Speculation: Roster Building Thread: Part XX

  • Xenforo Cloud has upgraded us to version 2.3.6. Please report any issues you experience.
Status
Not open for further replies.
If, and only if, we luck out and get Jack Hughes this summer I definitely think we should put the pedal to the metal and try to get out of the rebuild ASAP. There is too many negatives with a rebuild, and the key with one should only be to get an 'usp'.

Lets say that Gorts deal Hayes for Colorado's 1st and Kaut, Zucc (plus a 2nd-3rd?) for a late 1st and say Shatty before the draft next summer. Brings back two more 1st round picks. Some other guys for later picks. Use a 2nd rounder to deal up with Colorado's 1st. We luck out and win the lottery. You take Hughes with our pick, another kid in the mid-1st and a third at the end of the 1st. 3-4 guys in the 2nd-3rd round. TDA from the Step trade. Lias and Chytil in the 2017 draft. Kravtsov, Miller and Lundkvist in 2018. Two more 1st round picks in 2019 besides Hughes. That is enough to constitute a very strong farm.

Then build around Hughes. Go out and like sign Erik Karlsson next summer. The year after guys like Trouba, Pietangelo and co might hit UFA. Never go for it or mortgage the future, just try to give yourself as many chances as possible to contend with a team built around Hughes.

Next year:
Kaut-Ziba-Kravtsov
Names-Chytil-Buch
Kreider-Hughes-Fast
Vesey-Lias-Vinny L
B Smith-Karlsson
Skjei-TDA
Staal-Pionk
Hank

The kids should have a solid chance to develop on that team. Young and enthusiastic. Probably be on the verge to make the POs if Hughes has a good year, he isn't McD II but I still think he could do some damage next season.

You add another 1st rounder in the summer of 2020. You let vet contracts expire and try to move Staal and Smith ASAP. Go out and get like Pieterangelo? Deal one of TDA/Pionk. The kids develop one more year. Add more picks.

The 2020 team should be a good PO team and have a heck of a farm. And a roster that only is getting better. The option from my POV is to keep tanking and get all kind of problems, poorly developed kids etc. You stop tanking when you get the 'usp', Hughes would be our 'usp'.

Even if they are able to snag Hughes, I'd wait another year before doing much buying with this roster. Have another solid draft in 2020 and then look to turn the corner. You need to let some of these kids develop and leaning on one kid, even a kid like Hughes, to do all of the heavy lifting himself is a bad idea. Also, signing Karlsson who will be 28 at the start of his contract to help Hughes who will be 18 seems like their prime years would not line up. Patience. Clear the roster of the bad cap guys. Draft well.
 
I think that if the Rangers retain 2/3 salary, they MIGHT have a chance to trade Staal to a contender looking to bolster their third pairing and get some veteran leadership. Trading Shattenkirk is a pipe dream. but I guess he needs to play in order to hope that he might raise his value a bit. Smith, otoh, I think is done for. He is both untradeable and if that is the case, just ship him to Hartford and try to forget about him for a few years.

For that matter, maybe Shattenkirk should be treated similarly. I just cannot see anyone taking him.

The Rangers can only eat half of that contract (or any contract).
 
  • Like
Reactions: bernmeister
Even if they are able to snag Hughes, I'd wait another year before doing much buying with this roster. Have another solid draft in 2020 and then look to turn the corner. You need to let some of these kids develop and leaning on one kid, even a kid like Hughes, to do all of the heavy lifting himself is a bad idea. Also, signing Karlsson who will be 28 at the start of his contract to help Hughes who will be 18 seems like their prime years would not line up. Patience. Clear the roster of the bad cap guys. Draft well.

I fear those "lets wait another year" pretty much in relation to the kids we already have. They often have a really really bad impact on kids.
 
This has always been my point with Nash. Attitude, conditioning, intangibles don't mean **** when you agree to that contract. The expectations are higher. Now people want to **** on Zuccarello who has made something like half as much as Nash ever, because he knows he's leaving this club and is conflicted? Give me a ****ing break.

The reasonable expectation for any long term contract that takes a player well into his 30s is that the last part of the deal is probably going to be for a diminished player. So, I don’t agree that the expectations should’ve been higher for Nash during the period of time we’re discussing. What the attitude, conditioning and intangibles should be telling us is that if Nash was still capable of producing like he did earlier in his career, he would have been. The thing is that he wasn’t, but he at least tried to adjust his game to his new physical reality.

What’s going on with Zuccarello is that it’s uncertain whether or not he’s capable of producing the way he used to, because he’s either not playing the same way or hasn’t adjusted his game to a new physical reality. That’s disappointing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Do you want ants
I fear those "lets wait another year" pretty much in relation to the kids we already have. They often have a really really bad impact on kids.

I personally would prefer to try and go after Hall in 2020 than Panarin this year, assuming he hits FA.
 
Is that right? They are not allowed to eat more than half of a contract?

If that is the case, then none of the S's are tradeable.

They're all tradeable. It's just a matter of what the Rangers have to take back in exchange. I've laid out a couple of deals for Brendan Smith I would see as possible/reasonable for both sides in the past. One with Dallas and the other with Ottawa. Similar deals could be found for the other two as well I am sure.
 
I don't think the Rangers are opposed to adding the right guys, at the right time.

But I don't think they've been keen to add players for the sake of adding, or getting into bidding wars for players they like, but don't necessarily love.
 
From my point of view I value Zibanejad over Skjei but we can't trade every single defenseman and Skjei IMO is the best we have. That's not saying a lot because I see him as a second paring guy but I still hold on to him.

I only see danger in that kind of thinking. I know his rookie season gave many people, including the Ranger FO, to think more highly of Skjei. But, I don’t think ‘we need to keep because he’s the best we got’ is a good philosophy to build a team.
 
  • Like
Reactions: wafflepadsave
The whole Zuccarello situation is very strange when you consider two things:

1. He's very likely to be traded to a Stanley Cup contender within the next 6 weeks
2. He's in a contract year in which he can sign with anyone he'd like come July

Why the moping? I wouldn't be surprised if he heads back to Europe after this season. One thing is for certain, his on-ice play and off-ice demeanor is hurting his trade value, and that should piss any Ranger fan off.
 
Yeah, it's not ideal. But I simply can't put it on the same level of day-to-day matters that...well...really matter.

Yeah, he might have to move (he knew it was coming for a year). But his salary isn't going down, and in a few months he gets to choose his destination and make millions of dollars to do it.

Again, it's a pain in the ass, and there's going to be emotions tied to it. But at the end of the day, he's not "losing" anything.

But even beyond that, he's a professional and he's in a leadership position. He's expected to help set a tone, even when there are days he might feeling punching a hole in the wall. That's the burden of leadership and that's that people expect.

Again, we’re not talking about true adversity. I spent two years underemployed at a time in my life when I thought I may be too old to stay in my career field. People have faced real adversity being laid off at later times in life, and aren’t finishing out multi-million dollar contracts. And even if it’s his last NHL contract, he goes home to Norway, and then likely plays in the KHL.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HatTrick Swayze
The reasonable expectation for any long term contract that takes a player well into his 30s is that the last part of the deal is probably going to be for a diminished player. So, I don’t agree that the expectations should’ve been higher for Nash during the period of time we’re discussing. What the attitude, conditioning and intangibles should be telling us is that if Nash was still capable of producing like he did earlier in his career, he would have been. The thing is that he wasn’t, but he at least tried to adjust his game to his new physical reality.

What’s going on with Zuccarello is that it’s uncertain whether or not he’s capable of producing the way he used to, because he’s either not playing the same way or hasn’t adjusted his game to a new physical reality. That’s disappointing.
It might be ok with you to pay a forechecker 8 mill/season. Call me crazy, I expect more.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pld459666
They're all tradeable. It's just a matter of what the Rangers have to take back in exchange. I've laid out a couple of deals for Brendan Smith I would see as possible/reasonable for both sides in the past. One with Dallas and the other with Ottawa. Similar deals could be found for the other two as well I am sure.
They would have to take back an onerous contract on an underperforming player. Not sure why that would be done. And Smith has just been horrendous for two years now. Shattenkirk is a shell of his former self and now has the injury history to boot. After this year, it is still two years of full contracts on both of them. With no offense, who is picking them up and why?
I would very much quietly offer up Skjei around the league
No issues with that. Can't see Gorton doing it though.
 
The whole Zuccarello situation is very strange when you consider two things:

1. He's very likely to be traded to a Stanley Cup contender within the next 6 weeks
2. He's in a contract year in which he can sign with anyone he'd like come July

Why the moping? I wouldn't be surprised if he heads back to Europe after this season. One thing is for certain, his on-ice play and off-ice demeanor is hurting his trade value, and that should piss any Ranger fan off.
Maybe he values being on this team and in this city more than he values winning a cup. Fans used to appreciate that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GodlyRangers
Again, we’re not talking about true adversity. I spent two years underemployed at a time in my life when I thought I may be too old to stay in my career field. People have faced real adversity being laid off at later times in life, and aren’t finishing out multi-million dollar contracts. And even if it’s his last NHL contract, he goes home to Norway, and then likely plays in the KHL.

In a vacuum I would agree, but it all depends on where you're standing, I guess. People react to what they have to deal with, and all people react differently. I mean, your situation wouldn't come close to qualifying as "real adversity" for a vast majority of the world.

It would be nice if everyone in the world had perspective, but that's not a realistic expectation.
 
They would have to take back an onerous contract on an underperforming player. Not sure why that would be done. And Smith has just been horrendous for two years now. Shattenkirk is a shell of his former self and now has the injury history to boot. After this year, it is still two years of full contracts on both of them. With no offense, who is picking them up and why?

No issues with that. Can't see Gorton doing it though.

The deals I mentioned were:


Smith for Hanzal + Nichuskin

or

B Smith for Z Smith + Mike Condon

Real Salary is less for the Stars and Sens. Both teams have more need on defense than on offense. Both teams are not cap teams so saving real $$ means they can improve elsewhere.

I laid out the year by year salaries both in real dollars and cap hits to show why they may be attractive to both teams. I think both would be reasonable for both teams to try to re-arrange their teams and create a win-win situation.
 
In a vacuum I would agree, but it all depends on where you're standing, I guess. People react to what they have to deal with, and all people react differently. I mean, your situation wouldn't come close to qualifying as "real adversity" for a vast majority of the world.

It would be nice if everyone in the world had perspective, but that's not a realistic expectation.

I realize that, also. Yes, they’re called first world problems. I don’t normally have to worry about finding my next meal, having my home heated, my home being robbed, my water being unusable and other such comforts of living where I am. I don’t take that for granted. But, again, that should make Zuccarello’s ‘situation’ even sillier to be have concern about.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Edge
Again, we’re not talking about true adversity. I spent two years underemployed at a time in my life when I thought I may be too old to stay in my career field. People have faced real adversity being laid off at later times in life, and aren’t finishing out multi-million dollar contracts. And even if it’s his last NHL contract, he goes home to Norway, and then likely plays in the KHL.

I think this conversation kind of highlights the point in my life I'm at.

I love hockey and really enjoy it. It gave me a great sport to play as a kid, launched my career, and many projects still take me in and out of the sport. But it's not the most important thing in my life.

And the truth is, I've spent a lot of time around people with major things going on and so it gives you perspective. Be it one's ability to support their family, or health, or other issues, those are things that have major impacts on life.

The things we're talking about here are unfortunate, or a pain, but they're not crises. They're just not.

Zucc may be disappointed, but in the grand scheme of things, this particular situation isn't really an adversity. It's an experience, it's an unpleasant experience, but it's not an adversity that must be overcome as life and livelihood hang in the balance.

Next week, Zucc may wake up in a different city, in a hotel room or apartment he is renting, and he'll still get paid, and he'll still do what he loves, and he'll still have his health. He won't worry about which utility bill to pay, he won't figure out how he's going to eat, he won't have to calculate how much unemployment will pay him, or how to put clothes on his kid, or even what school they will be attending.

Even as far as hockey players go, he doesn't have to worry about uprooting kids or some of those other factors.

Zucc will be more okay than most people who have ever walked on this planet's soil.

And that's the difference between adversity and inconvenience.
 
I'm very reluctant to do anything with long term consequences just to jettison Smith, Staal or Shattenkirk. 2 years. I don't see it being a problem in the sense that we won't be contending in that time, we won't need that cap, and right now we don't really need their spots for NHL ready youths.

The moment one of those change, I can understand the need for change. Do not turn a bad 2 year deal into a bad 4 year cap hit. Do not take on someone else's problem without relieving them of an asset. Do not part with an asset for the sole benefit of not seeing them play here.

Staal, and I'll get killed for this, does not play as bad as the echo chamber here says. He is blamed for everything, good play by their forward or bad play by his teammate. Not worth his salary, but not "worst player" by any stretch. Regardless, NMC. Before we spam the topic of moving Staal, let's accept that huge hurdle.

Shattenkirk, if his role is as a bottom pair or specialist, his cap hit negates any chance of a trade. Much like last season, the only thing that can help here is time. Either he puts it back together or the contract runs its course.

Smith is the most likely to move. Teams still value what he brought in that Ottawa series. Lots of question marks obviously.
 
  • Like
Reactions: leetch99 and LORDE
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad