Speculation: Roster Building Thread: Part XX

  • Xenforo Cloud will be upgrading us to version 2.3.5 on March 3rd at 12 AM GMT. This version has increased stability and fixes several bugs. We expect downtime for the duration of the update. The admin team will continue to work on existing issues, templates and upgrade all necessary available addons to minimize impact of this new version. Click Here for Updates
  • We're expeting server maintenance on March 3rd starting at midnight, there may be downtime during the work.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Anyone else crossing their fingers that Skjei being dealt to a team like Montreal is the trade that nobody saw coming?
I think Skjei would retire early if he was traded from the rangers to the Canadiens.

He strikes me as a guy who wants to play somewhere there is no spotlight or pressure.

That’s who he is.

Now he’s a good kid and he’s trying to do right by the rangers bc of the contract they gave him. But I think he knows he may be on the outs and can’t wait till the shoes drops
 
And JT Miller is on his second team since the Rangers, and if he were here, he'd be our Ryan Strome. A guy who looks good on the stat sheet when paired with a star or superstar player.

So essentially we replaced Miller with Strome. Same age. Same ability when put in the right situation. Same production. Similar salary.
Oh don't get me wrong, I'm not clamoring to have Miller back or anything. But I've never seen revisionist history SO bad on our boards.
 
Oh don't get me wrong, I'm not clamoring to have Miller back or anything. But I've never seen revisionist history SO bad on our boards.


There were a ton of us who were miller supporters. The rangers put out legs that miller wasn’t a good locker room guy to have as a vet on the rebuilding team. I accepted that

I am now looking at it through the lense that we want more players like Pepe who have combo of skill/grit and when miller is on his game, he’s a top 25 guy in the league in that regard. As 40 Pts in 41 games shows
 
I wouldn’t undo the trade either. I’m saying I’d have preferred to include a different guy, ala buchnevich and that I’d rather him Miller in buch’s Role.

That’s what I mean by one id give a lot to have back. The chance to include buch instead of miller

And I still rather have miller’s combo than buch’s combo even if both were putting up similar pounts

I do wonder what would happen though.

Miller very well could still be doing the 25 goal, 45-50 point thing here, while Buch could be doing the 30 goal, 70+ point thing somewhere else and we'd be right back to saying, "I wish we'd moved Miller and held onto Buch."

And beyond production, we still would've have to give Miller something comparable to his current deal. Assuming we didn't deal him anyway, because of said contract demands, there's a good possibility he's dealt if we pursue Panarin. Either that or Kreider is moved, because I don't think they'd have Panarin, Kreider and Miller all on this roster at their current salaries.

That's one of the things that often gets overlooked in some of these deals. We didn't trade guys who had multiple years left on established deals, we traded guys who were coming up on some degree of free agency and who all got raises upon leaving the Rangers.

McD and Miller alone would be $13 million, so there goes Panarin right there.

Separate from that, Hayes would push that total up above $20 million. We keep anywhere from 1-3 of those guys, and this is a very different roster, albeit not necessary a better one.
 
There were a ton of us who were miller supporters. The rangers put out legs that miller wasn’t a good locker room guy to have as a vet on the rebuilding team. I accepted that

I am now looking at it through the lense that we want more players like Pepe who have combo of skill/grit and when miller is on his game, he’s a top 25 guy in the league in that regard. As 40 Pts in 41 games shows

Yeah... did they though? I could be wrong but I don't ever recall that being the case. It was widely speculated here before the trade that there were locker room issues but that is as far as I remember it going and although there might have been some JT supporters, the number of detractors FAR outweighed the supporters. Go look at any roster building thread or GDT from the 2017-2018 season. I don't want to derail this thread about a guy who no longer plays for us but...

At the end of the day you're going to win some trades and lose some trades and I don't think the jury is fully out on that deal. While the JT part is a bit tough to swallow for some, JG also turned around and traded guy that is no longer in the NHL in Spooner for Strome. He turned Brassard into Zibby.

I firmly believe that if Gorton was the GM of another team our fans would be clamoring to have him as our GM, not realizing that no GM is perfect and that he has made some iffy deals in addition to the great ones. It happens. Fixing our defensive system would go a long way towards the Rangers being a competitive team on a consistent basis. Until that happens, any moves to improve will be lipstick on a pig.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DutchShamrock
Yeah... did they though? I could be wrong but I don't ever recall that being the case. It was widely speculated here before the trade that there were locker room issues but that is as far as I remember it going and although there might have been some JT supporters, the number of detractors FAR outweighed the supporters. Go look at any roster building thread or GDT from the 2017-2018 season. I don't want to derail this thread about a guy who no longer plays for us but...

At the end of the day you're going to win some trades and lose some trades and I don't think the jury is fully out on that deal. While the JT part is a bit tough to swallow for some, JG also turned around and traded guy that is no longer in the NHL in Spooner for Strome. He turned Brassard into Zibby.

I firmly believe that if Gorton was the GM of another team our fans would be clamoring to have him as our GM, not realizing that no GM is perfect and that he has made some iffy deals as well. It happens. Fixing our defensive system would go a long way towards the Rangers being a competitive team on a consistent basis. Until that happens, any moves to improve will be lipstick on a pig.

Right now, factoring in trade trees and how assets were used, the deal for the Rangers is:

McD and Miller for Howden, Hajek, Lundkvist, Henriksson and a fourth.

I mean as far as trading for futures goes, that's not a bad deal.
 
Right now, factoring in trade trees and how assets were used, the deal for the Rangers is:

McD and Miller for Howden, Hajek, Lundkvist, Henriksson and a fourth.

I mean as far as trading for futures goes, that's not a bad deal.
For a rebuilding team? No, it is not a bad deal at all. Especially with how Lundkvist is progressing.
 
Anyone else crossing their fingers that Skjei being dealt to a team like Montreal is the trade that nobody saw coming?

I've been critical of Skjei a lot, but I'm not sure how you trade him.

The LHD is so bad. It's awful. Skjei is arguable the only one who looks like he belongs in the league consistently this season. Miller isn't NHL ready. Who else is close?
 
I've been critical of Skjei a lot, but I'm not sure how you trade him.

The LHD is so bad. It's awful. Skjei is arguable the only one who looks like he belongs in the league consistently this season. Miller isn't NHL ready. Who else is close?

Rykov

I also believe Lindgren and Hajek are at the very least serviceable #6's at this point
 
For a rebuilding team? No, it is not a bad deal at all. Especially with how Lundkvist is progressing.

I think it's also worth noting that when a team trades for futures, fair value is always going to be hard to achieve --- always.

But I also think people tend to compartmentalize deals and roster building and don't always take into account that building a roster has a lot of connected components.

So if you have Miller, you don't have Strome. If you have McD, you don't Lundkvist. If you have both Miller and McD, you likely don't have Panarin, and/or Kreider is already gone.

You have subtle aspects that you don't necessarily think about. If you don't have multiple seconds, you maybe don't have a scenario where the team feels as comfortable upping the ante on an offer to Carolina for Fox.

So many of these things are interconnected.

Yes, you can say Miller would be nice to have on the wings right now, and McD would help on our LD.

But would someone take them over Panarin? No, most wouldn't. And in order to fit Panarin, you're right back to moving those guys --- albeit in a different deal at a different time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gardner McKay
Rykov

I also believe Lindgren and Hajek are at the very least serviceable #6's at this point

But who is taking on top mins? That's more where I was going. I'm prob more negative on Lindgren and Hajek than most, but I could agree to serviceable 3rd pair. But Rykov never played in the league. Who is taking the top LHD mins?

I just see it as a major organization weakness, and then compounding that by trading Skjei. I know we're rebuilding - but we're not like 5 years away from competing here. Or we shouldn't be.
 
Aside from the last 2 or 3 games, I honestly think Lindgren has solidified himself as the 3LD over Hajek. It may not be fair since Hajek was injured, but looking at his play prior to the injury I simply think Lindgren was better. Since we acquired them I felt that there was no way that both of them go the distance with the organization, but now with Rykov banging on the door I definitely do not see a future for one of them. Given that DQ is coach I think Lindgren wins that battle and Hajek will be a throw in in a trade. I think Hajek is a serviceable #6 and is a valuable addition to someone like Kreider or Geo or maybe even Lias.
 
Can’t give up on Hajek. He was the focal point of the McDonagh trade.

Lindgren doesn’t have much upside, he probably tops out at a bottom pairing guy

Hajek needs to go down to Hartford and play well. I think that would be the best place for him the rest of this year
 
I do wonder what would happen though.

Miller very well could still be doing the 25 goal, 45-50 point thing here, while Buch could be doing the 30 goal, 70+ point thing somewhere else and we'd be right back to saying, "I wish we'd moved Miller and held onto Buch."

And beyond production, we still would've have to give Miller something comparable to his current deal. Assuming we didn't deal him anyway, because of said contract demands, there's a good possibility he's dealt if we pursue Panarin. Either that or Kreider is moved, because I don't think they'd have Panarin, Kreider and Miller all on this roster at their current salaries.

That's one of the things that often gets overlooked in some of these deals. We didn't trade guys who had multiple years left on established deals, we traded guys who were coming up on some degree of free agency and who all got raises upon leaving the Rangers.

McD and Miller alone would be $13 million, so there goes Panarin right there.

Separate from that, Hayes would push that total up above $20 million. We keep anywhere from 1-3 of those guys, and this is a very different roster, albeit not necessary a better one.

It’s the same revisionist history that says the Rangers should have kept Hayes and not bought out Shattenkirk.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Trxjw
Can’t give up on Hajek. He was the focal point of the McDonagh trade.

Lindgren doesn’t have much upside, he probably tops out at a bottom pairing guy

Hajek needs to go down to Hartford and play well. I think that would be the best place for him the rest of this year

I don't necessarily agree as players can sometimes take unexpected steps in their progression but if you are right, there isn't anything wrong with that. Having a guy like him solidifying our third pairing would go a long way to helping this team regain some of the depth it had not too long ago.
 
But who is taking on top mins? That's more where I was going. I'm prob more negative on Lindgren and Hajek than most, but I could agree to serviceable 3rd pair. But Rykov never played in the league. Who is taking the top LHD mins?

I just see it as a major organization weakness, and then compounding that by trading Skjei. I know we're rebuilding - but we're not like 5 years away from competing here. Or we shouldn't be.

For me, I'd be looking at next year and the year after. If there is a good deal available for Skjei I take it, knowing it may be slightly painful until a replacement is found. In saying that, I do believe in Hajek, Lindgren and Rykov even if they all end up topping out at 4/5 d-men as they will be playing with Trouba, ADA and Fox, guys who they can support and play sound defensive games. I also don't believe it would be that difficult, or that expensive to find a middle-pairing LD either via trade from a team looking to shed some cap or via UFA.

Again, I don't see a direct answer to his replacement right now but if we take a bit longer viewpoint, that's okay. The same thing was done with MZA, Hayes, McDonagh, Miller, Nash, etc.
 
I don't necessarily agree as players can sometimes take unexpected steps in their progression but if you are right, there isn't anything wrong with that. Having a guy like him solidifying our third pairing would go a long way to helping this team regain some of the depth it had not too long ago.

Yeah, I'm of the mindset that if Lindgren can become a good third pair defenseman, with snarl, that's not a bad outcome.

I mean if Miller "only" becomes a second pair defenseman, the trade tree breaks down to a second pair defenseman, a third pair defenseman and guy who clicks with Panarin as the return for 20 games of Rick Nash.
 
Can we just call it even?

Miller was traded but he traded Spooner for Strome?

Two years out, I've always felt the Rangers got fair value.

Like a hockey fight, there's typically a lot more close scraps than all-out beat-downs. So declaring a winner or loser can get a little subjective at times. Results can also change drastically due to unforeseen circumstances. For example, if a player gets hurt, it changes the outcome and conversation.

Personally, I've usually tended to focus on the value component of a trade --- context, timing, climate, market rates, etc.
 
Kreider and Andersson for a 1st and Bennett good value ? Need more ?

I'm not doing back flips with that return but it isn't completely unfair. Kreider is worth a 1st +- a little bit and I can't imagine Andersson having sky high value. Although, I'm not exactly a Sam Bennett fan so I might be biased on this deal.

If that is the best deal on the table come 2:59, fine. I'd be aggressively searching for something better though.
 
And JT Miller is on his second team since the Rangers, and if he were here, he'd be our Ryan Strome. A guy who looks good on the stat sheet when paired with a star or superstar player.

So essentially we replaced Miller with Strome. Same age. Same ability when put in the right situation. Same production. Similar salary.

Strome is better liked. At least by ADA. ; )
 
I feel like I'd need a little more in that deal.

If you assume the going rate for Kreider is a first and a b prospect, I'm not sure that a first and Bennett is too far off from that --- because I more or less don't care that Bennett was a high pick nearly 6 years ago.

And even if we assume that Andersson is "only" a potential fourth line player, maybe a third line player, that's essentially what Bennett is. If he blossoms with us and becomes more than that, so be it. But I can't bank on that in a deal.

So my guess is that Calgary would need to add a little something.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad