reasons not to get him.

2. How would you handicap the number of players of Panarin caliber (not just “big names” as you put it) being available each season?

At some point while Kakko and company are in their prime, there will be great players available via free agency or trade. Keep in mind that Panarin is 10 years older than Kakko & the Jets pick, and 9 years older than Kravtsov, K'Andre and Lundkvist, so by the time these guys are close to even the start of their prime at the age of 23-24, he'll be in his mid-30s. I'm fairly certain in 2024 there will be better players available than a 33 year old Panarin.

3. How would you handicap the Rangers chances to get such player in two years from now?

Unlike Panarin, for many players New York is their #1 destination. I'm certain at some point when Kakko is 22-29 years old, we can find a great UFA who wants to play here.

4. If Panarin signs for $10+m, do you think in two years the salary cap hit of such player would be $12+m?

Panarin probably won't sign here for under $11. Based on what we know, the only team that can reasonably hope to get him for less is Florida. And yes, I'd rather pay a star UFA a couple million more when Kakko is in his prime than pay a couple million less today when we have no hope to make the playoffs.

Interesting how precise you’re when it comes to prospects chances on making it depending on their draft position and how imprecise with these answers.

Anyway, don’t the you see how inconsistent you are? On one hand you say the Rangers chances are low to get Panarin (let’s say 20% generously), but then turnaround and imply that the Rangers will have a great chance to get this a hypothetically available UFA of Panarin’s caliber (again generously one every couple of years) in the future? An analogy that comes to mind would be - to count on a late round pick to turn into a topliner.

The cost question is also important in that it’s not be a low chance to get this player in the future - it will also be more costly.

 

[Leetch3]

For those that want Stralman back, remember this is not the old Stralman. He's in his 30s and ok, no longer is he "the best kept secret in the NHL."

the 'stralman' i want to see is nils lundkvist in a few years

 

[Leetch3]

Then that's a serious indictment on our front office.

They would be stupid to move him.

Hes going to get better. Hes still going to get stronger and his compete level is what they have been preaching about wanting more of.

His a solid 2nd pair defender. Pionk is not.

this is just purely speculation on my part, but I think the team thinks way more highly of him than some fans think they do. people think quinn doesn't like him but I think its the opposite and quinn is hard on him because he sees the potential upside and is trying to get the most out of him. whether or not he puts it together on and off the ice is yet to be seen but i think the team sees the potential

 

[Calad]

In what sense is it a strawman? Tell me how it is inaccurate? Write in 1 sentence why we can't wait to sign UFAs when our core are in their prime rather than teens?

P.S. Straw man's? Seriously? Mans and not men? I never did this before, but holy crap!

"everyone is saying this and this is why it's wrong" except people have chimed in to say "uh, no, this isn't the case". You are misrepresenting other's stance to further your own. This is the crux of a straw man.

 

[Avery16]

If he comes at a very reasonable contract, i would much rather him over Claesson 7 days of the week and twice on sunday

Why would anyone leave money on the table to come back and be a 7th defenseman for the team that didn't believe in you in the first place? Nevermind the logjam at RD.

 

[pld459666]

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.

You mean the ending point

The conversation stops at either name mentioned.

 

[RGY]

Why would anyone leave money on the table to come back and be a 7th defenseman for the team that didn't believe in you in the first place? Nevermind the logjam at RD.

Part of the equation, which i have posted before, is also moving Pionk and possibly Smith as well.

 

[DutchShamrock]

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.

What are you advocating? Honest question, I see support for Trouba and support for letting kids play, and I see the line of thinking that good player shelter the youth.

The immediate problem is we have Staal, Shattenkirk, Smith, Pionk, ADA, and Fox so far. Add in Trouba and I don't see the problem of the kids being thrown to the wolves because they aren't really getting minutes.

Obviously we shed some guys but it's easier said than done. There are 3 big ticket items stuck here for 2 years unless we get creative. I feel like it is glossed over since Trouba became a topic but it's a critical element.

And if the answer is to roll with that specific 7, good luck winning games. Good luck dressing Hajek and friends. Not an ideal way to utilize that 25 y/o RD.

 

[Beacon]

people bring this up because fundamentally, previous UFAs don't tell you anything about future UFAs. People act like it's the set thing of "learn from past mistakes"... except Brad Richards (for example) has nothing to do with Artemi Panarin. We get into this same conversation about the draft. What happened with 2011's #7 overall pick doesn't give you much of a guide for what will happen with 2019's #7.

It is basically impossible to disprove people's claims that the best case scenario will happen because 1) no proof is required to claim that UFAs will be amazing and draftees will hit their ceiling, and do so as teenagers; 2) nothing said to put doubt in that is allowed to be considered because we don't have a time machine and therefore any uncertainty that something bad can happen means it won't happen.

That a single pick in 2011 has nothing to do with 2019, but a trend shows you the approximate odds. But knowing reality interferes with rose-colored glasses.

 

[GoAwayPanarin]

What are you advocating? Honest question, I see support for Trouba and support for letting kids play, and I see the line of thinking that good player shelter the youth.

The immediate problem is we have Staal, Shattenkirk, Smith, Pionk, ADA, and Fox so far. Add in Trouba and I don't see the problem of the kids being thrown to the wolves because they aren't really getting minutes.

Obviously we shed some guys but it's easier said than done. There are 3 big ticket items stuck here for 2 years unless we get creative. I feel like it is glossed over since Trouba became a topic but it's a critical element.

And if the answer is to roll with that specific 7, good luck winning games. Good luck dressing Hajek and friends. Not an ideal way to utilize that 25 y/o RD.

I mean I think you can clear 2 of the 3.

Smith can be waived or bought out so no issue there. Shatty @50% may be a movable contract.

Staal can simply just not play. I know thats easier said than done, but its the right move at this point. The only way it makes sense for him to play is if you move Skjei and you need someone to soak those minutes because the younger guys can't handle them yet. He's a horrible player who shouldn't get in the way of a better player, but if this became the case, you don't have to worry about ruining him since he's already what he is.

Pionk should GTFO too, but we'll see if management agrees.