Speculation: Roster Building Thread: Part XVI

[Off Sides]

Chytil, Miller and Kravtsov have higher potential than the players you listed and what you’re giving them credit for. Frankly the only player you listed that compares to the three I just listed is Kreider.

They may have more potential, yet until that manifest itself into them being better players, what is the point in not adding more to them just to give better odds that maybe some of them do eventually develop into better NHL players?

Have to remember that some people were making some overzealous comparisons back then too, Del Zotto was being seen as the next Leetch like player, at some point Miller a high end 2nd line center, Dubinsky first line center, etc.

 

[GoAwayPanarin]

Very well. I smell a redux of the previous 10 years coming where the organization builds up a solid foundation, trades away many of those players in search of the game breaking talents they have yet to develop, and coming up short of a championship.

And this time they'll do it without the Hall of Fame goaltender.

Well now I know that we're landing a game breaking talent.

 

[True Blue]

Very well. I smell a redux of the previous 10 years coming where the organization builds up a solid foundation, trades away many of those players in search of the game breaking talents they have yet to develop, and coming up short of a championship.

Where is this being evidenced?

 

[Edge]

Understand this fear, but the Rangers NEVER had this many 1st round picks or back-to-back top-10 pick (let alone whatever happens this year). The last Rangers core was developed off of later 1st rounders and late round steals.

I get where some posters are coming from, I really do. And there are some valid points out there --- the Rangers will need more depth, more elite/high-end talent, and other things if they are to evolve into a true, top-flight contender.

But we cannot ignore that there is no precedent in the organization's history to reference when analyzing the current approach. None.

I think the Rangers will end up with at least two first round picks in the 2019 draft, quite possibly more. But for the sake of this discussion, let's say they end up with two.

That's 7 first round picks in only 3 drafts --- 8 in 4 if you essentially count Howden as a first round pick in 2016.

Additionally, if we factor in that "reconstructed" 2016 draft, the Rangers will potentially have 10-12 players taken in the top 50, combined, over that time period --- that's roughly 5 or 6 percent of the total number of players taken in that top 50 range.

It's why I don't think we can quite compare the current effort to 2006-2012. If you count Howden, we're already past the number of first round picks over that stretch by July, and in only four drafts. We'd also easily pass the number of picks we have from the top 50.

It's also why I don't buy into the Oilers, Islanders and Hurricanes comparison used by Uncle Larry the other day --- I found the premise to be lazy and lacking essential context.

Those teams, and a few others, aren't struggling because they based their strategy on picking high in the draft and "rebuilding" through a youth-oriented approach.

In most cases they are struggling as a result of some combination of factors that includes - an inability to draft talent outside of high draft picks, an inability to attract and/or retain free agents, an inability to identify the right players for the right roles, and a lack of depth --- with the last point being directly tied to the first three.

 

[Inferno]

I am checking in after a Rangers win. Just tell that Machinehead that I was here. I know he is concerned about my frequency of posts after a Rangers win.

Hextall got fired yesterday.



Hextall tried to walk the rebuild and competitive tightrope. He was a little too conservative. He never made any trades. The Flyers were mediocre. Their goaltending is atrocious. Good forwards. He inherited most of those forwards. So so D. Hextall drafted so many D but those players need time to develop. They made the playoffs a few times.

The world is black and white.

Either bottom out or go for it. Pick a direction.

Trying to serve two masters only leads to mediocrity.

The Rangers are doing the same thing. They want to rebuild but they want to be competitive. You never hear the word "championship". Brooks writes column after column about "an accelerated remodel" featuring Hayes and Zibanejad but you never hear the anything about winning a championship.

It's about winning a championship.

Stanley Cup

Love seeing

Panarin-Elite center

Where are the Rangers getting the elite center from? Those players are found at the top of the draft.

How are the Rangers improving their D? They need to find a #1 D who can play in all situations. Where are they getting him from? They are found at the top of the draft too.

Buffalo has both of the boxes checked off with Eichel and Dahlin.

The Rangers don't have an elite center and #1 D in their system.

Let's be relevant. Sounds like a great plan.

To be fair...who are the best defenseman in the nhl right now? Ek65, burns, subban, hedman, byuf, chabot, carlson etc etc etc..wasn't hedman the only topish pick?

You can definitely find top pairing defenseman out of the top of the draft.

Centers tho, I agree, it's waaayyyy harder.

 

[Thirty One]

Doughty too, but yeah, good point.

Top defenseman picked since 2005:

Jack Johnson, Erik Johnson, Thomas Hickey, Drew Doughty, Victor Hedman, Erik Gudbranson, Adam Larsson, Ryan Murray, Seth Jones, Aaron Ekblad, Noah Hanifin, Olli Juolevi, Miro Heiskanen, Rasmus Dahlin

Hardly a can't miss proposition.

 

[Jaromir Jagr]

I don’t know about this...

I dont know that the FO can resist the temptation. Remember that this is the same group that held onto Yandle for a futile run and then balked at tearing it down that summer.

Yes they’ve taken that step since then and everything JG has said he would do he has done, but I can easily see them doing stupid things if they’re somehow still in it come February.

I don't know that this is the best comparison. I mean, I realize that you, amongst others, likely realized the Rangers weren't good that year, but the previous season they were 1 game away from going to the SCF. It's not hard to believe in February they still envisioned themselves as contenders.

You can argue that was the wrong move, as I strongly agree with, but its hardly a situation that mimics today's, where the team missed the playoffs last year, sold a huge amount of their veterans off and is having a surprisingly mediocre start to the year.

I'm fairly confident that the team will make a decision on Hayes prior to the deadline meaning he will be re-signed long-term or moved. There is no in between option like Yandle I can envision them pursuing.

FWIW I hope Hayes is re-signed unless the haul is absolutely overwhelming.

 

[Off Sides]

I get where some posters are coming from, I really do. And there are some valid points out there --- the Rangers will need more depth, more elite/high-end talent, and other things if they are to evolve into a true, top-flight contender.

But we cannot ignore that there is no precedent in the organization's history to reference when analyzing the current approach. None.

I think the Rangers will end up with at least two first round picks in the 2019 draft, quite possibly more. But for the sake of this discussion, let's say they end up with two.

That's 7 first round picks in only 3 drafts --- 8 in 4 if you essentially count Howden as a first round pick in 2016.

Additionally, if we factor in that "reconstructed" 2016 draft, the Rangers will potentially have 10-12 players taken in the top 50, each year, over that time period --- that's roughly 5 or 6 percent of the total number of players taken in that top 50 range.

It's why I don't think we can quite compare the current effort to 2006-2012. If you count Howden, we're already past the number of first round picks over that stretch by July, and in only four drafts. We'd also easily pass the number of picks we have from the top 50.

It's also why I don't buy into the Oilers, Islanders and Hurricanes comparison used by Uncle Larry the other day --- I found the premise to be lazy and lacking essential context.

Those teams, and a few others, aren't struggling because they based their strategy on picking high in the draft and "rebuilding" through a youth-oriented approach.

In most cases they are struggling as a result of some combination of factors that includes - an inability to draft talent outside of high draft picks, an inability to attract and/or retain free agents, an inability to identify the right players for the right roles, and a lack of depth --- with the last point being directly tied to the first three.

I agree, Brooks, his other rebuild comparisons were lacking as also those teams had either or both ownership and financial issues as well as what you stated.

On the unprecedented part, I agree in one context they never had this many picks, yet I guess I'm not so sure about equating a quantity of first round picks to what the quality of the players selected will turn out to be (unless those first round picks are at the top of their draft class where the most likely highest quality will come from).

 

[Edge]

To be fair...who are the best defenseman in the nhl right now? Ek65, burns, subban, hedman, byuf, chabot, carlson etc etc etc..wasn't hedman the only topish pick?

You can definitely find top pairing defenseman out of the top of the draft.

Centers tho, I agree, it's waaayyyy harder.

The challenge is that the Rangers are being carried by a lot of young talent right now.

Yes, we can debate the whole high pick/mid-pick thing until everyone is blue in the face. But at the end of the day, this team is getting meaningful contributions from 3 rookie forwards, what is essentially a rookie defenseman and a sophomore defenseman, and a rookie goalie.

I still struggle to see what the Rangers could be doing differently that would have a drastic impact and drive them toward the bottom.

They can't bury kids who are achieving at the NHL level in the minors.

It's not really helping anyone to trade certain guys with value, just for the sake of trading them. I think moving Hayes and Zucc would have an impact, but we don't really know what is or isn't out there via a trade.

The Rangers aren't being pushed by journeymen and cast-offs right now, they're being pushed by younger talent on many nights. So, it's really hard to go out there and swim against that tide.

And this is a roster that still hasn't seen potential contributions from prospects like Kravtsov, Miller, Hajek, Lindgren, Keane, etc. etc.

I don't really know what some people would do differently? Not acquire kids who achieve? Not hire a coach who seems to know how to reach them? Waive Zucc and Hayes?

At best you can argue that they should trade Kreider and Zibanejad, but that's a whole other rabbit hole.

 

[Tawnos]

Very well. I smell a redux of the previous 10 years coming where the organization builds up a solid foundation, trades away many of those players in search of the game breaking talents they have yet to develop, and coming up short of a championship.

And this time they'll do it without the Hall of Fame goaltender.

That’s a very realistic possibility. I think of it this way. Bottoming out gives you 70/20/10 odds (bad team/good team/Cup team). Rebuilding without bottoming out gives you 40/55/5 odds. Yeah, the chances of a Cup team are double by bottoming out vs not, but in the scheme of things, it isn’t really a big difference. Meanwhile, not bottoming out means you’re likelier to have a good team.

I don’t really think there’s anything wrong with either approach, though the high probability of a bad team when bottoming out scares me.

 

[RGY]

We already are doing something different. I don't see many people criticizing the approach of aiming for a #1 pick. That would be great. But it's largely out of our control. You have 82 games to decide a season, with injuries and luck and young players developing, and then a lottery. People are so fixated on the 1OA and it's not a viable end game strategy. It's the best result of a rebuilding strategy, not the sole goal. There are loads of other pieces and actions you can take to reach your end game.

How this team plays is completely out of our control. They've done the right things thus far. If they buy at the deadline, I'll be 1000% on board with outrage b/c it would be beyond stupid. But other than a Larry Brooks opinion piece, we've seen no sign of this being part of the plan.

And seriously what is the alternative here? Freaking out about us playing too well through 26 games? Sending Chytil, Lias and Howden down. Bench ADA and ride McQuaid, Staal, Smith, Shatty. Trade Zucc, Kreider, Hayes. Profit?

For some it feels as though the way to rebuild and ultimately a #1 pick has to be Waco in here or nothing else at all. And i think that is part of the huge head butting that is going around.

 

[Edge]

I agree, Brooks, his other rebuild comparisons were lacking as also those teams had either or both ownership and financial issues as well as what you stated.

On the unprecedented part, I agree in one context they never had this many picks, yet I guess I'm not so sure about equating a quantity of first round picks to what the quality of the players selected will turn out to be (unless those first round picks are at the top of their draft class where the most likely highest quality will come from).

Admittedly, that's a big wait and see.

However, thus far, there are some promising signs:

The Rangers have seemingly done a good job of identifying young talent --- be it guys they couldn't acquire (Keller, Pettersson), or guys who are stepping up to the NHL (Pionk, ADA, Howden, Chytil, Andersson, Georgiev).

Other prospects are having very strong D+1 and D+2 seasons --- Keane, Miller, Lundkvist, Barron, etc.

I think Hajek and Lindgren haven't looked overwhelmed at the AHL level as rookies, especially within the context that the Pack's young defensemen don't really put up eye-catching offensive numbers and instead really focused on defensive fundamentals.

So I guess I don't view it as a quantity vs. quality, so much as quantity and quality. And to the latter point, I think the early returns are about as good as anyone could've expected --- across the globe, in multiple leagues, and at multiple levels.

 

[RGY]

The challenge is that the Rangers are being carried by a lot of young talent right now.

Yes, we can debate the whole high pick/mid-pick thing until everyone is blue in the face. But at the end of the day, this team is getting meaningful contributions from 3 rookie forwards, what is essentially a rookie defenseman and a sophomore defenseman, and a rookie goalie.

I still struggle to see what the Rangers could be doing differently that would have a drastic impact and drive them toward the bottom.

They can't bury kids who are achieving at the NHL level in the minors.

It's not really helping anyone to trade certain guys with value, just for the sake of trading them. I think moving Hayes and Zucc would have an impact, but we don't really know what is or isn't out there via a trade.

The Rangers aren't being pushed by journeymen and cast-offs right now, they're being pushed by younger talent on many nights. So, it's really hard to go out there and swim against that tide.

And this is a roster that still hasn't seen potential contributions from prospects like Kravtsov, Miller, Hajek, Lindgren, Keane, etc. etc.

I don't really know what some people would do differently? Not acquire kids who achieve? Not hire a coach who seems to know how to reach them? Waive Zucc and Hayes?

At best you can argue that they should trade Kreider and Zibanejad, but that's a whole other rabbit hole.

Back to back extroadinary posts from you Edge. Incredibly points made.

This FO is not the same from 06-12. They really arent taking the same approach. They have STOCKPILED picks, especially 1st round picks in a short period. The previous regime never sold at a deadline or at least like we did this past season. They never sold core pieces like a Brassard. They are absolutely doing things differently.

And to your other point, the Rangers are not being carried by aging veterans only to be a bubble team that just misses the playoffs as they were from 2000-2004. They are riding on the backs of their kids who are succeeding at the NHL level. And no you cannot send those kids down. What kind of message does that send? Hey kid youre doing great at the highest level in the world but we’re going to send you down because you’re doing to well that we’re winning and we want to lose. Bizarre.

 

[TheTakedown]

Bang on. It's a lottery in every sense, so buying more tickets is more important than putting all your assets towards one or two slightly better tickets.

I referenced this a few weeks back about the kings. 3 top 5 picks in a row. Hickey, Doughty, B. Schenn. So does the simple threshold of 3 top 5s equal two cups? Because that Hickey pick should be devastating. Or is it a fallacy from the start?

The kings won 2 cups because they loaded up on draft picks and the sheer number of picks stocked their team. Kopitar #11, Quick in the 3rd, Simmonds #61, Martinez in the 4th, Toffoli #47. Timely trades like Carter. Pushed their chips in for Richard's at the right time. They lifted 2 cups with exactly 1 top 5 picking playing a meaningful role. But it all goes back to them reloading the system with a volume of picks.

I agree with this. People like to point to the penguins, but they didn't win shit until they started building a supporting cast around their tanked-for players. Those 2010 thru 2015 penguin teams were BAD... no depth, Crosby only carried them so far

 

[kovazub94]

I said it yesterday...Brooks sounded like an old fart in that article yesterday. If you’re okay with just another run like the last one to ultimately fall short, yes, go ahead and re-sign Hayes long term. If the goal is to win multiple Cups, you don’t settle for Zibanejad/Hayes as your top two centers.

However, in your patience for a rebuild, you’re also showing great impatience. Yes, the Rangers have performed better than I personally expected. But, they have benefited from a favorable schedule and haven’t played all that many good teams at the moment. Look what happened this past weekend for a better gauge of where this team will be at season’s end. Last night, they had five rookies in the lineup. And, at least two of those rookies, (Chytil and Howden), are proving that they are in the long term solution, and is evidence that a Gorton has been right in his approach so far. And Kravtsov and Miller are showing that they can potentially be impact players when they get here. Do they provide the instant gratification of Dahlin or Svechnikov? No, but, that doesn’t mean they won’t be high end players. The Rangers should have another first round with multiple picks in the upcoming draft. While you have been facetious about which role player the Rangers are going to draft with their picks, the truth is, they have likely taken three high impact players, (Chytil, Kravtsov and Miller), with at least three of those firsts. Even in dealing Stepan, he’s come away with another rookie in Andersson who’s likely to end up getting a lot of ice time this year, and DeAngelo, who by most metrics has been the Rangers’ best Dman this year. The season is going to play out in ways we cannot foresee. So far, Gorton has followed through on what he’s said he would do. Despite what Brooks has to say, I expect Gorton to continue following the plan and deal both Hayes and Zuccarello. (For the record, I’ve been with you the whole time on moving him,). The only two players I’ve disagreed with you about are Kreider and Zibanejad, and even those came with qualifiers. If we saw the same Kreider that we did before his breakout year two years ago, I’d say yes, move him and maximize his value. But, IMO, he’s taken the next step productively, and has emerged as team leader in the void created by the deals. He is a unique player in the organization. As for Zibanejad, we’re looking at potentially 30-40-70 with much improved defense on a great contract at age 25, with the opportunity to get even better. Franchise center? Not likely. Legitimate 1st liner. Definitely.

From the beginning, some of have said there are no guarantees about this rebuild. But, so far, so many signs are pointing in the right direction. I expect the season and schedule to wear this team down and still expect them to be in the 5-7 range of the upcoming draft. There still a lot of pain to come. But, don’t overlook the important successes we’ve seen so far, either.

Completely agree other than I consider the Rangers carrying 5 rookies in the lineup (5 forwards + 2 defensemen since I consider both Pionk and ADA - rookies) and I think they finish further away from the lottery top.

I created the link to Brooks article yesterday. The goal was not to support his opinion on Hayes. I also disagree with LB about keeping Hayes but the point was not this specific roster move. The point was that making moves to weaken the current roster because we are not supposed to compete until 5 years from now is what would lead to the team turning into Edmonton, Isles. Arizona etc (which is different from Gorton keeping to the rebuild plan and moving upcoming UFAs) .

 

[Edge]

At the end of the day, I'm not really focusing on draft position at the moment. Not because it doesn't matter, or that I don't think the team will likely draft relatively high when all is said and done, but because there's very little to debate on the issue for me. There's nothing we can really change or do differently to get a different result from what we've seen recently.

I'm more focused on continuing to acquire assets at the moment --- be it picks, prospects, better fits for the team moving forward, etc. So in that sense, the concept of holding onto Hayes and Zucc is higher on my list of opinions for the time being.

The kids will do what they're doing to do. We can't stop that, nor would we want to.

The aspect we can control, is how we approach the Hayes and Zucc contract situations. That comes down to making decisions, one way or the other. There's no real middle ground there.

 

[Graves94]

At the end of the day, I'm not really focusing on draft position at the moment. Not because it doesn't matter, or that I don't think the team will likely draft relatively high when all is said and done, but because there's very little to debate on the issue for me. There's nothing we can really change or do differently to get a different result from what we've seen recently.

I'm more focused on continuing to acquire assets at the moment --- be it picks, prospects, better fits for the team moving forward, etc. So in that sense, the concept of holding onto Hayes and Zucc is higher on my list of opinions for the time being.

The kids will do what they're doing to do. We can't stop that, nor would we want to.

The aspect we can control, is how we approach the Hayes and Zucc contract situations. That comes down to making decisions, one way or the other. There's no real middle ground there.

Completely agree with you, regarding what the kids have done and what they will do in the future.
To me, what will determine where the Rangers will finish/draft, is solely dependent on how well our goalie will continue to play going forward. Let's face it, with an average Hank, we have at least 6-8 less points...he's been pur MVP so far...

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

That’s a very realistic possibility. I think of it this way. Bottoming out gives you 70/20/10 odds (bad team/good team/Cup team). Rebuilding without bottoming out gives you 40/55/5 odds. Yeah, the chances of a Cup team are double by bottoming out vs not, but in the scheme of things, it isn’t really a big difference. Meanwhile, not bottoming out means you’re likelier to have a good team.

I don’t really think there’s anything wrong with either approach, though the high probability of a bad team when bottoming out scares me.

A lot of my cynicism also comes from other factors regarding the Rangers' scouting and development. I don't trust Gordie Clark in the first round, period, and I'll leave it at that. There's also the issue that the Rangers haven't developed an elite positional player since Brian Leetch 30 years ago, so Im a bit skeptical about the notion on this board that this is the dawn of a new day.

 

[GoAwayPanarin]

Admittedly, that's a big wait and see.

However, thus far, there are some promising signs:

The Rangers have seemingly done a good job of identifying young talent --- be it guys they couldn't acquire (Keller, Pettersson), or guys who are stepping up to the NHL (Pionk, ADA, Howden, Chytil, Andersson, Georgiev).

Other prospects are having very strong D+1 and D+2 seasons --- Keane, Miller, Lundkvist, Barron, etc.

I think Hajek and Lindgren haven't looked overwhelmed at the AHL level as rookies, especially within the context that the Pack's young defensemen don't really put up eye-catching offensive numbers and instead really focused on defensive fundamentals.

So I guess I don't view it as a quantity vs. quality, so much as quantity and quality. And to the latter point, I think the early returns are about as good as anyone could've expected --- across the globe, in multiple leagues, and at multiple levels.

Honestly, I'd feel a lot better if they had already moved Zucc.

I think the injury to him as made it clear that he isn't needed, but this organization has a habit of falling in love with the wrong guys.

His next contract is already a mistake.

I forget who it was, but someone mentioned how they need to take a chance on a player (24 or younger) who may not exactly be lighting it up right now and ends up figuring it out here ala Brassard (hopefully to a higher degree.) Someone like Jost would fit the bill for me but unless we can Pry him away for Hayes (which I would rather have than prospects/picks), I don't know how that happens.

 

[TheTakedown]

This team hasn't been extraordinarily lucky. When they were earlier in the year, I led the charge against that. The underlying numbers say they should be a .500 team and that's what they are.

Nor is this team being carried by aging players. Among their top scorers, the oldest is 27.

They traded McDonagh, Nash, Miller, and Grabner. They would have traded Hayes and Zuccarello IMO for the right return, and Hayes has only seen his value climb since then. They approached Hank, who declined being traded. They hired a developmental coach. They've thrown a 23 year old into the #1D role to mixed results.

This team has done everything possible to orchestrate a full rebuild except lose on purpose. They're not going to do that. No team is going to do that.

I like this version of MachineHead better than the one who is rage-tastic

 

[Gardner McKay]

I get where some posters are coming from, I really do. And there are some valid points out there --- the Rangers will need more depth, more elite/high-end talent, and other things if they are to evolve into a true, top-flight contender.

But we cannot ignore that there is no precedent in the organization's history to reference when analyzing the current approach. None.

I think the Rangers will end up with at least two first round picks in the 2019 draft, quite possibly more. But for the sake of this discussion, let's say they end up with two.

That's 7 first round picks in only 3 drafts --- 8 in 4 if you essentially count Howden as a first round pick in 2016.

Additionally, if we factor in that "reconstructed" 2016 draft, the Rangers will potentially have 10-12 players taken in the top 50, combined, over that time period --- that's roughly 5 or 6 percent of the total number of players taken in that top 50 range.

It's why I don't think we can quite compare the current effort to 2006-2012. If you count Howden, we're already past the number of first round picks over that stretch by July, and in only four drafts. We'd also easily pass the number of picks we have from the top 50.

It's also why I don't buy into the Oilers, Islanders and Hurricanes comparison used by Uncle Larry the other day --- I found the premise to be lazy and lacking essential context.

Those teams, and a few others, aren't struggling because they based their strategy on picking high in the draft and "rebuilding" through a youth-oriented approach.

In most cases they are struggling as a result of some combination of factors that includes - an inability to draft talent outside of high draft picks, an inability to attract and/or retain free agents, an inability to identify the right players for the right roles, and a lack of depth --- with the last point being directly tied to the first three.

While I believe your entire post is spot on, I do feel you missed one thing at the bottom: A culture of losing. I know some believe it isn't real or doesn't impact a team that much but, in my opinion it absolutely does. It is why I am glad this team is doing well even though we are rebuilding. These kids need to know what it is like to do well at the NHL level.

Also, it is worth pointing out that those three teams have some of the worst GM's hockey has seen over the past 20 years - Chiarelli, Snow (formerly) and Waddell (currently). It is truly baffling that Chiarelli still has a job, that Snow held his job for so long and that Waddell was able to land another GM gig. I watched that man destroy my Thrashers year after year. I am fully confident that 95% of our posters could do a better job than Don Waddell.

At least the Islanders have done the right thing by bringing in Lou Lam. I know some of the younger posters here like to **** on him but the man knows how to build a winner. The Canes and Oilers will continue to toil in mediocrity. A culture of winning starts at the top and it is one of the reasons I am confident in JG. I may not agree with everything but the guy has a winning mentality.

 

[Gardner McKay]

This team hasn't been extraordinarily lucky. When they were earlier in the year, I led the charge against that. The underlying numbers say they should be a .500 team and that's what they are.

Nor is this team being carried by aging players. Among their top scorers, the oldest is 27.

They traded McDonagh, Nash, Miller, and Grabner. They would have traded Hayes and Zuccarello IMO for the right return, and Hayes has only seen his value climb since then. They approached Hank, who declined being traded. They hired a developmental coach. They've thrown a 23 year old into the #1D role to mixed results.

This team has done everything possible to orchestrate a full rebuild except lose on purpose. They're not going to do that. No team is going to do that.

 

[Edge]

Completely agree with you, regarding what the kids have done and what they will do in the future.
To me, what will determine where the Rangers will finish/draft, is solely dependent on how well our goalie will continue to play going forward. Let's face it, with an average Hank, we have at least 6-8 less points...he's been pur MVP so far...

Personally, right now, I feel like this is a team that has some bounces go there way and are still catching teams by surprise. That's not a swipe at them, or their effort, or saying that I haven't loved watching them on most nights. It also helps that our division is fairly even at the moment, because the reality is that we one more victory than defeat at the moment --- we should send San Jose a gift card.

I'm not really sold on the defense's ability to play actual defense, or that our goalies can continue to withstand this barrage. We also have a number of forwards who are literally playing the hockey of their lives. That's not to say they haven't hit the next level, but some of the play feels like more than just a level-up type situation.

An awful lot has fallen into place through 25 games, but that's going to be pretty hard to sustain --- especially in December and January.

If the draft were today, the Rangers would pick 19th. But the reality is that when you factor in a number of considerations, including schedule and games played, this team really isn't very far removed from the 5th pick either. It's actually a pretty tight cluster when you get beyond the bottom four teams in the league and the top 6 or so teams.

 

[Ghost of jas]

They may have more potential, yet until that manifest itself into them being better players, what is the point in not adding more to them just to give better odds that maybe some of them do eventually develop into better NHL players?

Have to remember that some people were making some overzealous comparisons back then too, Del Zotto was being seen as the next Leetch like player, at some point Miller a high end 2nd line center, Dubinsky first line center, etc.

Where in anything that I’ve written am I saying the Rangers shouldn’t be adding more prospects and that we’re good to go and the rebuild is over and deemed a success?

And which of the players you listed there have shown the immediate success in their respective D+1 years that Chytil, Miller and Kravtsov have?

 

[True Blue]

I don't really know what some people would do differently? Not acquire kids who achieve? Not hire a coach who seems to know how to reach them? Waive Zucc and Hayes?

Mandatory 1 game suspensions if a goal that is scores either ties the game or puts them ahead.