Toggle sidebar

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
Status
Not open for further replies.
Bottom-6 or more specifically the 4th line makeup will sort itself out after the Rangers are done building the top lines. I mean earlier we were talking about (or at least I was) Chytil - Buch on the 3rd line (which would be a great depth) and Lemieux - Jost (via trade for Kreider) - Howden on the 4th. Would it be such a bad option for the bottom line 2 years from now?
Personally, I really like Fast’s game and what he’s done for the organization. But his playing style is not conducive to longevity. He’s had injuries too. The contract he’ll get would be based on what ANY team could decide to offer. It will be his best chance to put aside for post-hockey career. Plus, from the Rangers perspective, it would mean passing on whatever he could bring via trade.
Things just don’t seem to add up to support the “keep him” decision.
 
Edge said:
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.
Click to expand...
I had a Calgary fan tell me the other day he loves skjei and that hanifan would be available for him. Just saying. Was never really a hanifan guy though either
 
Edge said:
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.
Click to expand...

I actually wouldn’t mind a little extra sandpaper that Bennett would bring to the line up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: egelband and wafflepadsave
Edge said:
Which is another variable, owing quite a bit to chance/good fortune.

Especially for a team that's had as much turnover at the Rangers, untangling deals from one another can be incredibly difficult. To some degree, a good chunk of the moves are interconnected and changing one variable has a butterfly effect that cascades across the entire organization.

In a world with salary caps and contract considerations, it's not easy to cherry pick the moves and players we want to keep. Certain contracts prevent other moves, and the assets you acquire and utilize, aren't available if you don't make the initial trade.
Click to expand...
Ummm I agree with the gist of what your saying.

But personally I’m talking from the premise that Kreider is going and then I’d rather have included buchnevich in the Mcdonuts deal, which if I knew beforehand J.T. was presumed to go in that deal, I would have been saying it then. I just took the organizations word that J.T. wasn’t a good fit. And maybe paramountly important, it’s true.

Also strome came for spooner, so I don’t know why it’s miller or strome.

To me it’s more: Kreiders likely moving on and it’s miller in for buch
 
Edge said:
I'm not really sure what you're referring to. I have them in the same boat, with the similar story lines here, and similar story lines if the roles were reversed and Buch was in Vancouver.
Click to expand...
Hence why we should trade him, he’s worth more to another team then he is to ours right now bc of fits. And hence why he has the kind of value we were talking last summer
 
Edge said:
It's such a tricky area where those types.

On the one hand, it can be easy to overpay them. On the other hand, I think there's a mindset that they're easy to replace. Then we let them go and that loss is immediately felt as we try to find a replacement for the guy we just lost.

I'm in the camp that it comes down to the terms, and the potential return trade value. Right now at forward, we have Kravtsov potentially being on the horizon, and maybe Barron. But we're not exactly flush with forward prospects pushing for spots in the immediate future. So even if we move Fast, I don't think our approach is going to involve calling Kravtsov up. It would likely lead to another move.
Click to expand...
As unsexy and unpopular as it will be to some in my neck of the blogwoods, the rangers would be making a big mistake to trade Fast. I thought he might be slowing down towards the end and beginning of this year, but mid-year and he’s the same guy. A lot like Jan erixon from what I remember
 
  • Like
Reactions: egelband and Unusual Suspect
Gorton had tried to recruit Jim Monty but he went with a readier team in Dallas so we went with Quinn. Maybe after his few months of self admitted alcoholism recovery program, management might take another run at it as a replacement for a Quinn that as a teaching coach, may have expended all the tools in his tool box.
 
Bleed Ranger Blue said:
We haven't had anywhere near enough depth under Quinn to even identify what a 4th liner should be.
Click to expand...

I am usually not that critical of coaches albeit I thought Torts just pushed us in the wrong direction in relation to the development of the game in the NHL.

But Quinn isn’t even trying to have a 4th line that can play a solid shift. You make your own bed. These guys aren’t the most talented to start with. If you play Brendan Smith with them it won’t even remotely work. He is just trying to berserk the ice. Create havoc. Nobody can do anything on that line.

I just think that it’s idiotic to not try to have a 4 line team. Your 4th should challenge your 3rd every night. If a line is t getting it done, the minutes should be cut.

To be brutally honest, DQ is really looking like rookie coach in over his head right now. He is constantly crying and criticism his players about the same thing over and over again. He is focusing on things that everyone can see are not the most fundamental issues his team got to deal with. He reminds me a lot of Renney in Vancouver to be honest. I think he has lost the room too. Where is the positive energy?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Avery16
Ola said:
I am usually not that critical of coaches albeit I thought Torts just pushed us in the wrong direction in relation to the development of the game in the NHL.

But Quinn isn’t even trying to have a 4th line that can play a solid shift. You make your own bed. These guys aren’t the most talented to start with. If you play Brendan Smith with them it won’t even remotely work. He is just trying to berserk the ice. Create havoc. Nobody can do anything on that line.

I just think that it’s idiotic to not try to have a 4 line team. Your 4th should challenge your 3rd every night. If a line is t getting it done, the minutes should be cut.

To be brutally honest, DQ is really looking like rookie coach in over his head right now. He is constantly crying and criticism his players about the same thing over and over again. He is focusing on things that everyone can see are not the most fundamental issues his team got to deal with. He reminds me a lot of Renney in Vancouver to be honest. I think he has lost the room too. Where is the positive energy?
Click to expand...

How’s that Quinn’s issue? He plays who he got on the roster.
 
Tob said:
Gorton had tried to recruit Jim Monty but he went with a readier team in Dallas so we went with Quinn. Maybe after his few months of self admitted alcoholism recovery program, management might take another run at it as a replacement for a Quinn that as a teaching coach, may have expended all the tools in his tool box.
Click to expand...
I don’t believe that’s the chronology. Just my gut.

I think Montgomery choice to sign with Dallas bc an official offer never came from Gorts bc he had already pitched Quinn and was waiting on him, they said they talked to Quinn early and then had to press him again two months later before he agreed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: egelband
Tob said:
Gorton had tried to recruit Jim Monty but he went with a readier team in Dallas so we went with Quinn. Maybe after his few months of self admitted alcoholism recovery program, management might take another run at it as a replacement for a Quinn that as a teaching coach, may have expended all the tools in his tool box.
Click to expand...
Montgomery said he isn’t built for the NYC life

And honestly I can’t see the Rangers wanting to associate with him after this stuff has come out.
 
Brady Skeji is playing his way out of being part of the future nucleus. More and more, I’m expecting him to be moved in the off-season.

And as I review the days posts, I am amused by the lack of respect that Fast gets from our group. Players like him are hard to find and more valuable than you can imagine. The Rangers need more players like him, not fewer. Over the past two summers, I’ve made a point of hoping they would do exactly that (e.g. Jay Beagle, Brian Boyle) Send him off and you will be pining to replace him three months later.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Unusual Suspect and mrhockey193195
Matz03 said:
I mean just dress 9 d while you’re at it, brilliant
Click to expand...

Four lines of forwards is an archaic strategy that I bet will be out of the league at some point in the (not so soon) future. There is no reason for it other than "it's always been this way." The biggest inefficiency in hockey is the incredible overuse of bad players.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Blue Blooded and aufheben
SA16 said:
Four lines of forwards is an archaic strategy that I bet will be out of the league at some point in the (not so soon) future. There is no reason for it other than "it's always been this way." The biggest inefficiency in hockey is the incredible overuse of bad players.
Click to expand...
I’m sure, and have in access to 9 d, or maybe 8d and a 2 backups seems like a logical next step. Player your best players right?
 
Matz03 said:
I’m sure, and have in access to 9 d, or maybe 8d and a 2 backups seems like a logical next step. Player your best players right?
Click to expand...

Altenative idea:

How about instead of acting like a fool in response to a serious comment you try opening up your mind to differing strategies?

But no, let's roll four lines, sign enforcers, play with jam, enforce our will on the opposition, and play 3F/2D on the PP because that's how things have always been done. Never innovate. Remain satisfied with the status quo. Don't use openers in baseball. Don't be aggressive on 4th downs in football. Don't shoot tons more three pointers in basketball. Let's just keep doing what was done 30 years ago. Brilliant!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mac n Gs, Blue Blooded, doomscroll and 2 others
I’m open to moving Skjei should a good opportunity present itself but I don’t know what others are seeing in the LD prospects to move Skjei so soon
 
  • Like
Reactions: egelband
SA16 said:
Four lines of forwards is an archaic strategy that I bet will be out of the league at some point in the (not so soon) future. There is no reason for it other than "it's always been this way." The biggest inefficiency in hockey is the incredible overuse of bad players.
Click to expand...

There are plenty of reasons for it. Keep players fresh, replacements for in game injuries, more combinations to change lines around, more options to discipline players. Much tougher to bench a forward if you only have 9 forwards dressed. Also allows for role players like penalty killing forwards. There are reasons that "its always been this way".
 
SA16 said:
Altenative idea:

How about instead of acting like a fool in response to a serious comment you try opening up your mind to differing strategies?

But no, let's roll four lines, sign enforcers, play with jam, enforce our will on the opposition, and play 3F/2D on the PP because that's how things have always been done. Never innovate. Remain satisfied with the status quo. Don't use openers in baseball. Don't be aggressive on 4th downs in football. Don't shoot tons more three pointers in basketball. Let's just keep doing what was done 30 years ago. Brilliant!
Click to expand...
Yea a bit of tomfoolery from me here. But really how about just have 4 really great lines. If you’re playing enforcers or gritty guys, then you’re just admitting you don’t have enough good players. Pp strategy or d zone structure is on the and I thing to do with lines.
 
SA16 said:
Altenative idea:

How about instead of acting like a fool in response to a serious comment you try opening up your mind to differing strategies?

But no, let's roll four lines, sign enforcers, play with jam, enforce our will on the opposition, and play 3F/2D on the PP because that's how things have always been done. Never innovate. Remain satisfied with the status quo. Don't use openers in baseball. Don't be aggressive on 4th downs in football. Don't shoot tons more three pointers in basketball. Let's just keep doing what was done 30 years ago. Brilliant!
Click to expand...
Hockey is very different than baseball amd basketball. Hockey shifts are short so the players don't become fatigued. That's why teams roll 4 lines.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom