Speculation: Roster Building Thread: Part XXI

[Edge]

I hope so and would agree with that path.

Yet I do think that path included moving McD, Miller when they both had a year left on their deals, which kind of brings us back around to those this deadline who have a year left.

Which is mostly where my points have come up, I know Kreider, Hayes, and such are good players, I know it would be nice to get more known or premium futures back, but I just don't think it works like that.

I think if Hayes had a few more years on the contract, we probably wouldn't be talking about him at this point --- yet.

With McD, I think it was a combination contract and declining ability to be "the guy" on defense for the Rangers.

With Kreider, I think it's more that he's viewed as a pretty rare commodity and so there's a little more hesitation to move him.

So there's some noteworthy variations on the three scenarios.

 

[offdacrossbar]

We’re a hot mess with them. Period.

interesting take. wrong, but interesting none the less.

if we move them we are going to be back in the stone age talent wise. your take, were there with them. i happen to disagree. completely.

see i dont think those 3 are the problem. hence...

13.93.20 total points 100

next 6 guys on the roster 99 points

13.93.20 goals 42

next 6 on roster 33 goals

both 93 and 13 are on pace for 70 points seasons.

clearly, those 3 drive this team plus 30. its the others that suck and need to be upgraded. we need shooters and we have NO ELITE PLAYER at ANY POSITION. 13 and 93 are plenty able to create. we lack goal scorers. guys who know how to finish.

we are clearly not a hot mess with them. the rest of the roster, as it has constructed by the company suits, is the problem. those 3 have done their job.

improve the talent around them and for gods sake fix the defense. thats your rebuild.

 

[Off Sides]

I think if Hayes had a few more years on the contract, we probably wouldn't be talking about him at this point --- yet.

With McD, I think it was a combination contract and declining ability to be "the guy" on defense for the Rangers.

With Kreider, I think it's more that he's viewed as a pretty rare commodity and so there's a little more hesitation to move him.

So there's some noteworthy variations on the three scenarios.

Again I agree.

I think where my disagree comes into play, even if Kreider is pretty unique, I question how long that lasts first off as one unknown.

Secondly I question where he really fits into everything if they've attached themselves to the 2016 and later drafted players or maybe better said, if his return in conjunction with all the others is going to be pretty key to that timeline if that is the one they are picking to put their weight on.

Beyond this deadline, which is likely to be mostly the Hayes return if sold, they do not have much to sell that is going to have much of a chance to bring back premium rental assets.

Something like is the return for McD, Miller, Nash, etc plus Hayes and more merger returns for things like Zucc, Name, etc going to be enough, or would Kreider's likely maybe even better return be the one that maybe puts them over the top long from now?

 

[FIRE DRURY]

if you burn it down, you aint getting a shot. no playoffs. nothing.

for along time.

I’m ok with this. I’m patient. I’d rather go all in with Rockets than 9-10 off suit.

 

[Rangers in 7]

until hes traded to a team with true talent.

then hell be a 30 + goal guy with ease.

bank it.

still doesnt make him a top 15-20 player in the league.....

 

[NYR Viper]

interesting take. wrong, but interesting none the less.

if we move them we are going to be back in the stone age talent wise. your take, were there with them. i happen to disagree. completely.

see i dont think those 3 are the problem. hence...

13.93.20 total points 100

next 6 guys on the roster 99 points

13.93.20 goals 42

next 6 on roster 33 goals

both 93 and 13 are on pace for 70 points seasons.

clearly, those 3 drive this team plus 30. its the others that suck and need to be upgraded. we need shooters and we have NO ELITE PLAYER at ANY POSITION. 13 and 93 are plenty able to create. we lack goal scorers. guys who know how to finish.

we are clearly not a hot mess with them. the rest of the roster, as it has constructed by the company suits, is the problem. those 3 have done their job.

improve the talent around them and for gods sake fix the defense. thats your rebuild.

How can they improve the team when they have no assets? This is what happens when you spend your assets going for it. The team has/had some nice pieces. In order to rebuild an actual competitive team they now need to make some deals to get back futures to rebuild. No one is saying Zibanejad, Hayes or Kreider are bad players. Most would say they should make up 1/2 of a nice top-6. The issue becomes that with the current contracts and lack of depth within the system, they won't be able to surround these guys with talent for a long while. On top of that, if they don't move them then it will take even longer to bring in better talent and by the time that happens, they very well may have either walked via UFA or their play has diminished to the point where they may not be worth their contracts.

Where are you getting the other 3 top-6 players? How about upgrades on the back-end?

What you're proposing is a retool on the fly. The team doesn't have the necessary assets, nor the immediate cap space to do that.

 

[Trxjw]

See, and I think of it as paying fair value

It's all a bit of semantics. Skinner was sort of in a similar situation this summer and look what Carolina got for him. Is that fair market value for a guy that age who can score 30 goals and has a year and a half left on this deal? We better hope not. I'm just saying I'd want a hefty premium for a guy who Id have no problem extending for 6 more years.

 

[Edge]

Again I agree.

I think where my disagree comes into play, even if Kreider is pretty unique, I question how long that lasts first off as one unknown.

Secondly I question where he really fits into everything if they've attached themselves to the 2016 and later drafted players or maybe better said, if his return in conjunction with all the others is going to be pretty key to that timeline if that is the one they are picking to put their weight on.

Beyond this deadline, which is likely to be mostly the Hayes return if sold, they do not have much to sell that is going to have much of a chance to bring back premium rental assets.

Something like is the return for McD, Miller, Nash, etc plus Hayes and more merger returns for things like Zucc, Name, etc going to be enough, or would Kreider's likely maybe even better return be the one that maybe puts them over the top long from now?

I guess some of the debates on players might also have to do with contracts.

When we start talking NMCs, I start to get a little uneasy because of where this team is.

To me, the NMCs tend to be a bigger part of the picture when you start to hit your window --- the cost of doing business, so to speak.

In Kreider's case, I tend to bend the rules on him because of what the Rangers have in place (and don't), how rare of a combination he is, and the impact he has. For me, the return has to be damn high for me to want to move him --- but it's an option I would consider under the right circumstances.

 

[GeorgeKaplan]

By the way, I know the sentiment for the beginning of the season was EK65 is done, but he’s on an absolute tear right now and is like 2 points under being PPG right now

 

[Trxjw]

Going over all the scenarios and trying to maximize return on Kreider how about waiting till draft positions are set. So for example we pick 3rd..then Oilers have the 6th pick . We have targeted the player we have the strongest conviction on and see if he falls to us or is still available. In my Oilers scenario we trade Kreider and recieve 2019 1st..2020 1st and say Klefbom(is he still good?) and a B prospect or a 2nd. Is that enough?

So we draft Kirby Dach and Vasili Podkolzin and along with Klefbom hopefully solidify 3 spots. Then have another 1st for 2020.

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

That's kind of what I'd be aiming for. A top ten pick or premium prospect and then add, and add again. If we had two top ten picks this year I would try to take Byram and then whoever is left between Podkolzin, Dach, Zegras, Turcotte, etc.

 

[Rangers in 7]

interesting take. wrong, but interesting none the less.

if we move them we are going to be back in the stone age talent wise. your take, were there with them. i happen to disagree. completely.

see i dont think those 3 are the problem. hence...

13.93.20 total points 100

next 6 guys on the roster 99 points

13.93.20 goals 42

next 6 on roster 33 goals

both 93 and 13 are on pace for 70 points seasons.

clearly, those 3 drive this team plus 30. its the others that suck and need to be upgraded. we need shooters and we have NO ELITE PLAYER at ANY POSITION. 13 and 93 are plenty able to create. we lack goal scorers. guys who know how to finish.

we are clearly not a hot mess with them. the rest of the roster, as it has constructed by the company suits, is the problem. those 3 have done their job.

improve the talent around them and for gods sake fix the defense. thats your rebuild.

hayes is not a piece to build around....idk how many times it has to be said.....

 

[Gardner McKay]

I’m ok with this. I’m patient. I’d rather go all in with Rockets than 9-10 off suit.

Of course you would. But, if you're taking your opponents chip stack, table position and, general play style into account then there are times where the latter may be the correct play. And I mean that for both the poker and hockey reference.

hayes is not a piece to build around....idk how many times it has to be said.....

A piece to build around and a long term piece are not the same thing. You build around top tier players. Lesser players can be viewed as long term pieces.

 

[NYRKING30]

if you burn it down, you aint getting a shot. no playoffs. nothing.

for along time.

We also didn't burn it down and missed the playoffs for nearly a decade. We've also tried your method of "get in and anything can happen" method and were completely overmatched in the playoffs. I don't want a perennial wild card spot team, I want a perennial cup contender that has a very, very strong team. Almost like last time but with much more finishers and way more top end talent. I want the horses to run and win the race.

 

[Rangers in 7]

A piece to build around and a long term piece are not the same thing. You build around top tier players. Lesser players can be viewed as long term pieces.

right now with the team constructed as it is, he should be neither

 

[Off Sides]

I guess some of the debates on players might also have to do with contracts.

When we start talking NMCs, I start to get a little uneasy because of where this team is.

To me, the NMCs tend to be a bigger part of the picture when you start to hit your window --- the cost of doing business, so to speak.

In Kreider's case, I tend to bend the rules on him because of what the Rangers have in place (and don't), how rare of a combination he is, and the impact he has. For me, the return has to be damn high for me to want to move him --- but it's an option I would consider under the right circumstances.

Totally agree on Clauses, and I would not say just no movement clause, things that only allow for 3 teams (to use E Kanes contract again)

For me to move Kreider, in my opinion just has to be something better than rental return because I assume those clauses are going to have to happen with any extension, and at that point once demanded, I am likely only getting back rental return because I'm not handing him those clauses. Something like two rental returns rolled into one as @NYR Viper kind of put it before.

And really why would he not want those clauses, he's going to be an asset after signing that contract on the trade front, and maybe even be moved right before things started to get really good around him.

 

[McRanger]

Of course you would. But, if you're taking your opponents chip stack, table position and, general play style into account then there are times where the latter may be the correct play. And I mean that for both the poker and hockey reference.

If the Rangers were a poker player then the move, based on their history, would be to fold and leave the table forever.

Maybe a nice game of chutes and ladders?

 

[Shesterkybomb]

They arent trading Kreider, we are thin on the wings and he could possibly be in line for our next leadership group along with Zibanajad and Fast.
Id be happy to win atleast one of these islander games.

 

[Rangers in 7]

They arent trading Kreider, we are thin on the wings and he could possibly be in line for our next leadership group along with Zibanajad and Fast.
Id be happy to win atleast one of these islander games.

we won the last one?????? thats enough for me

 

[mrmovies779]

They arent trading Kreider, we are thin on the wings and he could possibly be in line for our next leadership group along with Zibanajad and Fast.
Id be happy to win atleast one of these islander games.

Thin on the wings or not,if someone blows Gorton away with an offer he cant refuse..Kreider is gone.

 

[Edge]

I'd actually be curious to know a little more about how Hayes is viewed around the league.

The Custance article gave one insight --- that he's a good second line center, potentially a great third line center on a very good team.

Is that opinion isolated? Is it fairly popular? I can't say for sure.

I will say that I do think there's some trepidation on Hayes out there --- especially on a big, long contract with limitations on being able to move him. But I can't say how much of that is chit-chat, and how much is legit. Realistically, you only need a few teams to get the cost of that contract up there.

 

[Shesterkybomb]

Haha. Maybe they just don’t want to sign Kreider for 7 years at 8mill+. He can get that. It’s the mcdonagh situation all over. He becomes a rental next years

I don't feel it's the same as mcdonagh. Mac had played so hard for this team, heavy hard minutes against the leagues biggest and best. I think though Kreider is physical he doesnt take a lot of hard hits like a defenseman does and when he does hit he doesnt run anyone through the wall so I feel his body has less miles on it. I'm comfortable giving kreider a 6 or maybe 7 year deal. I believe hed take 49 over 7 to stay here though I have no reason for that but it seems fair to everyone.

 

[Shesterkybomb]

I'd actually be curious to know a little more about how Hayes is viewed around the league.

The Custance article gave one insight --- that he's a good second line center, potentially a great third line center on a very good team.

Is that opinion isolated? Is it fairly popular? I can't say for sure.

I will say that I do think there's some trepidation on Hayes out there --- especially on a big, long contract with limitations on being able to move him. But I can't say how much of that is chit-chat, and how much is legit. Realistically, you only need a few teams to get the cost of that contract up there.

My comparable to Hayes is Kadri. Makes a good 2nd liner but like on the leafs hes an ideal 3rd liner on a good team but that's just my opinion.

 

[Shesterkybomb]

Thin on the wings or not,if someone blows Gorton away with an offer he cant refuse..Kreider is gone.

Well ofcourse but how often do GM's come calling with lopsided offers in our favour?

 

[Ghost of jas]

I'd actually be curious to know a little more about how Hayes is viewed around the league.

The Custance article gave one insight --- that he's a good second line center, potentially a great third line center on a very good team.

Is that opinion isolated? Is it fairly popular? I can't say for sure.

I will say that I do think there's some trepidation on Hayes out there --- especially on a big, long contract with limitations on being able to move him. But I can't say how much of that is chit-chat, and how much is legit. Realistically, you only need a few teams to get the cost of that contract up there.

So the perception of him in hockey in circles is similar to what some of us here have expressed, including the same trepidations. Funny that.

 

[Machinehead]

I'd actually be curious to know a little more about how Hayes is viewed around the league.

The Custance article gave one insight --- that he's a good second line center, potentially a great third line center on a very good team.

Is that opinion isolated? Is it fairly popular? I can't say for sure.

I will say that I do think there's some trepidation on Hayes out there --- especially on a big, long contract with limitations on being able to move him. But I can't say how much of that is chit-chat, and how much is legit. Realistically, you only need a few teams to get the cost of that contract up there.

Hayes isn't a 3C unless we're talking about the US National Team.