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

[I Eat Crow]

A couple of thoughts....

If SJ is interested in Georgiev, I certainly think that something around the basic premise of Georgiev for LeBanc can be worked out. Could be win/win for both teams. Rangers lock up LeBanc at 4-5 years and $4-5 million annually. I'd rather lock LeBanc in to that number, than, say, Buchnevich.

Which leads me to thought #2:

The Rangers forward depth in the system and in the big club is terrible. Kreider is a UFA to be and Buchnevich is a year away from being a Group III UFA. I'm not entirely convinced that either of these players are long term solutions at their respective positions, but I don't think Gorton is going to have a choice but to extend one of them to fill some spots in the lineup. Of the two, Buchnevich probably will have better value and be a better fit for the Rangers to trade in a hockey deal for another winger or more established LHD. That said, I'd only want Kreider back if he comes in for another contract under 5 years in length. I don't want to hand Kreider a 7 year, $7 million/year retirement deal. Neither he nor Buchnevich are consistent enough to have earned that kind of contract.

Kakko hasn't exactly exploded onto the scene as many of us had hoped. It's fine, but it's evident that Gorton failed to insulate the young kids within the squad adequately enough to give them a game or two in the press box to see things from another perspective and to rest up. Gorton's objectives this summer should be to find another top 9 forward or two in hockey trades and to sign another one or two bottom 6 vets in UFA to give the young players some mentorship and insulation.

The defense is going to be fine, but it's going to have it's growing pains. If Skjei can net an established top 6 forward, you make that deal yesterday, but I'm not sure such a deal is out there now. Otherwise, hold onto him until someone on the left side emerges from the Pack (har har) to assume top 4 minutes. Lindgren looks like he could MAYBE be that 2nd pairing guy with Fox to make up the second pairing for the next 7 years, but I'm not totally convinced of it yet.

I keep saying it, but despite his 5 point night against Jersey, I think DeAngelo is that trade chip to use to get that prized top young forward. He was outright terrible last night. He may put up 50 points every year, but will the Rangers throughout the years put up with the defensive gaffes when Adam Fox can give you the same thing with less mistakes?

It's going to be an interesting summer. There should be at least three new arrivals next Opening Night up top, and maybe one or two new starters on defense as well, whether they come via trade or within the system.

 

[Oscar Lindberg]

I don’t know what people are seeing in Lindgren to say he can be a top 4 guy

Maybe it’s just the big hits but he is not playing particularly well and I don’t see the upside

 

[Edge]

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.

That is certainly not the reactions I am remember.

People weren’t happy with his defense. His conditioning. His physical or mental toughness. He was pretty regularly getting questioning by fans, the staff, and the media.

The whole, why did we move him thing didn’t emerge until later. In fact, it really didn’t even emerge until the late 90s when he was in Dallas and the Rangers we’re now removed from their 94 and 97 runs.

 

[Edge]

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.

To paraphrase @True Blue, there is a path to keeping Kreider - it just requires other moves.

Do I think it’s the Rangers have keenly focused on keeping Kreider? To this point, no. While that could certainly change, I just get the sense there’s a real hesitation on the term and cost over time.

 

[OverTheCap]

That is certainly not the reactions I am remember.

People weren’t happy with his defense. His conditioning. His physical or mental toughness. He was pretty regularly getting questioning by fans, the staff, and the media.

The whole, why did we move him thing didn’t emerge until later. In fact, it really didn’t even emerge until the late 90s when he was in Dallas and the Rangers we’re now removed from their 94 and 97 runs.

To add to this, there was all that drama surround his wrist surgery in '95.

Zubov insisted on having wrist surgery that Smith and Campbell thought was unnecessary and wanted him to play through it. When Zubov had the surgery, that was the final straw for management and they started shopping him to Quebec for a deal that fell through.

In hindsight, it all seems petty and stupid. But I think plenty of fans were on board with the trade at the time. Messier also disliked Zubov which helped fuel public perception that he had to go.

 

[Edge]

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.

This is a very good summary, and I agree with it all around.

I think the deal not working out has kind of retroactively altered the details of what led to it.

Something tells me that If Zubov was born 20 years later, played the same age range he did for for us, and was subject to the same kind of internet/social media scrutiny a lot of players experience now, I don’t think he’d be the darling of this board the universal fan favorite that we’d like to believe he would be.

 

[Edge]

To add to this, there was all that drama surround his wrist surgery in '95.

Zubov insisted on having wrist surgery that Smith and Campbell thought was unnecessary and wanted him to play through it. When Zubov had the surgery, that was the final straw for management and they started shopping him to Quebec for a deal that fell through.

In hindsight, it all seems petty and stupid. But I think plenty of fans were on board with the trade at the time. Messier also disliked Zubov which helped fuel public perception that he had to go.

And this too is very important context, though the Messier aspects were overblown a little. Zubov, in that time frame, tended to run afoul of a lot of people - including coaches and teammates.

If anything, the nail in Zubov’s coffin was when Nemchinov started to throw up his hands in frustration.

But context is so important when looking at things through a historical lens.

 

[Shesterkybomb]

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.

Everyone thought we were getting a first then too, it's not gonna be the mother load for a backup goalie, it just isnt. People talking about getting Nylander, c'mon!!

 

[Tawnos]

Everyone thought we were getting a first then too, it's not gonna be the mother load for a backup goalie, it just isnt. People talking about getting Nylander, c'mon!!

No, everyone didn’t think that. We hoped, but most reasonable posters weren’t expecting one. Is the problem here that you were one of the people who expected it and were disappointed?

While I do think Georgiev is likely to have more value than Talbot, I do think that Leafs posters offering things like Kapanen aren’t likely to happen.

 

[Edge]

Everyone thought we were getting a first then too, it's not gonna be the mother load for a backup goalie, it just isnt. People talking about getting Nylander, c'mon!!

That’s why I still believe the preference, and most likely course of action, is going to be a package deal.

Getting value for goalies is difficult. Getting value for backup goalies is another layer of challenge. And teams are going to be aware that the Rangers kind of need to make a deal, which isn’t necessarily going to do the Rangers any favors.

 

[Shesterkybomb]

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.

Georgiev is a backup goalie until he proves otherwise. Backup goalies dont fetch monster returns.

 

[Shesterkybomb]

No, everyone didn’t think that. We hoped, but most reasonable posters weren’t expecting one. Is the problem here that you were one of the people who expected it and were disappointed?

While I do think Georgiev is likely to have more value than Talbot, I do think that Leafs posters offering things like Kapanen aren’t likely to happen.

No I wasnt, I'm realistic about what a back up goalie goes for in a trade.

 

[Edge]

No, everyone didn’t think that. We hoped, but most reasonable posters weren’t expecting one.

While I do think Georgiev is likely to have more value than Talbot, I do think that Leafs posters offering things like Kapanen aren’t likely to happen.

You’re on a roll today.

Agreed on all fronts.

The Rangers were pushing for a first, but it wasn’t on the table. Contrary to rumors that existed online, there was no offer of a first in a latter draft that the Rangers turned down.

The return for Georgiev, if he’s traded on his own, is likely going to be closer to modest than it will be to magnificent.

 

[Mikos87]

IMO trading for a forward that can step in is a better get than just picks alone. The Rangers, by my calculus will need 4 NHL forwards after a sell-off this deadline, on each line. Meaning two top six, two bottom six forwards.

When you are trading a goalie, trading them within the division is not a move you make without getting a premium. Why give a team you will be in a playoff hunt with a weapon to get 20-30 points if Georgie is their back up? Why give them a 40-50 point goalie as a platoon member? Why give them a starter?

So Division trades come at the highest premium, conference trades at a premium, and cross-conference trades at market value. I would take that as the framework. Now in a trade the other side has to be willing to meet that price.

Let's take the three teams mentioned:

OTT: They have 9 1st and 2nd round picks this year, and next. 9. They have draft currency. They have good cheap ELCs. They also have a very cheap owner. Are they inclined to trade cheap ELCs that can play in the NHL? or Would they prefer to trade picks? I would think it's the former. Would Bratherson, Norris, Brown be in play?

TOR: Not much in draft currency or prospects. They are cap constrained in the top half of their line-up. So their Bottom 6 guys are all on <$1M and League Minimum deals. Which is fine, but are they inclined to give up an Engvall or an ELC that can play now? The prospect pool is not an appealing one.

SJ: Probably the team that needs a Georgie the most. Their goaltending is below NHL standards. They have a number of interesting pieces, but are they NHL players? Gambrell, Chemelevski, Chekhov, Blichfield. They draft guys who do very well in the junior leagues, and they don't rush players. Which is good from a cost control perspective, but are they inclined to move a Labanc?

Sounds like the Rangers would be good with making a 1:1 deal for a top 9 forward. To me, that would be a very smart move. One that helps the team gets over the hump sooner rather than later.

xxxx-Zibs-Buch
Bread-Strome-xxx
xxxx/Howdie-Chytil-Kakko
Lemms-Howdie/xxxx-xxx

You get a 1st, player and prospect back for Kreider. That's one of the xxxs. Say that's a bottom 6 player.

You still need a 4th line player, preferably a utility guy that can play center or wing, and PK.
You need 2 top 6 assets.

Say Fast gets a 2nd and a conditional pick.

3 NHL forwards to acquire for the top 3 lines.

5 picks in the top 3 rounds to play with. Georgie. Skjei.

If Georgie+ gets you a Labanc. Skjei gets Tuch. You have draft currency to get a player for the bottom 6 slot. Or Kravstov takes a step.

Your question marks next year are on the left D. Can they get it done by committee and new coaching? I think that's feasible. Especially with an upgrade in goal with Shesty.

 

[Edge]

I don’t know what people are seeing in Lindgren to say he can be a top 4 guy

Maybe it’s just the big hits but he is not playing particularly well and I don’t see the upside

Personally, I’ll be happy if he can solidify himself as a third pair defenseman. I don’t have many expectations beyond that.

I don’t say that as an insult to Lindgren, but a third pair guy was always my hope.

 

[RGY]

I would have liked 1 more veteran but that also assumes a veteran would like to sign with a rebuilding team knowing the team has many young players who would get he benefit of the doubt over them all season and likely be traded at the deadline.

This is a fair point.

BUT at the same time, the organization acquired Trouba and Fox (yes unknown for this year), drafted Kakko (also unknown production this year), and then signed Panarin. So there as a feeling, and even JD and others have hinted at it but have not said it directly other than DQ, that they would like to make the playoffs. Yes the risk is you get traded at the deadline. But thats a risk anywhere you go with a 1 year deal. You dont know how the season is gona go. Boyle signs with Florida, a team that just doesnt make the playoffs always comes up short. There is no guarantee there. Look at Nashville. SJ.

 

[JESSEWENEEDTOCOOK]

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.

I totally agree that Tony is a liability in his own zone. He’s piss poor along the walls, he gets tossed around like a rag doll.

The bad pinches/bad passes is one thing. It’s easier to live with because he’s trying to make big plays, and he’s gonna make a bad decision every now and again, or have games where nothing is going right.

Tony can be so elite with the puck, though, that I can overlook how bad he currently is at defending. Let’s not forget that he’s still only 24 and learning, and I think he’s obviously matured a lot. He’s gotten better every year he’s been here. I think he still has to room to grow his all around game. He’ll never be a stalwart at defending, but can he be competent eventually? I think so.

I just wouldn’t move him unless we’re getting a certified stud center back.

 

[Oscar Lindberg]

Personally, I’ll be happy if he can solidify himself as a third pair defenseman. I don’t have many expectations beyond that.

I don’t say that as an insult to Lindgren, but a third pair guy was always my hope.

I agree 100%

I think folks who expect more will be disappointed

 

[RGY]

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?

Yea late last night. And i agree. This has to be done soon. They need to resolve this 3-goalie setup. And they also need forward help at the same time. They desperately do. Would not be surprised to get that depth before tomorrow. Like it or not they are pushing for the playoffs. You had the recent article, i forget where, that they are still 50/50 on Kreider situation. They wouldnt self rent in that instance, they would re-sign him but still they want this organization, especially the young players to make the playoffs. They play the Islanders 3 times in the next 2 weeks. They need to start winning games. Having a goalie in the press box when they need help on the bottom lines does no good for them.

I would assume they are looking at a young 22-24 year old energy guy who can chip in some offense for GG

 

[JESSEWENEEDTOCOOK]

I don’t know what people are seeing in Lindgren to say he can be a top 4 guy

Maybe it’s just the big hits but he is not playing particularly well and I don’t see the upside

I don’t see many saying that. I think people expect him to a good third pairing defenseman, and he shows flashes of that while also bringing some nastiness.

I think people underestimate how bad most third pairing defenseman are. If Lindgren can even be decent in that role we’re ahead of most teams.

 

[Edge]

I think Georgiev will get plus value to Talbot, but it also only takes one team to make an offer that really hits the check boxes - especially if the deal goes beyond a one for one swap.

 

[Shesterkybomb]

If Lindgren is still playing here when the rebuild is complete I feel we have failed, unless he takes a giant leap ahead in IQ. I like him, but if our d prospects dont pass him along the way I'll be disappointed

 

[NernieBichols]

How long does Jack Eichel allow himself to be tied to the Sabres organization before he requests to be traded? There have been rumors in the past that he wasn’t thrilled in Buffalo. The guy has 58 points in 44 games and the team is dead on .500. They just keep spinning their wheels.

People wonder why it’s important for Gorton to keep amassing assets. Eichel is the type of player who, if he were to become available, the package to acquire him would be substantial. In order for any team to make a package like that work, they would need almost absurd depth in order to not instantly deplete their entire farm system. The system depth being built by Gorton already is, and will continue to add to its insane depth at many positions. So when people say what’s the point of amassing these types of depth young players who may top out as 3rd liners, know that they could be the type of pieces that either allow Gorton to move others with the knowledge he can backfill from within or use those same pieces to acquire another core piece should the right player become available.

Yup. I won’t lie. I’ve thought to myself this is part of the reason they hired Quinn.

The Eichel situation is kinda that inevitable looming thing. It’s gonna happen at some point. And your right, the rangers have the pieces to do a 4/5 player for 1 player trade without butchering the depth charts

 

[bobbop]

This is a very good summary, and I agree with it all around.

I think the deal not working out has kind of retroactively altered the details of what led to it.

Something tells me that If Zubov was born 20 years later, played the same age range he did for for us, and was subject to the same kind of internet/social media scrutiny a lot of players experience now, I don’t think he’d be the darling of this board the universal fan favorite that we’d like to believe he would be.

Hindsight is always 20-20

 

[NernieBichols]

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.

He was also paired with Hadjek. missed 16g