Speculation: Roster Building Thread: Part XXI - Let's make a deal

[Brooklyn Rangers Fan]

Certain (vocal) elements of this board are not going to like this, but last night's game against the defending champions cast some ugly truths in high relief:

1) Hank, for all his statistical performance this season, including advanced stats (which for a goalie aren't really all that advanced), has declined a notch. No doubt he's still an NHL-level starter, and perhaps even in the top half of starters league wide... but my eyes tell me he's dropped markedly over the last 12 months and is not the top 1-3 difference maker he once was.

This is why the team is going with the current 3-goalie system. Hank isn't likely to be the starter next year, and definitely won't be during the upward swing we hope to see in seasons to come. Time to figure out who will be the #1 guy and begin the transition.

2) There's a reason a regular feature of Carpiniello's game day columns in the Athletic is the "Good Tony/Bad Tony" segment. Two nights after ADA's record-setting performance, he was gawdawful in St. Louis, and IMO the single greatest reason the team lost.

For all his wizardry with the puck, and for all that I think he's improved his neutral zone play, (and for all that he appears to have matured somewhat) he still remains a liability on D, particularly once the other team has gained the blue line – both against the rush and the cycle. I have my doubts he will ever be a top-4 guy defensively, and while his offensive play means that's something that a team can live with if the rest of the core includes 3-4 big-bodied defensive stalwarts, that's not what the Rangers have – and nor are they likely to have any time soon, not without significant changes to their current mix of D throughout the org.

This is why, IMO, despite his age and his eye-popping numbers, Tony's name remains out there as someone who might be in play... for the right return. Because at the end of the day, it comes down to the question of "do you make multiple moves to allow Tony 's game to play on this squad? Or, given the presence of Trouba and Fox, and with Lundkvist and Jones and other offensively capable D already in the system, do you flip him to a team with a D-corps that's mostly rugged, defense-first types in exchange for help elsewhere?" The answer isn't as easy/obvious as some make it out to be.

 

[Shesterkybomb]

And no.

Toronto’s not getting Georgie unless it’s a bigger package for nylander.

And if I were Gorts. I would write that in blood to dubas

Your not getting him in a smaller deal. You want him, only as part of the deal we want

Remember Talbot was more established and got us less. The value people are putting on players here is insane.

 

[Edge]

Edge - I’ve seen far too much of Skjei to conclude he’s not a winning player. First line D? The physical traits are there but he doesn’t check the boxes I’m looking for. I’m not losing Kreider in order to retain Skjei...I’ll refrain from further expounding on Buchnevich, as my feelings there are well documented.

I don’t think you’re losing Kreider to retain Skjei.

I think you’re losing Kreider to resign ADA, Strome, and make other moves down the line.

Kreider’s contract isn’t just about the roster we ice next season, it’s about the seasons beyond that. And the desire to have Kreider’s next contract as a factor, at best, isn’t a no-brainer for a lot of people.

As for Skjei, I don’t think anyone views him as the answer on LD, nor is he viewed as a key piece, long-term. It’s more a matter of timing there and whether or not now is the best time to move him, based on the current state of the LD.

 

[egelband]

Remember Talbot was more established and got us less. The value people are putting on players here is insane.

i think the real key is, what do pro scouts around the league think. personally i think georgiev is just a better athlete and technically a better goalie than talbot. talbot has gone on and been a pretty solid goalie but i think G might have more value around the league. just a guess, but i'd love to hear a scouts perspective.

 

[Edge]

Keeping in mind that there are a number of players the Rangers will likely be listening on.

So the concept of trading guys like Skjei, Buch, etc. isn’t out of the realm of possibility. But those deals are likely to be actual personnel swaps, as opposed to trades of the pick/prospect variety.

 

[GoAwayPanarin]

Has anyone brought up that Freidman mentioned that the Rangers are listening on Georgiev and want a young forward back as part of the deal?

 

[Brooklyn Rangers Fan]

Has anyone brought up that Freidman mentioned that the Rangers are listening on Georgiev and want a young forward back as part of the deal?

Yes.

 

[Edge]

Seeing all the ADA debate reminds me of many of the pre-internet/early internet debates about Zubov.

While no one can deny the trade didn’t work out, hindsight has helped craft a narrative that it was an unpopular move at the time and that everyone was sold on Zubov - which isn’t accurate.

I mention this for a couple of reasons.

The first is that quite a few of these conversations feel somewhat familiar. Obviously there are different circumstances and it’s not a shot-for-shot remake, but the overall tone has similarities.

The second is that to some extent you kind of live with ADA’s bad in order to get the good. Because while ADA isn’t perfect, the food still outweighs the bad. What ADA does well, a short list of players in the NHL are capable of doing - including Fox. So if the plan is to trade ADA, because we have Fox, we can certainly survive. But it’s not quite a one for one swap on our roster.

 

[Edge]

Has anyone brought up that Freidman mentioned that the Rangers are listening on Georgiev and want a young forward back as part of the deal?

Not terribly surprising. The question is whether there’s a a gap between what they want and what they can get. I don’t know if I see the Rangers rushing to give Georgiev away. I’d also be curious to see who they potentially package with Georgiev, because I’m not sure a 1-for-1 goalie/forward swap, though entirely possible, has the highest odds.

 

[Off Sides]

Certain (vocal) elements of this board are not going to like this, but last night's game against the defending champions cast some ugly truths in high relief:

1) Hank, for all his statistical performance this season, including advanced stats (which for a goalie aren't really all that advanced), has declined a notch. No doubt he's still an NHL-level starter, and perhaps even in the top half of starters league wide... but my eyes tell me he's dropped markedly over the last 12 months and is not the top 1-3 difference maker he once was.

This is why the team is going with the current 3-goalie system. Hank isn't likely to be the starter next year, and definitely won't be during the upward swing we hope to see in seasons to come. Time to figure out who will be the #1 guy and begin the transition.

2) There's a reason a regular feature of Carpiniello's game day columns in the Athletic is the "Good Tony/Bad Tony" segment. Two nights after ADA's record-setting performance, he was gawdawful in St. Louis, and IMO the single greatest reason the team lost.

For all his wizardry with the puck, and for all that I think he's improved his neutral zone play, (and for all that he appears to have matured somewhat) he still remains a liability on D, particularly once the other team has gained the blue line – both against the rush and the cycle. I have my doubts he will ever be a top-4 guy defensively, and while his offensive play means that's something that a team can live with if the rest of the core includes 3-4 big-bodied defensive stalwarts, that's not what the Rangers have – and nor are they likely to have any time soon, and without significant changes to their current mix of D throughout the org.

This is why, IMO, despite his age and his eye-popping numbers, Tony's name remains out there as someone who might be in play – for the right return. Because at the end of the day, it comes down to the question of "do you make multiple moves to reconfigure the D to allow Tony 's game to play on this squad? Or, given the presence of Trouba and Fox, and with Lundkvist and Jones and other offensively capable D already in the system, do you flip him to a team with a D-corps that's mostly rugged, defense-first types in exchange for help elsewhere?" The answer isn't as easy/obvious as some make it out to be.

DeAngelo was bad last night, I do not dispute that at all. Yet really no one was really good, the whole team looked like they were toast.

In my opinion the Rangers need a Pietrangelo.

It kind of looks like they are going to go through this whole thing without that type of, "does everything well in all situations defender" A real true league wide #1D. Trouba is not it, nor is anyone else they currently have playing.

Perhaps they should have continued stockpiling beyond what they did? Maybe they will? Or maybe they sign expensive players to contracts that take them through their 30s?

 

[HFsNumber1Heel]

Seeing all the ADA debate reminds me of many of the pre-internet/early internet debates about Zubov.

While no one can deny the trade didn’t work out, hindsight has helped craft a narrative that it was an unpopular move at the time and that everyone was sold on Zubov - which isn’t accurate.

I mention this for a couple of reasons.

The first is that quite a few of these conversations feel somewhat familiar. Obviously there are different circumstances and it’s not a shot-for-shot remake, but the overall tone has similarities.

The second is that to some extent you kind of live with ADA’s bad in order to get the good. Because while ADA isn’t perfect, the food still outweighs the bad. What ADA does well, a short list of players in the NHL are capable of doing - including Fox. So if the plan is to trade ADA, because we have Fox, we can certainly survive. But it’s not quite a one for one swap on our roster.

I don't think anyone was for moving Zubov in 95. It was more like "oh they traded Zubov.....why?" He was a Cup champ and led that team in scoring. Was also on for every important moment of the 94 run.

 

[HFsNumber1Heel]

The Rangers can listen to offers for Georgiev sure. It's the same as when Sather once said he'd listen to offers to Jagr. It doesn't mean anything will happen.

Trading Georgiev would be extremely short sighted and put a lot of pressure on Igor to be great more often than not. Lundqvist is done.

 

[NernieBichols]

Remember Talbot was more established and got us less. The value people are putting on players here is insane.

You totally missed the point

Don’t help out Toronto in a position they need help in unless it’s the deal you want. Don’t allow them to get the guy they really need for parts. Insist it’s part of a bigger deal

 

[Lion Hound]

Keeping in mind that there are a number of players the Rangers will likely be listening on.

So the concept of trading guys like Skjei, Buch, etc. isn’t out of the realm of possibility. But those deals are likely to be actual personnel swaps, as opposed to trades of the pick/prospect variety.

wonder if Jd will look to add any of his former players, like a Foligno?

 

[Matz03]

If Tampa wants Kreider, you have take an absolute ransom from them. It just might be a scenario where the bidding among contenders might make the return quite the haul. 3 solid pc’s coming back, 1st + high end prospect and near nhl ready player. JG is running out of vets to sell and needs to make this one count. The other younger players like Georgiev, Skjei or even Ada belong in the hockey trade category or don’t do it.

I really do hope Hank comes around and decides to ok a trade, he needs to be realizing going out like this isn’t the way. Carolina could use him and he’d actually have a strong chance for deep playoff runs with them. I hope the 3 goalie thing is about making him less comfortable and about really thinking about what’s next. You can’t give away Georgiev at this point, too young and too good to ship away.

 

[Kakko Schmakko]

This illustrates the most basic misconception. As good as the informed and high hockey IQ are here, this board is littered with an equal number of fantasy video gamers that have no sense of the business.

Look if he wants to be here he will find a way to sign with us if we also want him. In he doesn't then let him sign elsewhere, but why risk losing him for nothing July 1st if he decides to test the market?

 

[Tawnos]

I don't think anyone was for moving Zubov in 95. It was more like "oh they traded Zubov.....why?" He was a Cup champ and led that team in scoring. Was also on for every important moment of the 94 run.

Eh, you have to remember the context of that trade. The Rangers had just gotten absolutely demolished by the Flyers because they couldn’t compete with them physically and the sense was that this was where the league was trending. At the time, Ulfie was still seen as having top pairing defensive skills who could match the physical play. And the Rangers were going to slot him on the 2nd pair. Meanwhile there was a sense that Zubov might be a little redundant with the Rangers in the sense that he’d never get the opportunity to be a first pairing D in NY.

Despite that, Zubov was the more valuable commodity, so it can’t be forgotten how disappointing Nedved was in 1995 and how Robitaille was seen as a pretty significant upgrade. The team also needed someone to replace Steve Larmer. And, even though there was disappointment there too, he was an upgrade if you look at 1995 Nedved compared to 95-96 Robitaille. Of course, Nedved scored almost 100 points playing on the Penguins that year.

It was an historically bad trade based on results, but it felt pretty reasonable at the time it was made.

The truly unforgivable trade of that era was the Kurri deal.

 

[Good Intentions]

I don’t think you’re losing Kreider to retain Skjei.

I think you’re losing Kreider to resign ADA, Strome, and make other moves down the line.

Kreider’s contract isn’t just about the roster we ice next season, it’s about the seasons beyond that. And the desire to have Kreider’s next contract as a factor, at best, isn’t a no-brainer for a lot of people.

As for Skjei, I don’t think anyone views him as the answer on LD, nor is he viewed as a key piece, long-term. It’s more a matter of timing there and whether or not now is the best time to move him, based on the current state of the LD.

That’s probably right...3 concluding thoughts I’ll pin:

1. Expect the unexpected. From Kreider to Georgiev, the end result has been a foregone conclusion. Not so fast. I just don’t think it’ll be nearly as clean - expect the unexpected.

2. JD has a history of pulling a L or XL scale trade together, dealing from strength to acquire need. Mutually beneficial deal.

3. I fully trust JD and believe he has a superior deep dive on which characters are not keepers - and has the ability to move those pieces properly. Fully trust him - No one I would rather have at the helm.

 

[Kakko Schmakko]

Certain (vocal) elements of this board are not going to like this, but last night's game against the defending champions cast some ugly truths in high relief:

1) Hank, for all his statistical performance this season, including advanced stats (which for a goalie aren't really all that advanced), has declined a notch. No doubt he's still an NHL-level starter, and perhaps even in the top half of starters league wide... but my eyes tell me he's dropped markedly over the last 12 months and is not the top 1-3 difference maker he once was.

This is why the team is going with the current 3-goalie system. Hank isn't likely to be the starter next year, and definitely won't be during the upward swing we hope to see in seasons to come. Time to figure out who will be the #1 guy and begin the transition.

2) There's a reason a regular feature of Carpiniello's game day columns in the Athletic is the "Good Tony/Bad Tony" segment. Two nights after ADA's record-setting performance, he was gawdawful in St. Louis, and IMO the single greatest reason the team lost.

For all his wizardry with the puck, and for all that I think he's improved his neutral zone play, (and for all that he appears to have matured somewhat) he still remains a liability on D, particularly once the other team has gained the blue line – both against the rush and the cycle. I have my doubts he will ever be a top-4 guy defensively, and while his offensive play means that's something that a team can live with if the rest of the core includes 3-4 big-bodied defensive stalwarts, that's not what the Rangers have – and nor are they likely to have any time soon, not without significant changes to their current mix of D throughout the org.

This is why, IMO, despite his age and his eye-popping numbers, Tony's name remains out there as someone who might be in play – for the right return. Because at the end of the day, it comes down to the question of "do you make multiple moves to allow Tony 's game to play on this squad? Or, given the presence of Trouba and Fox, and with Lundkvist and Jones and other offensively capable D already in the system, do you flip him to a team with a D-corps that's mostly rugged, defense-first types in exchange for help elsewhere?" The answer isn't as easy/obvious as some make it out to be.

Lundqvist has decline a while ago, last time he had .920 sav was back in 2015/16:

Henrik Lundqvist (b.1982) Hockey Stats and Profile at hockeydb.com

 

[Tawnos]

Remember Talbot was more established and got us less. The value people are putting on players here is insane.

Talbot, who had played a total of 57 games at 28 years old was more established than Georgiev with 63 games at 23 years old? Talbot played 36 games in the year before he was traded. Georgiev played 33 last year. Talbot stepped in and played admirably when Lundqvist was hurt, though that was behind the best team in the league. Georgiev hasn’t been the “backup” in over a year.

At worst, you’d consider them equally established, but it’s pretty easy to see how Georgiev would have more value.

 

[haohmaru]

"On Saturday, Elliotte Friedman reported on “Hockey Night in Canada” that the Blueshirts are ready to field offers for Georgiev. Friedman has good sources and he said that the Rangers are insisting on a good return and want a scoring forward who can help them as early as this year or next. That means an NHL player or a top prospect.
He specifically mentioned Ottawa, Toronto and San Jose as having interest. While the return for goalkeepers hasn’t been great, the fact that Georgiev is an arbitration eligible restricted free agent and will be under team control for years is a positive. He has also put on some spectacular performances on national telecasts that have enhanced his reputation.
The fact that the Rangers are insisting on a forward and someone that can help the team sooner than later also makes sense as the team is getting closer to playoff contention. Could the Blueshirts package Georgiev with one of their young defenseman to make it a better deal? Absolutely."

 

[Shesterkybomb]

Talbot, who had played a total of 57 games at 28 years old was more established than Georgiev with 63 games at 23 years old? Talbot played 36 games in the year before he was traded. Georgiev played 33 last year. Talbot stepped in and played admirably when Lundqvist was hurt, though that was behind the best team in the league. Georgiev hasn’t been the “backup” in over a year.

At worst, you’d consider them equally established, but it’s pretty easy to see how Georgiev would have more value.

Talbot had taken a long stretch of play as a number one goalie when Hank was out, at the time it was felt he was a proven #1, Georgiev hasnt proven that, in fact his last back to back starts werent particularly good. Talbot also had an unreal .941 and .926 save percentage compared to Georgievs current .909 and average of .913. You can say they have similar value but you cant say Georgiev is worth more.

 

[haohmaru]

Talbot had taken a long stretch of play as a number one goalie when Hank was out, at the time it was felt he was a proven #1, Georgiev hasnt proven that, in fact his last back to back starts werent particularly good. Talbot also had an unreal .941 and .926 save percentage compared to Georgievs current .909 and average of .913. You can say they have similar value but you cant say Georgiev is worth more.

Well, if we're being selective about stats, let's remember that the team in front of Talbot was considerably better defensively than anything playing in front of Georgiev.

 

[Tawnos]

Talbot had taken a long stretch of play as a number one goalie when Hank was out, at the time it was felt he was a proven #1, Georgiev hasnt proven that, in fact his last back to back starts werent particularly good. Talbot also had an unreal .941 and .926 save percentage compared to Georgievs current .909 and average of .913.

No, idiots on these boards (and I’m assuming idiots elsewhere) thought he was a proven #1, but were being shouted at that he wasn’t by many of us.

You want to talk about a bad comparison, or at least one that doesn’t tell you much of anything. Those Rangers teams Talbot was on were top 5 defensively. And the stretch of 25 games Lundqvist missed involved a team that was capable of locking down defensively and winning unconsciously, as many Presidents Trophy winning teams tend to be able to do. You can’t compare those numbers of Talbot’s to Georgiev’s behind a far, far worse group.

 

[Off Sides]

If the return on Georgiev is like a 2nd, I'd rather the Rangers just keep him. Lundqvist can decide, stay on and be in a weird 3 goalie rotation of sorts, or decide to move on if a trade can happen, or retire.

Making a poor return deal just to get out of a weird situation at this point in the build... I mean it's not like anything is near ideal or perfect, and given that Staal, Smith, are still signed for another year, the youth seems to need more time to establish themselves, there is still likely to be non ideal situations in every position next season too.