Speculation: Roster Building Thread: Part XLVI

[Amazing Kreiderman]

Could also end up with Parayko or Suter/Weber. Just depends on your definition of nasty.

With Parayko, big and nasty isn't the most important aspect of his game. That is my point. When someome says they want a "big and nasty" D-man, they should get their priorities straight because there's more to hockey today than just throwing hits

 

[NYRKING30]

They've basically paid for players to play for other teams.

They don't need the space, so why do it?

Because apparently the Rangers having more than 5 million dollars in cap space is a travesty to some who think we should spend every dollar possible and must be at the cap or close to it every year. The hell with being flexible.

 

[LaffyTaffy]

What @Amazing Kreiderman means is that the “big and nasty” part comes secondary to more important characteristics. When you get players like Parayko you get them not because they’re big and have snarl, what should have caught your eye first is their mobility and IQ and general ability to contribute on both ends of the ice. Having a massive frame is a great bonus, but if you want a “big and nasty” guy you have to make sure he checks the right boxes before that.

 

[Brooklyn Rangers Fan]

How about big and uses that size effectively?

 

[eco's bones]

What @Amazing Kreiderman means is that the “big and nasty” part comes secondary to more important characteristics. When you get players like Parayko you get them not because they’re big and have snarl, what should have caught your eye first is their mobility and IQ and general ability to contribute on both ends of the ice. Having a massive frame is a great bonus, but if you want a “big and nasty” guy you have to make sure he checks the right boxes before that.

FWIW though Parayko was out of the AJHL. Went to the U. of Alaska-Fairbanks hardly one of the best College programs. St. Louis was drafting a big D but sometimes a guy exceeds all expectations

 

[GoAwayPanarin]

Parayko isn't even that nasty.

 

[Shesterkybomb]

I'd be happy if we just let our older players contracts expire and let our prospects grow into those spots. We have a ton of d prospects, I'm excited about Fox, Miller and Hajek who all have various attributes that will hopefully create an base for our D.

 

[kinger8998]

Because apparently the Rangers having more than 5 million dollars in cap space is a travesty to some who think we should spend every dollar possible and must be at the cap or close to it every year. The hell with being flexible.

why are you so stuck on this. it's not about spending cap for the hell of it. if you can add an elite winger for 11 (not saying thats what he's going to sign for) or one of the best defensemen in the game today - injury concerns or not - at a 4 year term because of that, i would do it everyday.

once again, it is not about spending to the cap cause we are the new york rangers, it's about taking advantage of having that cap when a player like karlsson or panarin comes around like this, which isnt often.

if you want to hold off panarin and go for hall, then sure. but what is the difference. shattenkikr and smith still aren't off the books, and by your count you dont expect the team to content for over 5 years so that wastes years of a huge deal signed.

 

[JimmyG89]

Let Karlsson continue to chase his cup asperations. We won't be there for a while and we don't need someone that priced on our defense. We could look to add after we begin to find out what we have back there. Fox and DeAngelo are young and need to play. Fox might be able to start next season in the AHL, but it won't be for long.

We should be clearing expensive contracts from our defense, not adding to it. The team has invested a ton into the defense from trades and the draft. They all won't make it, but we need to at least give them the opportunity to do so. Karlsson stunts the growth of Fox and DeAngelo. Hard pass.

 

[charliemurphy]

I think we’re seeing both sides of the argument and a correlation between spending on FAs and the presumptive timeline of when they think this team will be competitive enough to make a run.
It’s understandable to shy away from spending on a FA if you think the timeframe of this rebuild, retooling, whatever you call it will take another 5-10 years.
Personally, I don’t think it will take that long at all. I think folks around the league are going to be surprised at how quickly this franchise as a whole has been rebuilt.
After watching other teams in the playoffs last season and currently it wouldn’t surprise me if the Rangers make a push for the playoffs within two seasons. And I think once the defense is established they will take off and once they are in the playoffs they will be there for years to come.
Having said that, I’d go after Panarin and stay away from Karlsson. I’m all in favor of moving Kreider, 20OA to move up and I’m not in favor of buying out contracts just for the sake of buying them out... buying them out, retaining, whatever because younger players are earning those spots is a different matter.

 

[kinger8998]

I think we’re seeing both sides of the argument and a correlation between spending on FAs and the presumptive timeline of when they think this team will be competitive enough to make a run.
It’s understandable to shy away from spending on a FA if you think the timeframe of this rebuild, retooling, whatever you call it will take another 5-10 years.
Personally, I don’t think it will take that long at all. I think folks around the league are going to be surprised at how quickly this franchise as a whole has been rebuilt.
After watching other teams in the playoffs last season and currently it wouldn’t surprise me if the Rangers make a push for the playoffs within two seasons. And I think once the defense is established they will take off and once they are in the playoffs they will be there for years to come.
Having said that, I’d go after Panarin and stay away from Karlsson. I’m all in favor of moving Kreider, 20OA to move up and I’m not in favor of buying out contracts just for the sake of buying them out... buying them out, retaining, whatever because younger players are earning those spots is a different matter.

this. fully support this.

 

[NYRKING30]

why are you so stuck on this. it's not about spending cap for the hell of it. if you can add an elite winger for 11 (not saying thats what he's going to sign for) or one of the best defensemen in the game today - injury concerns or not - at a 4 year term because of that, i would do it everyday.

once again, it is not about spending to the cap cause we are the new york rangers, it's about taking advantage of having that cap when a player like karlsson or panarin comes around like this, which isnt often.

if you want to hold off panarin and go for hall, then sure. but what is the difference. shattenkikr and smith still aren't off the books, and by your count you dont expect the team to content for over 5 years so that wastes years of a huge deal signed.

Why would they only want 4 years? They are going to command 7 year deals. Other players will become available, it doesn't have to be Panarin,Karlsson, or Hall. I think they'll definitely be a playoff team within 5 years, its hard to tell about contending as that is a different animal.

 

[Leetch3]

i said we could make a run in 3 to 4 years. that would be andersson, chytil and howdens 4th or 5th season. kravtsov and kakko's 3rd or 4th too. So based on your own rpediction, they would be busted out by then?

DeAngelos 5ht or 6th, Fox's 3rd or 4th. Zibanejad will still be in his prime, Buchnevich will be better. We won't need other young kids like hajek/lindgren to be broken out becasue we have all the other guys.

This isn't counting any free agent signings, whether it be huge like panarin or just one like RNH when he gets there. this isn't counting our 20th overall pick this year, or an NHL ready talent in 2020 if we get a good enough pick.

Also, if we aren't getting Panarin, I'm sure were doing all we can to re-up Kreider. He will still be a contributing power forward. Even if one of our young players missteps and isn't busted out quite yet, theres enough good already here, and enough good to be potentially added via trades (names, vesey, shattenkirk, georgiev), FA, or Draft that I think some of you are just as pessimistic as I may be optimistic. 3-4 years brings us to 4.25-5.25 years since the letter. 2.25 spent of that rebuilding, 1-2 building and that last year would be the first year we make a run with what we've got. don't get me wrong I'm not saying we buy at that Trade Deadline, it's just that with what we've got in house and have to potential to add before that moment, I think there is plenty of reason to be optimistic

i missed the 3-4 years and thought you meant this coming season...

 

[Leetch3]

I think we’re seeing both sides of the argument and a correlation between spending on FAs and the presumptive timeline of when they think this team will be competitive enough to make a run.
It’s understandable to shy away from spending on a FA if you think the timeframe of this rebuild, retooling, whatever you call it will take another 5-10 years.
Personally, I don’t think it will take that long at all. I think folks around the league are going to be surprised at how quickly this franchise as a whole has been rebuilt.
After watching other teams in the playoffs last season and currently it wouldn’t surprise me if the Rangers make a push for the playoffs within two seasons. And I think once the defense is established they will take off and once they are in the playoffs they will be there for years to come.
Having said that, I’d go after Panarin and stay away from Karlsson. I’m all in favor of moving Kreider, 20OA to move up and I’m not in favor of buying out contracts just for the sake of buying them out... buying them out, retaining, whatever because younger players are earning those spots is a different matter.

why does it always have to be the 2 extremes? make a big signing now or the rebuild is gonna take 10 years? I think we can be good again in 3-4 years, but I have no idea what we will need to complete the team at that point. will we be missing a #2 center? will we be missing a top pair dman? a shutdown dman? a scoring winger? we are so far away from a complete picture that we just don't know. and if you are locking up panarin now for $11-12 mil per year you better hope the need is an elite winger cause you probably won't have the money to fill the hole if its something else.

THAT is why i'm hesitant to invest in panarin. not cause i think he'll suddenly be bad in a few years or it will hurt our draft pick next year, but because I have no idea what the final piece will be so why are we playing that card now...

 

[Leetch3]

I want a good defenseman first. If "big and nasty" is your priority, you end up with McIlrath

I prefer the terms matchup, shutdown dman with size...its not size just for the sake of size, its a guy that can play 20 minutes a night against the other teams top line

and if anyone told you that size doesn't matter anymore she was lying

 

[Calad]

It's not a certainty, but it's not a risk I'm willing to take.

I'd say there's a 20% chance that he's total crap in 2 years, a 50% chance that he declines and is an overpaid 50 point PP specialist for much of the contract, and around a 25% chance that he declines gradually and still produces 70+ points for the next 4-5 years.

5% that he finds amazing longevity and plays great until 36-37

Ultimately that's not a positive gamble for a contract that is going to be 7x11 at least.

When did you become an actuary?

 

[GoAwayPanarin]

why does it always have to be the 2 extremes? make a big signing now or the rebuild is gonna take 10 years? I think we can be good again in 3-4 years, but I have no idea what we will need to complete the team at that point. will we be missing a #2 center? will we be missing a top pair dman? a shutdown dman? a scoring winger? we are so far away from a complete picture that we just don't know. and if you are locking up panarin now for $11-12 mil per year you better hope the need is an elite winger cause you probably won't have the money to fill the hole if its something else.

THAT is why i'm hesitant to invest in panarin. not cause i think he'll suddenly be bad in a few years or it will hurt our draft pick next year, but because I have no idea what the final piece will be so why are we playing that card now...

This. So much this.

 

[Off Sides]

It seems bizarre to me that the Rangers are rebuilding, I argued they would never would due to their market being a money maker regardless, now that they are, let it pay out. #2 pick, other early picks, other picks, traded for prospects, young talent added... It's gonna be fine if not awesome.

 

[charliemurphy]

why does it always have to be the 2 extremes? make a big signing now or the rebuild is gonna take 10 years? I think we can be good again in 3-4 years, but I have no idea what we will need to complete the team at that point. will we be missing a #2 center? will we be missing a top pair dman? a shutdown dman? a scoring winger? we are so far away from a complete picture that we just don't know. and if you are locking up panarin now for $11-12 mil per year you better hope the need is an elite winger cause you probably won't have the money to fill the hole if its something else.

THAT is why i'm hesitant to invest in panarin. not cause i think he'll suddenly be bad in a few years or it will hurt our draft pick next year, but because I have no idea what the final piece will be so why are we playing that card now...

They are not extremes. Some would want to spend on FAs when more money comes off the books in a few years. Some don’t. Some think we can be competitive in a season or two and some think 5-6. My initial post was in reference more or less with the correlation between believing when the team will be competitive again and spending on FAs and when to do it.
I agree in thinking we will be good in 3-4 seasons. Really good. Which is all the more reason why I would want Panarin locked up now... so he’s a part of making it happen. I am not a believer that when Panarin turns 30 he will fall off a cliff. True, nobody has a crystal ball to tell us what holes the roster will have in 3-4 years but I don’t know... I wouldn’t mind not worrying about having an elite game changing winger on the left side for a long time. Just looking at their current system and the potential of adding Kakko and another stud or two one can argue their weakness or any holes that will need to be filled as the last piece will probably be on defense.

 

[Cag29]

With Parayko, big and nasty isn't the most important aspect of his game. That is my point. When someome says they want a "big and nasty" D-man, they should get their priorities straight because there's more to hockey today than just throwing hits

You can’t teach size or a mean streak. If you have that and skill....

 

[Amazing Kreiderman]

You can’t teach size or a mean streak. If you have that and skill....

And that size is useless without skill.

 

[Cag29]

And that size is useless without skill.

No kidding.

 

[Cag29]

No kidding.

If they can’t skate or play the game the rest is useless. But if you can get a Parakyo type player it would be great.

 

[iamitter]

If we assume the next two years are going to be meh, think about it this way instead

Would you sign a 29/30 year old Panarin to a 5 year deal at 11 per?

 

[Amazing Kreiderman]

If they can’t skate or play the game the rest is useless. But if you can get a Parakyo type player it would be great.

Which was my point all along