Speculation: Roster Building Thread: Part XVIII

  • PLEASE check any bookmark on all devices. IF you see a link pointing to mandatory.com DELETE it Please use this URL https://forums.hfboards.com/
Status
Not open for further replies.

True Blue

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
30,092
8,362
Visit site
Thinking about it...Zucc doesn't care about the money, he could even re-sign without a raise. And that would actually be a good deal for the Rangers, that's a very cheap solid veteran player right there.
Come again? Zucc does not care about money? Whenever a player says it's not about the money, it's ALWAYS about the money. They ALL care about the money.

Fact is, that the best thing Zucc can do for the franchise is bring back another first round pick and some prospect in a trade. Then, since he does not care about money, he can resign here for $2m. Think he does that?
 

BobMarleyNYR

Rangers future on D
May 2, 2004
5,040
633
Alphabet
For two playoff runs he'll absolutely bring back a second +. His cap hit is dynamite. He's also had two very good playoff runs with the Rangers (2014-15 and 2016-17). Teams love that kind of stuff.

If it's next trade deadline it will be substantially less.
A bottom six player, ideally a 4th liner, will NEVER get a 2nd, though he's that valuable to NYR, which says more about the team than him. Great utility guy, grinds, PKs, forechecks. In the top-six, he creates space but that's it. It means no one else is doing it when a 4th liner is playing a top-six supporting role.

Still, he'll NEVER return what he's worth to NYR and is a new-age Erixon. He'll either retire in NY or blow out a tire years from now and be dealt for a 6th or 7th.
 

Kovalev27

BEST IN THE WORLD
Jun 22, 2004
21,608
26,074
NYC
Tell you what. Watching Panarin last night. What a player. What he does for Dubois is ridiculous all I kept thinking was imagine Zibanejad having a guy like that on his line. What kind of player he would turn into. Panarin makes the guys around him so much better.
 

kovazub94

Enigmatic
Aug 5, 2010
13,099
8,813
There should not be untouchables if the price is right, it’s just in certain situations the price has to be astronomical and therefore unrealistic.

In terms of trading Kreider it’s the same.

I think he’s an excellent player currently on a sweetheart deal that started to show getting into his own toward the end of 2016-2017 season. Last season would’ve been quite similar to this if not for his blood clot issue. Basing on this during this offseason I was quite positive that we would see this type of performance now and he’ll be providing to be a 30-30 power forward.

So losing him would open a pretty big whole in the Rangers core. One issue is that keeping him in the core beyond this contract would be (and should be) expensive. Here enters an opportunity (or if Kreider is traded - a need) to sign Panarin in the offseason. So if the discussion is Necas, Fox and signing Panarin in the offseason if Kreider is traded - I probably would do it.

Panarin - Zibanejad - Kravtsov
Necas - Chytil - Buchnevich
Andersson - Howden - xx
Vesey - xx - Fast

Miller - Fox
Skjei - ADA
Hajek - Pionk

Strome (or return in trade), Keane, Rykov, Lundkvist, Barron, own 2019 1st, return for Hayes, return for Zuke, return for Names,
 

Waivers

Registered User
Sep 27, 2013
1,662
899
NY
Tell you what. Watching Panarin last night. What a player. What he does for Dubois is ridiculous all I kept thinking was imagine Zibanejad having a guy like that on his line. What kind of player he would turn into. Panarin makes the guys around him so much better.

That's why I'm 100% for getting him - he's an elite winger. All it takes is cap space, and he's an amazing influence on players. Even if the Rangers aren't in a 'competing' state, I think the younger players will exponentially grow as opposed to not having a player of his caliber around.
 

True Blue

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
30,092
8,362
Visit site
I'm a huge fan of Kreider, but he's another guy that I wonder about. He has 1 year left. He's going to want a raise. 7X7? Is he worth that? He'll be 28 in April. His next contract will take him into his mid-30's. Kreider will age well, in my opinion. But that doesn't change the fact that re-signing him is the type of mentality this organization has had, since forever.
I believe that the organization views Zbad and Kreider and being here on the other side of the rebuild, as the veteran leaders for this team. Resigning him has nothing to do with a mentality, it has everything to do with his raised level of play and new found leadership.
 

True Blue

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
30,092
8,362
Visit site
I have to admit, I don't think the Rangers are confused as to what they're doing. Now, whether their approach works or not is another discussion.

But I really don't get the impression they're playing it by ear, as much they're not looking to make moves for the sake of making moves. Gorton, for better or worse, plays the game very methodically and calculated.
Completely agree. I think that Gorton has a specific plan and is playing the long game. His moves are calculated and do not factor in fan hysterics.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sooth

NYR Viper

Registered User
Sep 9, 2007
47,695
18,060
Jacksonville, FL
So, what's the difference between Kreider and Panarin? They're practically the same age. Panarin has a proven track record of (4) straight years of close to a ppg. Both LW's.

Let's throw out a scenario:

The Rangers trade Kreider at this year's TDL for a package similar to McDonagh:
1st '19 + (2) very good prospects

The Rangers in the off-season go out and sign Panarin for ~$9m per season (let's assume for a moment that Kreider gets $7m as a UFA which is comparable with a player like Evander Kane).

Is the $2m in cap space better spent on Kreider or Panarin? How about the assets recouped from trading Kreider.

The swap would end up being:

1st '19 + (2) very good prospects + Panarin (@$9m cap hit) for Kreider (@ $7m cap hit)

Also, Panarin's 7 year deal would take him to 35, while Kreider's would take him to 36. So Panarin would actually be in NY for more prime years.

It's similar in principle to the trade Gomez and sign Gaborik line of events from 7-8 years ago
 

Edge

Kris King's Ghost
Mar 1, 2002
34,749
42,578
Amish Paradise
I wish I was as confident about the Rangers not changing approaches, I am cynical by nature yet I can not imagine them being patient for two or three straight years. Like Go Away Staal said above, if it had not been for some of the contradicting moves made, buyout Girardi, trade Stepan, sign Shattenkirk, Smith and even the McQuaid trade I'd feel more confident. Even before that, the E Staal rental in particular.

I feel as if the teams record last season dictated their moves, I feel had this season kept going well or if it turns around for some reason, that will change their approach. If all those moves were Sather and friends ideas and Gorton was not acting autonomously, I'd probably understand it but I am not so sure that is the case.

I am also not sure why there seems to have been such a hurry to get Howden, Chytil, Lias, Georgiev into the NHL this season. As injury call ups I would see that as something that jives with a patient rebuild approach but removing a RFA year from Chytil and Lias, it kind of to me seems like it lends itself to they are trying to accelerate this.

I can't help but feel that as fans, especially on this board, we often run the risk of creating a catch-22 for the team.

If they bring the kids up slowly, it's never fast enough for us. If they bring them up sooner, we're rushing them and accelerating things. If we sign more vets to let the kids cook in the minors, that spawns a whole new set of concerns and debates.

I think when we start looking at some of the other moves, we were looking at the dying days of the old roster we assembled. So it's somewhat hard for me to look at them through the same prism as 2018 or 2019.

Gorton specifically mentioned his concerns heading into the 2017-2018 season about being in the dreaded middle. But I think it became painfully obvious by December and January that a new chapter was around the corner and that's the way we've been operating since.

The amount of picks we've acquired has been unprecedented and so it's hard to compare it to any other time in the franchise's history. I think the Rangers are continuing that approach this season. Honestly, the only conversations I see about the record changing our approach tend to be among fans --- specifically those on social media and websites. I haven't heard many, if any, people in the industry even hint at a direction change. At the very least, not those who are trying to generate business with clicks or content purchases.

The kids are playing because they're good enough to play. Not good enough to dominate, not good enough to be flawless, but good enough to learn and grow. Now that's not to say there aren't things I would do differently, the deployment of Andersson immediately springs to mind. But, all in all, I don't think there's anyone up who looks overwhelmed at the moment.

I would say that we are not nearly as far into this process as people think or may want to believe. At the very least, the accumulation of prospects and picks still has at least another half-a-year of runway ahead of it.

After that, I think you'll start to see movement and trades and acquisitions of older talent. But I'm pretty confident that this part of the journey is pretty straight forward.
 

Lion Hound

@JoeTucc26
Mar 12, 2007
8,295
3,693
Montauk NY
There should not be untouchables if the price is right, it’s just in certain situations the price has to be astronomical and therefore unrealistic.

In terms of trading Kreider it’s the same.

I think he’s an excellent player currently on a sweetheart deal that started to show getting into his own toward the end of 2016-2017 season. Last season would’ve been quite similar to this if not for his blood clot issue. Basing on this during this offseason I was quite positive that we would see this type of performance now and he’ll be providing to be a 30-30 power forward.

So losing him would open a pretty big whole in the Rangers core. One issue is that keeping him in the core beyond this contract would be (and should be) expensive. Here enters an opportunity (or if Kreider is traded - a need) to sign Panarin in the offseason. So if the discussion is Necas, Fox and signing Panarin in the offseason if Kreider is traded - I probably would do it.

Panarin - Zibanejad - Kravtsov
Necas - Chytil - Buchnevich
Andersson - Howden - xx
Vesey - xx - Fast

Miller - Fox
Skjei - ADA
Hajek - Pionk

Strome (or return in trade), Keane, Rykov, Lundkvist, Barron, own 2019 1st, return for Hayes, return for Zuke, return for Names,

The opportunity is there w/out trading Kreider to Land Panarin. The opportunity is also there to land Fox w/out trading Kreider. Not sure why the Rangers would move #20 for Necas. Id pass on that deal all day long...So If Panarin was to come here. And they manage to land Fox via trade of one of the expiring assets IMO that's the better option all day long.
 

Inferno

Registered User
Nov 27, 2005
29,682
7,950
Atlanta, GA
I have to admit, I don't think the Rangers are confused as to what they're doing. Now, whether their approach works or not is another discussion.

But I really don't get the impression they're playing it by ear, as much they're not looking to make moves for the sake of making moves. Gorton, for better or worse, plays the game very methodically and calculated.

I said it before, and I think it bears repeating, but I think the fans probably have more debates about the direction of the franchise than the front office. I think a number of guys are likely trade components and I think this team understands that this is going to be a multi-year process.

I don't think anything ever changed for them, not when this team was overachieving and some people were jumping the gun, and not when this team is struggling and people are growing frustrated. I honestly do not believe the ebb and flow of the season has impacted the team's thought process and approach at all.
The thing that annoys me...really. .is the Eric staal trade...I say that because most of us just knew that at that point the door was slamming shut...that was the perfect time to start trading guys...guys like yandle. It was not the time to add...I wish we started this process a little earlier.
 

Off Sides

Registered User
Sep 8, 2008
9,755
5,585
I can't help but feel that as fans, especially on this board, we often run the risk of creating a catch-22 for the team.

If they bring the kids up slowly, it's never fast enough for us. If they bring them up sooner, we're rushing them and accelerating things. If we sign more vets to let the kids cook in the minors, that spawns a whole new set of concerns and debates.

I think when we start looking at some of the other moves, we were looking at the dying days of the old roster we assembled. So it's somewhat hard for me to look at them through the same prism as 2018 or 2019.

Gorton specifically mentioned his concerns heading into the 2017-2018 season about being in the dreaded middle. But I think it became painfully obvious by December and January that a new chapter was around the corner and that's the way we've been operating since.

The amount of picks we've acquired has been unprecedented and so it's hard to compare it to any other time in the franchise's history. I think the Rangers are continuing that approach this season. Honestly, the only conversations I see about the record changing our approach tend to be among fans --- specifically those on social media and websites. I haven't heard many, if any, people in the industry even hint at a direction change. At the very least, not those who are trying to generate business with clicks or content purchases.

The kids are playing because they're good enough to play. Not good enough to dominate, not good enough to be flawless, but good enough to learn and grow. Now that's not to say there aren't things I would do differently, the deployment of Andersson immediately springs to mind. But, all in all, I don't think there's anyone up who looks overwhelmed at the moment.

I would say that we are not nearly as far into this process as people think or may want to believe. At the very least, the accumulation of prospects and picks still has at least another half-a-year of runway ahead of it.

After that, I think you'll start to see movement and trades and acquisitions of older talent. But I'm pretty confident that this part of the journey is pretty straight forward.


I hope you are correct in all that as that would be pretty much exactly what I would do if it were me, however I do believe a long term approach would not have included both Lias and Chytil being UFA eligible at age 26 instead of age 27. I see some growth there for certain but I am not going to discount that same growth could not have taken place with them spending a decent amount of time in the AHL, enough to not allow for them to accrue a NHL season.

If I am incorrect in that, that they would not have grown, what does that say about the AHL development the Rangers have?
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheTakedown

Ghost of jas

Unsatisfied
Feb 27, 2002
27,188
13,601
NJ
The thing that annoys me...really. .is the Eric staal trade...I say that because most of us just knew that at that point the door was slamming shut...that was the perfect time to start trading guys...guys like yandle. It was not the time to add...I wish we started this process a little earlier.


And yet, even that trade could have had it's merits if the coach at the time knew how to deploy his personnel properly.
 

haveandare

Registered User
Jul 2, 2009
18,979
7,591
New York
So, what's the difference between Kreider and Panarin? They're practically the same age. Panarin has a proven track record of (4) straight years of close to a ppg. Both LW's.

Let's throw out a scenario:

The Rangers trade Kreider at this year's TDL for a package similar to McDonagh:
1st '19 + (2) very good prospects

The Rangers in the off-season go out and sign Panarin for ~$9m per season (let's assume for a moment that Kreider gets $7m as a UFA which is comparable with a player like Evander Kane).

Is the $2m in cap space better spent on Kreider or Panarin? How about the assets recouped from trading Kreider.

The swap would end up being:

1st '19 + (2) very good prospects + Panarin (@$9m cap hit) for Kreider (@ $7m cap hit)

Also, Panarin's 7 year deal would take him to 35, while Kreider's would take him to 36. So Panarin would actually be in NY for more prime years.

It's similar in principle to the trade Gomez and sign Gaborik line of events from 7-8 years ago
The main difference imo is we can sign Kreider and be sure he's here, we can't do that for Panarin. If we move Kreider at the TDL to sign Panarin and then can't sign Panarin - which is completely possible since he'll be a UFA or even might be traded at the TDL himself and extend somewhere - then we lost a great player and didn't execute the other half to the move we were banking on.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bernmeister and jas

DutchShamrock

Registered User
Nov 22, 2005
8,104
3,060
New Jersey
There won’t be any compliance buyouts in the next CBA. The NHL isn’t looking for the players to take less than 50%.

.
I agree with everything about free agents and that it's a bad way to build a core.

But I'm not so sure about this part. Compliance buyouts aren't a PA driven issue. That's a GM issue to get out of bad contracts. The players would prefer to get paid out on 100% of their deal. Some make out by signing a new deal and the net is greater. But it's a gamble and some guys make 2/3 of their guaranteed contract.

This is an issue between big markets, who pay a ton in revenue sharing, and smaller ones, who receive millions because they staked a claim in a bad market and ice bad teams. The use of compliance buyouts will be decided by the owners, not because the players conceded something else and this is compensation.

Lockouts and buyouts are tradition in hockey, and as such, I will believe neither happens when I see it.
 

Kupo

MAFIA, MOUNT UP!
Sponsor
Oct 31, 2017
11,634
24,705
Stamford CT
I believe that the organization views Zbad and Kreider and being here on the other side of the rebuild, as the veteran leaders for this team. Resigning him has nothing to do with a mentality, it has everything to do with his raised level of play and new found leadership.
I don't disagree, but I do wonder what teams would be willing to offer us for him.
 

Rongomania

Registered User
Dec 31, 2017
3,945
5,195
Inwood
The thing that annoys me...really. .is the Eric staal trade...I say that because most of us just knew that at that point the door was slamming shut...that was the perfect time to start trading guys...guys like yandle. It was not the time to add...I wish we started this process a little earlier.

Yeah, we just went for it man. If Eric Staal had played for us like he wound up playing in MIN, who the hell knows what would have happened.

Ugh
 

Inferno

Registered User
Nov 27, 2005
29,682
7,950
Atlanta, GA
If the rangers weren't in on tavares...why would they be in on panarin? Centers are more valuable.

I mean..I get that tavares wasn't interested in the rangers...but it sure seemed like it was mutual.

Tavares is better than panarin.
 

Lion Hound

@JoeTucc26
Mar 12, 2007
8,295
3,693
Montauk NY
So, what's the difference between Kreider and Panarin? They're practically the same age. Panarin has a proven track record of (4) straight years of close to a ppg. Both LW's.

Let's throw out a scenario:

The Rangers trade Kreider at this year's TDL for a package similar to McDonagh:
1st '19 + (2) very good prospects

The Rangers in the off-season go out and sign Panarin for ~$9m per season (let's assume for a moment that Kreider gets $7m as a UFA which is comparable with a player like Evander Kane).

Is the $2m in cap space better spent on Kreider or Panarin? How about the assets recouped from trading Kreider.

The swap would end up being:

1st '19 + (2) very good prospects + Panarin (@$9m cap hit) for Kreider (@ $7m cap hit)

Also, Panarin's 7 year deal would take him to 35, while Kreider's would take him to 36. So Panarin would actually be in NY for more prime years.

It's similar in principle to the trade Gomez and sign Gaborik line of events from 7-8 years ago

The difference is adding Panarin w/out Moving Kreider make the NYR are very tough team to contend against. The left side would give opposing clubs fits.
 

Edge

Kris King's Ghost
Mar 1, 2002
34,749
42,578
Amish Paradise
The thing that annoys me...really. .is the Eric staal trade...I say that because most of us just knew that at that point the door was slamming shut...that was the perfect time to start trading guys...guys like yandle. It was not the time to add...I wish we started this process a little earlier.

And the truth is, I can't really disagree with you.

I wasn't a huge fan of the Staal trade, and personally I wanted to move Yandle for assets if we weren't going to resign him.

Now, having said that, look at how much (somewhat surprising) debate we're having this season, even after it was pretty apparent that a reboot was needed.

Can you imagine the division on here had we done that two or even three years ago? Not that it would impact the front office, they could care less what we debate about. But I think there's always this perception that certain concepts are going to be more widely accepted by the fandom than they are. Admitedly, I am somewhat guilty of this myself.

For years I thought management's excuse that fans wouldn't sit through a rebuild was false. After the past year, I've come to realize that there's a significant degree of truth there.
 

Edge

Kris King's Ghost
Mar 1, 2002
34,749
42,578
Amish Paradise
@Edge ...what're your thoughts on panarin ? I'm out...I don't think the timing is right

All about the price and the term.

I think he would be a good fit for this team, and I'm keenly interested in providing flanks for our young centers.

But I'd have to see what kind of contract we're talking about.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kovazub94

True Blue

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
30,092
8,362
Visit site
I don't disagree, but I do wonder what teams would be willing to offer us for him.
At this point, it would be a return for sun, moon and stars. It would have to be the Godfather trade. An offer that Gorton could not refuse. That's what it would take, IMO. You start to mention some of the names that others have thrown around from the 'Canes, that's the start of a pretty good conversation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad