Toggle sidebar

Speculation: Roster Building Thread: Part XXVII – Fortnight, Not Fortnite

  • 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
  • We're expeting server maintenance on March 3rd starting at midnight, there may be downtime during the work.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Trxjw said:
Well I meant that Wheeler was a FA signing instead of signing with the team that drafted him. He signed with Boston instead of Arizona, but you're right that Atlanta traded for him. Sort of clouded my own point there, haha.
Click to expand...

Guys in the tiers of players that you cited will become available via trade over the coming years - thats just the nature of the business. I'd almost rather trade for that level of player instead of signing them as a UFA, at least you know you'll be paying for the "prime" years for that player rather than maybe the back end of the prime years and at least, satisfactory play.

I know thats sort of off topic, but thats what some want us to do with guys who aren't even close to that class of player. I like Hayes, I even think that 6x6 isn't a bad deal for him, I still don't want that contract on this team.

The whole "we may not even get another Zuccarello or Hayes" mind set has to stop. The goal should be to try and aim to get players better than that. Those players are available in the 2nd round.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jas and Wind Waker
OhYeahAndVesey said:
Maybe you're right - maybe I'm looking at it the wrong way. I see it as giving up a known quantity for a possibly lesser or possibly greater unknown quantity. like if I have a stock that's worth 25 cents right now and you buy it for a dollar knowing that it could end up being worth $2 or it could end up being worthless - I don't know if that's the best analogy but it sorta works.
Click to expand...

Not as good as your blackjack one.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Matt Rentfree
OhYeahAndVesey said:
Maybe you're right - maybe I'm looking at it the wrong way. I see it as giving up a known quantity for a possibly lesser or possibly greater unknown quantity. like if I have a stock that's worth 25 cents right now and you buy it for a dollar knowing that it could end up being worth $2 or it could end up being worthless - I don't know if that's the best analogy but it sorta works.
Click to expand...
To add to your analogy, it would be like that $1 you know you have will be $1 for maybe another 2-3-4 years, where that maybe $2 also has more than double that to become $2 or even be used to trade for something else down the line
 
OhYeahAndVesey said:
Maybe you're right - maybe I'm looking at it the wrong way. I see it as giving up a known quantity for a possibly lesser or possibly greater unknown quantity. like if I have a stock that's worth 25 cents right now and you buy it for a dollar knowing that it could end up being worth $2 or it could end up being worthless - I don't know if that's the best analogy but it sorta works.
Click to expand...

The stock is a known quality with an expiration date - In 2-3 years (possibly less), the price plummets completely. Better to sell high and hope your next investment rises.
 
OhYeahAndVesey said:
Maybe you're right - maybe I'm looking at it the wrong way. I see it as giving up a known quantity for a possibly lesser or possibly greater unknown quantity. like if I have a stock that's worth 25 cents right now and you buy it for a dollar knowing that it could end up being worth $2 or it could end up being worthless - I don't know if that's the best analogy but it sorta works.
Click to expand...

You're not wrong, because that's basically exactly what we're doing by dealing these guys for futures. Sticking with your analogy, what you're really doing is taking $100 in cash and investing it in a volatile security. It could crash and you end up with nothing, or it could boom and you come out looking like a genius. It could even end up paying out exactly what you put into it. Either way, you won't know until you try.

The Rangers need to stockpile assets, but the reality is most of those assets will never have a meaningful career with the Rangers. They'll either bust or get traded. Still, it's very early on and the initial results are actually very promising. Howden and Andersson are good character players with two-way ability that can be viable middle-six NHLers. Chytil and Kravtsov look like top-six forwards in the making. Miller and Lundkvist are having extremely good D+1 seasons. DeAngelo is making strides. Zibanejad looks like he's found a potentially elite level to his game. Shestyorkin and Georgiev are high quality goalie prospects. So if you look at all of that, it looks like we're off to a very good start.

I get the skepticism people have. It's hard to look at Olaf Lindbom, Ryan Gropp, Brandon Halverson, Christian Thomas, and Boo Nieves as the last 5 2nd round picks the Rangers have made and think "this team can draft well." But there are an awful lot of bright spots in the prospect pool after just two "rebuilding" drafts and some of the slightly forgotten guys having bounce-back seasons.
 
ZuccsFluffierFluffer said:
Guys in the tiers of players that you cited will become available via trade over the coming years - thats just the nature of the business. I'd almost rather trade for that level of player instead of signing them as a UFA, at least you know you'll be paying for the "prime" years for that player rather than maybe the back end of the prime years and at least, satisfactory play.

I know thats sort of off topic, but thats what some want us to do with guys who aren't even close to that class of player. I like Hayes, I even think that 6x6 isn't a bad deal for him, I still don't want that contract on this team.

The whole "we may not even get another Zuccarello or Hayes" mind set has to stop. The goal should be to try and aim to get players better than that. Those players are available in the 2nd round.
Click to expand...

I mean I look at it this way: The Rangers are off loading good players like Hayes and Zucc for futures. So when the time comes that the Rangers feel like they need to add a Hayes or a Zucc to finish off their roster, they can deal some futures for them. I just don't believe the time is right to hang onto them and hope.
 
Bunting on waivers from AZ. Worth a claim?

23, promising AHL Stats. Read about him being a potential pest to play against.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom