Speculation: Roster Building Thread - Part XXII

[RangersFan1994]

Imo because Nils projects to be a better player in a similar-ish mould. And because Miller at the start of last season was one of the best rookie I’ve ever seen in terms of stick work and actual defense. He definitely fell off as the season went on, but if he’s capable of that kind of performance long term as he grows and learns more, he’s the last one to move

Jones I feel should be one of the new core. he gives me Krug type vibes. I rather deal Lundkvist only cause what if his play on North American ice does not translate for whatever reason. what if he is a player that plays better on the larger ice surface than the smaller NHL ice surface. I like what I have seen from Jones. he seems like a keeper to me.

 

[LokiDog]

Jones I feel should be one of the new core. he gives me Krug type vibes. I rather deal Lundkvist only cause what if his play on North American ice does not translate for whatever reason. what if he is a player that plays better on the larger ice surface than the smaller NHL ice surface. I like what I have seen from Jones. he seems like a keeper to me.

Why are we deciding which one to move before giving both of them expanded looks? We're in no rush.

 

[NYR Viper]

The great thing about the Jones/Lundkvist/Schneider/Robertson discussion is that the team doesn't need to make a decision right now. Why rush it? They have 1 spot open on defense this season. Jones, Schneider and Robertson will all be first year pro's in the AHL and all of them will be young for their roles.

Robertson and Jones are in their 3rd seasons since being drafted and Schneider is in his 2nd. All of them had weird years last year and d-men take longer to develop in general.

To put that in perspective, Fox and Lundkvist (assuming he makes the team this year) played 3 full seasons in other leagues prior to making their NHL debut. Lindgren did as well. So if we are looking for comparables in terms of timelines, Robertson and Jones will need an additional year, at a minimum with Schneider more than likely needing another 2 years.

 

[RangersFan1994]

Why are we deciding which one to move before giving both of them expanded looks? We're in no rush.

I agree

I rather keep them all and resign Strome to a 4 year deal, takes him until 31 instead of trading for a center without giving Chytil a real look. what if the Rangers get that center like Eichel (I don't want him, prefer Larkin personally, more complete player, and what if Eichel or the new center or a replacement for Strome, does not have chemistry with Panarin or their new linemates. remember Gomez and Jagr what many thought would work lmfao and it was Dubinsky had chemistry with Jagr after Nylander left.

 

[duhmetreE]

Why are we deciding which one to move before giving both of them expanded looks? We're in no rush.

If that were the case, JD and Gorton would still be here, no?

or define 'we'. We as in HFboards or We as in Rangers Management

 

[Amazing Kreiderman]

Jones I feel should be one of the new core. he gives me Krug type vibes. I rather deal Lundkvist only cause what if his play on North American ice does not translate for whatever reason. what if he is a player that plays better on the larger ice surface than the smaller NHL ice surface. I like what I have seen from Jones. he seems like a keeper to me.

You do realize Lundkvist has played on smaller rinks before, right? It's not some alien concept to him.

 

[jay from jersey]

The great thing about the Jones/Lundkvist/Schneider/Robertson discussion is that the team doesn't need to make a decision right now. Why rush it? They have 1 spot open on defense this season. Jones, Schneider and Robertson will all be first year pro's in the AHL and all of them will be young for their roles.

Robertson and Jones are in their 3rd seasons since being drafted and Schneider is in his 2nd. All of them had weird years last year and d-men take longer to develop in general.

To put that in perspective, Fox and Lundkvist (assuming he makes the team this year) played 3 full seasons in other leagues prior to making their NHL debut. Lindgren did as well. So if we are looking for comparables in terms of timelines, Robertson and Jones will need an additional year, at a minimum with Schneider more than likely needing another 2 years.

Not a shot in hell Schneider takes 2 years before nhl duty.
He’s not even far away now. If nils weren’t here, I’d have no problem with Schneider easing into a 3rd pair role.
Schneider will def have a spot. I’m betting on Robertson as well. Defenseman that are big and can hit, move the puck well, and skate are like unicorns.
You saw it this season with the nurse Hamilton and jones contracts. It’s why Hedman and Paraynko are immensely valuable...
They can’t just be big, they have to be able to play, but the pool of smallish defenders that can move the puck is pretty vast.
Girard is a perfect example of an over-average defender during the regular season who got exposed when the physicality and the ice tighten up. Odds are, Pionk will be another.

 

[NYR Viper]

Not a shot in hell Schneider takes 2 years before nhl duty.
He’s not even far away now. If nils weren’t here, I’d have no problem with Schneider easing into a 3rd pair role.

He may see some time here and there or perhaps an injury allows for him to play a good amount of games. It's not going to be all or nothing. This is his second season after being drafted and last year he barely played any games. Him taking more than a single season wouldn't be that outlandish

 

[PuckLuck3043]

Thats 3 guys under 6 foot, 4 guys under 200 lbs and not a very mobile group all together. I'd say that only Miller and Lindgren are above average skaters or better amongst the entire group.

That group isn't just short - they're short, light and not particularly mobile. You're not winning with a group like that in this league.

Im really not sure where you get that this group would not be particularly mobile. Both Lundqvist and Jones are known as puck moving mobile Dmen, plus Fox, Lindgren, and Miller can all skate well and Trouba is no slouch as well. It's not the group that I would like to see in a year or 2 but mobility would not be a problem.

 

[Cag29]

You do realize Lundkvist has played on smaller rinks before, right? It's not some alien concept to him.

Nils is going to be really good.

 

[PuckLuck3043]

Nils is going to be really good.

He certainly is and so are Schneider, Robertson, and Jones. It's a good problem to have.

 

[Levitate]

I think we can argue why the Rangers don't need to trade one of Jones or Lundkvist but IMO the bottom line is that the Rangers will want one of Schneider or Robertson in the lineup, maybe even both, and Jones and/or Lundkvist are the most likely to go to make room
It's possible they could stretch it out long enough to move Trouba and make room for Schneider that way and maybe Robertson takes Lindgren's place in the lineup at some point instead, but I'm not holding my breath on that one
You can't hold onto everyone

 

[LokiDog]

If that were the case, JD and Gorton would still be here, no?

or define 'we'. We as in HFboards or We as in Rangers Management

Well, I don't think anyone can say explicitly.

Did we come out and say "we're in a hurry"? Could be JD and Gorts were short of where they expected to be, but not necessarily that we mean to rush things, just that there were greater expectations. I particularly think that OWNERSHIP expected to cash in on the hype of #2 and #1OA and when neither delivered he wanted somewhere to let the axe fall, more so than he just wanted the playoffs. I also think there was internal stuff regarding the tuffness after the Wilson incident and Isles games.

But more importantly, why would Jones or Lundkvist be impacted by us being in a rush? Sure, one could be moved if we're making a big impact trade, but that's true either way - we have a lot of good young D, if we make an impact trade for a C someone's going to be involved, and it likely won't necessarily be dictated solely on which one we like best but also on the target we're acquiring and the other GM's desires.

But all that hypotheticalizing is moot, because all I meant was, if we're not packaging them for a star, what's the rush to decide either/or? For now, why is there any reason to choose Lunkdvist OR Jones? If neither is part of a big package deal, we can hold both for now and if we feel we need more size or something different on the backend we can address it once we've actually made assessments.

 

[jay from jersey]

He may see some time here and there or perhaps an injury allows for him to play a good amount of games. It's not going to be all or nothing. This is his second season after being drafted and last year he barely played any games. Him taking more than a single season wouldn't be that outlandish

He’s was WHL D of the year and was solid in his cup of coffee with the pack. I would guess a full year at most. Maybe not even that long. Hell he could realistically be 1 of the 6 best we have coming out of camp this year.
I’d rather not sit him cause we can. That doesn’t do a great deal of help. If he’s ready he’s ready, if he’s not he’s not.
I’m guessing sooner rather then later he’s going to need nhl minutes.
Robertson can use some more cooking in the A the. Schneider at this point. If he has a great camp, this is where the traffic jam starts to come into play.

 

[NYR Viper]

I think we can argue why the Rangers don't need to trade one of Jones or Lundkvist but IMO the bottom line is that the Rangers will want one of Schneider or Robertson in the lineup, maybe even both, and Jones and/or Lundkvist are the most likely to go to make room
It's possible they could stretch it out long enough to move Trouba and make room for Schneider that way and maybe Robertson takes Lindgren's place in the lineup at some point instead, but I'm not holding my breath on that one
You can't hold onto everyone

And this is fine. I'm okay making a deal where the team uses it position of strength to address a weakness but I don't see a need to rush. There are a lot of unknowns and different paths may prove better moving forward. For example, if the Rangers trade Jones and Robertson doesn't transition to pro hockey as we all project, the left side of the defense moving forward takes a BIG hit. Or, what happens if Robertson, Schneider and Nils all look fantastic this year and all push for time this season but Lindgren struggles slightly opening up a path to trade him and back-fill with less expensive options?

I guess what I'm saying is there isn't one specific way to build a defense and I don't see the need to make a move just because they have depth there. Let the guys develop and see what they have at the end of this season. If a deal arises that you need to use some of the capital available for, by all means, but I wouldn't be actively searching for a deal to trade a d-man.

 

[duhmetreE]

Well, I don't think anyone can say explicitly.

Did we come out and say "we're in a hurry"? Could be JD and Gorts were short of where they expected to be, but not necessarily that we mean to rush things, just that there were greater expectations. I particularly think that OWNERSHIP expected to cash in on the hype of #2 and #1OA and when neither delivered he wanted somewhere to let the axe fall, more so than he just wanted the playoffs. I also think there was internal stuff regarding the tuffness after the Wilson incident and Isles games.

But more importantly, why would Jones or Lundkvist be impacted by us being in a rush? Sure, one could be moved if we're making a big impact trade, but that's true either way - we have a lot of good young D, if we make an impact trade for a C someone's going to be involved, and it likely won't necessarily be dictated solely on which one we like best but also on the target we're acquiring and the other GM's desires.

But all that hypotheticalizing is moot, because all I meant was, if we're not packaging them for a star, what's the rush to decide either/or? For now, why is there any reason to choose Lunkdvist OR Jones? If neither is part of a big package deal, we can hold both for now and if we feel we need more size or something different on the backend we can address it once we've actually made assessments.

Well, to the original point, it's why Jones and Lundkvist are continuously put in hypothetical trades.

They are similar style players. We can only ice 18 skaters. Consolidation and using a strength to address a weakness.

I have no problem if they are here. I have no problem if we take a wait and see approach. But I would have an issue if Lindgren, Fox, Lundkvist and Jones are 4/6 of the D corps. That's just not big enough for continued playoffs success imo

 

[jay from jersey]

Well, to the original point, it's why Jones and Lundkvist are continuously put in hypothetical trades.

They are similar style players. We can only ice 18 skaters. Consolidation and using a strength to address a weakness.

I have no problem if they are here. I have no problem if we take a wait and see approach. But I would have an issue if Lindgren, Fox, Lundkvist and Jones are 4/6 of the D corps. That's just not big enough for continued playoffs success imo

This is the biggest reason. Especially both being good PP options where Fox is going to get the bulk of the time there.

 

[LokiDog]

Well, to the original point, it's why Jones and Lundkvist are continuously put in hypothetical trades.

They are similar style players. We can only ice 18 skaters. Consolidation and using a strength to address a weakness.

I have no problem if they are here. I have no problem if we take a wait and see approach. But I would have an issue if Lindgren, Fox, Lundkvist and Jones are 4/6 of the D corps. That's just not big enough for continued playoffs success imo

I agree with all of this, but I guess my point was, if there's a trade coming, there's a trade coming regardless. My point wasn't to never trade either, but that unless there's a big trade coming, there's no reason to decide one is a keeper over the other today. And that's just in response to seeing a few posts state I'd rather keep Jones over Lundkvist or vice versa. If we're discussing in the context of a trade that's actually being discussed, fair; everyone has their preferences. If we're just arbitrarily deciding which one should be the one to stay, there's no point in making that determination at this point. I can't see a future Rangers blueline that doesn't feature at least one of Schneider/Robertson.

 

[duhmetreE]

I agree with all of this, but I guess my point was, if there's a trade coming, there's a trade coming regardless. My point wasn't to never trade either, but that unless there's a big trade coming, there's no reason to decide one is a keeper over the other today. And that's just in response to seeing a few posts state I'd rather keep Jones over Lundkvist or vice versa. If we're discussing in the context of a trade that's actually being discussed, fair; everyone has their preferences. If we're just arbitrarily deciding which one should be the one to stay, there's no point in making that determination at this point. I can't see a future Rangers blueline that doesn't feature at least one of Schneider/Robertson.

I honestly have no preference but with the cards we're dealt right now, Lundkvist makes more sense.

I'll die on my 'Jones+ for Dvorak' hill too

 

[UnSandvich]

value-wise Ardbeg and Laph hold way better than Lagavulin. Overrated af imo

PLOWED Single Malt Scotch Whisky =P

Daaaamn son. You’ve got me beat there. I don’t have a recent enough picture worth sharing, but I keep track of my collection on a Google doc. Somewhere in the 115-120 range if I remember correctly.

Sandvich's Liquor Scroungings

 

[Vitto79]

I think we can argue why the Rangers don't need to trade one of Jones or Lundkvist but IMO the bottom line is that the Rangers will want one of Schneider or Robertson in the lineup, maybe even both, and Jones and/or Lundkvist are the most likely to go to make room
It's possible they could stretch it out long enough to move Trouba and make room for Schneider that way and maybe Robertson takes Lindgren's place in the lineup at some point instead, but I'm not holding my breath on that one
You can't hold onto everyone

if they stay patient and use all the entry level years they likely move out Trouba in a few seasons

I’m 3 years
Lindgren , Fox
Miller , Lundkvist
Robertson , Schneider
Vet like Nemeth

So one kid like Jones in a deal

 

[DialUp]

if they stay patient and use all the entry level years they likely move out Trouba in a few seasons

I’m 3 years
Lindgren , Fox
Miller , Lundkvist
Robertson , Schneider
Vet like Nemeth

So one kid like Jones in a deal

6 D men who never played a game for any other NHL team except for the Rangers would be absolutely ridiculous (awesome if it turned out that way, but ridiculous). Is there any team that rolls out 6 players like that?

 

[Ola]

if they stay patient and use all the entry level years they likely move out Trouba in a few seasons

I’m 3 years
Lindgren , Fox
Miller , Lundkvist
Robertson , Schneider
Vet like Nemeth

So one kid like Jones in a deal

Is it “likely”? More than 50%?

Just that I’ve probably felt the same a dozen times before and we have never been able to trade expensive vets…

I get the logic behind it. But I wouldn’t put the likeness for it above maybe 5%. Very slim chance either Kreider and Trouba can be traded.

 

[GoAwayPanarin]

There's only an advantage in being bigger if you can actually defend at that level. We've had big guys get hurt too.

The only reason a team hasn't won a Cup with 3 players at 5'11" yet is because it hasn't been tried. Similarly to no team winning a Cup with 4 Russians prior to 1994. Doesn't mean it can't be done.

Correlation does not imply causation. Go with your best players, not the ones who can reach the top shelves but can't skate.

Being Russian isn't a physical limitation.

It hasn't been tried for a reason.

 

[Amazing Kreiderman]

6 D men who never played a game for any other NHL team except for the Rangers would be absolutely ridiculous (awesome if it turned out that way, but ridiculous). Is there any team that rolls out 6 players like that?

In 2013, Nashville had Weber, Josi, Jones, Ekholm, Ellis and Klein.