Speculation: Roster Building Thread - Part XXVIII

[Bondra slapshot]

I don't think it's worthwhile for the Rangers to trade for any rentals this year. They've only started to end their rebuild and they're already getting trigger happy? If they want to trade for a player that already has term and they can make the cap work, then that's understandable. But spending assets for a rental is what we hope they're doing a few years from now as a serious contender. This is too soon for such a trade like that.

 

[TheBloodyNine]

If there's a Columbus name that I'd like to talk more about its Gavrikov.

 

[mas0764]

I don't think it's worthwhile for the Rangers to trade for any rentals this year. They've only started to end their rebuild and they're already getting trigger happy? If they want to trade for a player that already has term and they can make the cap work, then that's understandable. But spending assets for a rental is what we hope they're doing a few years from now as a serious contender. This is too soon for such a trade like that.

You are 1000% correct.

The Rangers don't really have the cap space to acquire a long term piece for next season given the extensions that kick in and the other players they will need to re-sign (like Kakko). Any player added with term who has serious AAV will require sending out someone else, and the two most disposable pieces the Rangers have with serious AAV are Kreider and Trouba, both of whom have NMCs and both of whom everyone swears up and down are "untradeable," because of how terrible everyone remaining in the locker room would feel.

So they are either paying for a guy who will walk, or, they are committing to bring someone aboard at the expense of Kreider, Trouba, or someone else in the offseason (Goodrow?).

At the same time the Rangers are an incomplete product as far as their rebuild goes in the forward corps. Strome cannot be afforded in the offseason if he even wants $4-5m, and Chytil hasn't blossomed yet. Even if he does, envy-of-the-league center depth is what wins in this league more often than not, whereas a center core of Zibanejad-Chytil would merely be adequate, so the Rangers should be - at the very, very least - very, very intent on adding another young, elite center that can form an elite pairing with Mika and eventually supplant him. With Kravtsov bolting the Rangers could probably use another long term top-6 winger who can score, or long term top-9 winger who could blossom into a top-6 winger. Ergo, it would be foolish for the Rangers to be trading away from their quickly diminishing stable of assets to get a rental who walks after the season, when those assets need to be preserved to be parlayed into the much needed center and winger.

If you can get a piece like Reilly Smith at the deadline for a fourth, that's a different story. High end prospects and first round picks, and really even second round picks, should be off the table completely.

 

[McRanger92]

Trouba isn't going anywhere and team's don't win Cups without a significant 30+ vet on the back end.

A section of this board still thinks the Rangers are rebuilding, despite boatloads of evidence that they aren't. Trouba & Kreider are going nowhere anytime soon, nor should they. They are core players and the team would be far worse without them in the lineup. The 5 year window to win a Cup with this core has started, and the team will act accordingly

 

[Pawnee Rangers]

We need Pettersson way more than we need Trouba, period. Pettersson is an elite talent at the most important position on the ice, a position we have a gaping hole at, what's more (as opposed to a position we are chock full at and can't even keep everyone). Further undermining your argument, Trouba isn't 30, so..... he doesn't fulfill your requirement either, and is therefore disposable.

But I'm all ears for suggestions for - if you want to continue to try to cling to Trouba until he's been relegated to the third pair by being passed on the depth chart, which WILL occur in the coming few seasons - who else we could move to make this happen. It could probably be Kreider, but then we are thin on the wing since Kravtsov has also been moved in this package. Not sure where else we could free up space for Pettersson's $7.5m deal.

So your plan for completing the rebuild is trading two guys with NTC's? Good luck.

 

[mas0764]

So your plan for completing the rebuild is trading two guys with NTC's? Good luck.

Well, it would just be one of those two guys, but for Pettersson I would pull the trigger first and then start trying to move guys after, but yes, Trouba would be the first one I approach.

Hey, Jake, listen, it's been great, but, we are gonna go ahead and bury you unless you agree to waive to such and such team.

I dunno. That's the obvious first move cause he is organically replaceable with similar TALENT we already possess, albeit not with similar experience, but a guy like Schneider will acquire that experience over time, whereas we just don't have a talent like Pettersson at 2C, and no one we have right now will ever acquire that talent.

I'm open to other suggestions but I'm not sure where else you'd be able to dig up that money. Can we cheat like the Lightning and stash someone on LTIR until the playoffs? Then maybe the following offseason the cap goes up a bit and we have more flexibility.

 

[Avery16]

I don't think it's worthwhile for the Rangers to trade for any rentals this year. They've only started to end their rebuild and they're already getting trigger happy? If they want to trade for a player that already has term and they can make the cap work, then that's understandable. But spending assets for a rental is what we hope they're doing a few years from now as a serious contender. This is too soon for such a trade like that.

This. Also, one or two players arent fixing the multipositional issues that are apparent every game. If those players are rentals, the fix would only be temporary and for no perceivable gain.

 

[Pawnee Rangers]

For Pettersson I would pull the trigger first and then start trying to move guys after, but yes, Trouba would be the first one I approach.

Hey, Jake, listen, it's been great, but, we are gonna go ahead and bury you unless you agree to waive to such and such team.

I dunno. That's the obvious first move. I'm open to other suggestions but I'm not sure where else you'd be able to dig up that money. Can we cheat like the Lightning and stash someone on LTIR until the playoffs? Then maybe the following offseason the cap goes up a bit and we have more flexibility.

I just don't think you're being realistic. First off, the Rangers need Trouba for at least a few more years. He's one of the most important players in the locker room and on the ice. Remove Trouba and that puts unneeded pressure, wear and tear on Fox. Third, he's not waiving. He has no reason to. Guys wait their entire careers to sign the contract that gives them certainty and Drury won't use a threat of burying him. Petterson is a pipe dream. It's not happening.

 

[duhmetreE]

We can't afford Pettersson without gutting the team.

This is the team minus a little tweaking here and there. A prospect hockey trade makes the most sense.

 

[mas0764]

I just don't think you're being realistic.

If I'm not, it's because the Canucks probably aren't willing to move Pettersson just yet.

If they are, I make that above offer all day long. Nothing unrealistic about that in the slightest.

Then you are left with the question: How do we clear the cap space?

First off, the Rangers need Trouba for at least a few more years.

Yeah, I don't agree. He's a second pair defenseman. I mean, the Rangers "needed," Nemeth too, that's why they signed him, but there are way different levels of need.

The Rangers need that 22 year old 2C/1C in the organization way more than they need Trouba.

Would they take a hit at 2nd pair RD for a two seasons while Schneider matriculated? Yes.

But they'd also be way, way, WAY better at 2C.

Net positive.

He's one of the most important players in the locker room and on the ice. Remove Trouba and that puts unneeded pressure, wear and tear on Fox. Third, he's not waiving. He has no reason to. Guys wait their entire careers to sign the contract that gives them certainty. Petterson is a pipe dream. It's not happening.

The Rangers were in on Eichel till the last day even after signing Zibanejad, so it's not a pipe dream that the Rangers are chasing a high priced center. It's a question of the fallout.

Second, guys with NMCs are moved all the time. It happens. Maybe you have to pay another team a pick to take him on, etc, it might require getting creative.

For a player like Pettersson, you get creative.

I agree this is mostly unfounded speculation. That's why we are talking about it in the roster building thread. But the reason it's far fetched is because the Canucks won't move him, not because the Rangers wouldn't clear the decks to add him.

 

[duhmetreE]

Brooksie talking about 'Dafuq you doing Drury and Gallant' in his paywall article.

Lundkvist not playing late game when holding a lead. Lundkvist not playing late game when you need a goal. He's not physcial or strong puck mover. Why is he here?

 

[mas0764]

We can't afford Pettersson without gutting the team.

This is the team minus a little tweaking here and there. A prospect hockey trade makes the most sense.

You don't have to gut the team, you just have to move Kreider or Trouba.

And like I said, one or both of those guys is not seeing the end of their contracts here.

If Pettersson is on the table, you speed up that time line.

22 year old franchise center and people won't budge on Jacob Trouba, an overpaid 2nd pair defender.... that's just fan favoritism. Trouba is a good player, but he's just not a necessary player, especially not when you have Schneider, Robertson, Jones, Reunanen, etc, all lined up behind him and looking like very probably quality second pairing types.

 

[McRanger92]

You don't have to gut the team, you just have to move Kreider or Trouba.

And like I said, one or both of those guys is not seeing the end of their contracts here.

If Pettersson is on the table, you speed up that time line.

22 year old franchise center and people won't budge on Jacob Trouba, an overpaid 2nd pair defender.... that's just fan favoritism.

To get Pettersson, you will lose one of Trouba/Kreider plus Strome for nothing in addition to the trade cost of Laf/Kakko, Chytil, Nils/Jones plus picks. Also wouldnt be surprised if Canucks ask for Miller specfically.

How is losing 5 NHL regulars not gutting the team? Pettersson is also already taking heat in Vancouver about his maturity & compete level. Its not happening, please join us back in the real world.

 

[Pawnee Rangers]

If I'm not, it's because the Canucks probably aren't willing to move Pettersson just yet.

If they are, I make that above offer all day long. Nothing unrealistic about that in the slightest.

Then you are left with the question: How do we clear the cap space?



Yeah, I don't agree. He's a second pair defenseman. I mean, the Rangers "needed," Nemeth too, that's why they signed him, but there are way different levels of need.

The Rangers need that 22 year old 2C/1C in the organization way more than they need Trouba.

Would they take a hit at 2nd pair RD for a two seasons while Schneider matriculated? Yes.

But they'd also be way, way, WAY better at 2C.

Net positive.



The Rangers were in on Eichel till the last day even after signing Zibanejad, so it's not a pipe dream that the Rangers are chasing a high priced center. It's a question of the fallout.

Second, guys with NMCs are moved all the time. It happens. Maybe you have to pay another team a pick to take him on, etc, it might require getting creative.

For a player like Pettersson, you get creative.

I agree this is mostly unfounded speculation. That's why we are talking about it in the roster building thread. But the reason it's far fetched is because the Canucks won't move him, not because the Rangers wouldn't clear the decks to add him.

How do you know they were in on Eichel till the last day? Reports were they were out and were never really serious or willing to give Buffalo what they wanted. Regardless, they have their 1C (is this even a question anymore or do you think they'll ask Zib to waive next year?). And they probably have their 2C in Chytil. And Trouba isn't/won't be asked to waive for at least a few years, if at all. Same with Kreider. This is the team they're going to try and win with. They'll make some moves to bolster a few weaknesses with non-sexy signings and trades but the core is here. I'd be shocked if they make some huge mega deal anytime soon.

 

[Gluten Free Breadman]

Yes, but the point I was replying to was that FO isnt going to make a move that's unpopular to the locker room at this juncture. Them not getting Fast to stay is about as unpopular with the locker room as could be, but they did it to save term. They will have no problems moving Strome if it improves the team in the near term.

Strome is leaving soon, and that will hurt the team. Getting a return for him will help mitigate that. We arent even flirting with the playoffs this season. Anyone watching this team even halfway objectively should know that.

Letting Fast walk and trading Buch were unpopular with the locker room, but it was the offseason. It wasn't at the trade deadline. It didn't affect chemistry.

If, hypothetically, the Rangers get to the deadline with 94 points in 73 games, (105 point pace) and Drury decides to sell the second line center, that action is fundamentally telling every player on the team that Drury doesn't believe in the team. Some players may not care, but when you have a goal in mind that was set at the beginning of the year by your boss and he says you can't do it, maybe next year, you will lose your motivation and be pissed.

Obviously you believe the Rangers won't even make it to the playoff picture and then yeah, sell strome, who cares, but there is little reason to believe this team is going nowhere when we are currently on pace for 114 points over 82 games.

If we do want to get a return on Strome, trade him now and find a suitable replacement now.

 

[mas0764]

To get Pettersson, you will lose one of Trouba/Kreider plus Strome for nothing in addition to the trade cost of Laf/Kakko, Chytil, Nils/Jones plus picks. Also wouldnt be surprised if Canucks ask for Miller specfically.

How is losing 5 NHL regulars not gutting the team?

Well, because that's not what the cost would be.

Strome is already gone for nothing. We can't afford him next offseason. I mean, I've advocated trading him and was yelled at by the board elders that trying to GET SOMETHING for Strome is a bad idea, that the only possible scenario that DOESN'T destroy the team is to self rent Strome for a playoff push and then let him walk for nothing.

So Strome is already a zero. Acquiring Pettersson doesn't change anything about Strome being gone, so his impending loss is not a factor in the discussion.

My proposed trade was Nils, Kravtsov, a first, and Georgiev, or another small piece, maybe a lesser prospect, maybe a lesser pick, something like that. Given the Eichel return this is a very generous package; it's not unrealistic in the slightest. Maybe Vancouver wants this piece instead of that piece, etc, but that's a four piece package that Vancouver would be lucky to get back.

We are already running Georgiev out of town. Kravtsov has already been run out of town. We lose exactly one NHL piece in this trade in Nils. That's not gutting the team.

Prior to next season we have to move either Kreider or Trouba. My preference would be Trouba. He would be traded for a small package of picks and prospects (ie, not talking first round picks and high end center prospects). Those assets join the system and Trouba is replaced on the roster with an AHL defenseman ie Schneider or Robertson.

Summary - the deal requires from our NHL roster, Nils and Trouba out, Pettersson in. It's a net loss of one player. It's not gutting anything. Oh, and we are overflowing with young defensemen to replace Nils and Trouba, since people have already been advocating we trade Nils for a center to begin with. Jones, Robertson, and Schneider are all almost ready to play.

If the Canucks ask for Miller, I still might make the deal, but then Nils is out of the deal. So same net loss.

 

[OrangePMD]

If there's a Columbus name that I'd like to talk more about its Gavrikov.

He's just as important to CBJ as Lindgren is to NYR. I'd assume their trade value is about the same as well, except Columbus has cap space. And they also have a GM who bends other GM's over in trades.

 

[McRanger92]

Well, because that's not what the cost would be.

Strome is already gone for nothing. We can't afford him next offseason. I mean, I've advocated trading him and was yelled at by the board elders that trying to GET SOMETHING for Strome is a bad idea, that the only possible scenario that DOESN'T destroy the team is to self rent Strome for a playoff push and then let him walk for nothing.

So Strome is already a zero. Acquiring Pettersson doesn't change anything about Strome being gone, so his impending loss is not a factor in the discussion.

My proposed trade was Nils, Kravtsov, a first, and Georgiev, or another small piece, maybe a lesser prospect, maybe a lesser pick, something like that. Given the Eichel return this is a very generous package; it's not unrealistic in the slightest. Maybe Vancouver wants this piece instead of that piece, etc, but that's a four piece package that Vancouver would be lucky to get back.

We are already running Georgiev out of town. Kravtsov has already been run out of town. We lose exactly one NHL piece in this trade in Nils. That's not gutting the team.

Prior to next season we have to move either Kreider or Trouba. My preference would be Trouba. He would be traded for a small package of picks and prospects (ie, not talking first round picks and high end center prospects). Those assets join the system and Trouba is replaced on the roster with an AHL defenseman ie Schneider or Robertson.

Summary - the deal requires from our NHL roster, Nils and Trouba out, Pettersson in. It's a net loss of one player. It's not gutting anything. Oh, and we are overflowing with young defensemen to replace Nils and Trouba, since people have already been advocating we trade Nils for a center to begin with. Jones, Robertson, and Schneider are all almost ready to play.

If the Canucks ask for Miller, I still might make the deal, but then Nils is out of the deal. So same net loss.

I dont understand how you think Strome goes for a "Robertson & a 1st" type package as a rental, but Pettersson on a 3 year deal at 7.3 (whom the Canucks consider untouchable) goes for Nils a 1st and 2 "assets" that realistically have no value right now in Kravtsov & Georgiev. You are assuming the Rangers make two comically one sided trades in their favor that conveniently suit this narrative.

 

[mas0764]

How do you know they were in on Eichel till the last day?
Reports were they were out and were never really serious or willing to give Buffalo what they wanted.

Vince and others have said that the Rangers did have serious interest and did continue to see if they could make a deal.

The issue with that is that Buffalo was never going to send him to the Rangers, cause they are mad at us or something, at least not without a substantial overpay. If they wanted Kakko or Lafreniere, then we made the right decision to say no, but that doesn't mean we weren't offering a package of other prospects down to the last day. We definitely still had that offer on the table.

Don't fool yourself, this team would jump at the chance to get Pettersson too.

Regardless, they have their 1C (is this even a question anymore or do you think they'll ask Zib to waive next year?) And they probably have their 2C in Chytil.

Ok, but Mika is 29 and they will need a new 1C someday relatively soon and not 8 years from now when his contract expires. And on top of that the best teams tend to have 2 elite centers.

Chytil is not a factor when it comes to Pettersson. If he explodes too, then great, we have 3 very good centers. If he doesn't, he can move to wing, or he can just be a good 3C. You deal with that issue when it comes. You don't refuse to add a center because Chytil might be good someday.

And Trouba isn't/won't be asked to waive for at least a few years, if at all. Same with Kreider. This is the team they're going to try and win with. They'll make some moves to bolster a few weaknesses with non-sexy signings and trades but the core is here. I'd be shocked if they make some huge mega deal anytime soon.

I expect they are ok with this core if this is all they can get their hands on.

They are not going to turn their nose up at a young center like Pettersson if they can make it happen.

One of either Trouba or Kreider is nearly guaranteed not to see the end of their contracts here. People need to stop living in fantasy land that these guys will make it to the end. Henrik flippin' Lundqvist got bought out. The flat cap world means the Rangers are going to need that money and those will be the two guys they go after at some point because they are the easiest combination of high salary, advanced age, and replaceability from within.

 

[bobbop]

You mean the same “second line center” who is going to bolt months from now for nothing? These are grown-ups and they understand the business side of it.

We’ll all see what happens soon enough.

You have no idea. No idea.

 

[Pawnee Rangers]

Vince and others have said that the Rangers did have serious interest and did continue to see if they could make a deal.

The issue with that is that Buffalo was never going to send him to the Rangers, cause they are mad at us or something, at least not without a substantial overpay. If they wanted Kakko or Lafreniere, then we made the right decision to say no, but that doesn't mean we weren't offering a package of other prospects down to the last day. We definitely still had that offer on the table.

Don't fool yourself, this team would jump at the chance to get Pettersson too.



Ok, but Mika is 29 and they will need a new 1C someday relatively soon and not 8 years from now when his contract expires. And on top of that the best teams tend to have 2 elite centers.

Chytil is not a factor when it comes to Pettersson. If he explodes too, then great, we have 3 very good centers. If he doesn't, he can move to wing, or he can just be a good 3C. You deal with that issue when it comes. You don't refuse to add a center because Chytil might be good someday.



I expect they are ok with this core if this is all they can get their hands on.

They are not going to turn their nose up at a young center like Pettersson if they can make it happen.

How can you say they'll need a new 1C "relatively soon" when their newly signed 1C's $8.5m/8 year deal hasn't even kicked in yet??

 

[TheBloodyNine]

Brooksie talking about 'Dafuq you doing Drury and Gallant' in his paywall article.

Lundkvist not playing late game when holding a lead. Lundkvist not playing late game when you need a goal. He's not physcial or strong puck mover. Why is he here?

I hate that I'm agreeing with Brooksie more and more but he's been hitting on some good articles. Lundkvist should absolutely be in the AHL right now, it hurts neither the team nor him.

 

[DudMan28]

But why does the “some point,” at which we have to “go for it,” have to be the very first year we have a realistic chance to make the playoffs coming out of a rebuild? Really, year 1 of a ten year playoff window has to be the year to push our chips to the center? Come on, that’s just impatience.

Well, you CAN always collect futures in hopes of building a juggernaut, it’s just a question of whether that’s a good idea or not.

For us, we decidedly lack a good enough 2C, and frankly given how Mika has tended to perform lately, probably a young 2C that can take over as 1C in the not too remote future. Why is it unrealistic to want to address that before starting to trade away futures?

I'm not suggesting they sell off the farm this year to go for it. I think this might be the first deadline we become buyers vs sellers. If the asking price isn't there for Strome then I'm holding onto him and trying to get our kids some playoff experience. I think that would be more valuable than a 2nd rounder. This is all dependent on where we are in the standings obviously.

The argument against the futures is that things don't always go as planned. We were ready to ship Trouba out to make room for Nils and he's been underwhelming. Laf hasn't found his footing yet. Krav isn't even on the team. All these guys we had penned into major roles are under performing/not even here. Montreal and the Isles proved you just need to get in and you can make a run. We have one the best goalies in the world again, why not go for it?

 

[mas0764]

I dont understand how you think Strome goes for a "Robertson & a 1st" type package as a rental, but Pettersson on a 3 year deal at 7.3 (whom the Canucks consider untouchable) goes for Nils a 1st and 2 "assets" that realistically have no value right now in Kravtsov & Georgiev. You are assuming the Rangers make two comically one sided trades in their favor that conveniently suit this narrative.

Perhaps you should pay more attention to transactions that actually happen?

The Kreider offer was a first and Robertson - that happened, unless Edge is lying. Teams overpay at the deadline cause that's what they do. If we can get that, we should take it. I'm not saying we "will," get that offer, I'm saying "if," we get that offer.

The Eichel deal was Krebs, Tuch and a future first and a future second - that happened. Nils, Kravtsov, a first and another prospect or pick would be equal or better than that package, plus Eichel is kind of a better player than Pettersson, albeit Pettersson is not injured, so it probably comes out in the wash.

Anyway I'm hypothesizing about this on the assumption, as another poster indicated, that Pettersson may be on the block for a rebuild from Vancouver at some point. If they aren't willing to move him, then oh well.

 

[mas0764]

I'm not suggesting they sell off the farm this year to go for it. I think this might be the first deadline we become buyers vs sellers. If the asking price isn't there for Strome then I'm holding onto him and trying to get our kids some playoff experience. I think that would be more valuable than a 2nd rounder. This is all dependent on where we are in the standings obviously.

Well, I agree that if the offer for Strome is a second or third, ok, I'll live with self-renting.

I personally would take the second round pick but I understand others who would say no to that.

I wouldn't agree at all if they turned down a first and a prime prospect like they did with Kreider.

The argument against the futures is that things don't always go as planned. We were ready to ship Trouba out to make room for Nils and he's been underwhelming. Laf hasn't found his footing yet. Krav isn't even on the team. All these guys we had penned into major roles are under performing/not even here. Montreal and the Isles proved you just need to get in and you can make a run. We have one the best goalies in the world again, why not go for it?

Because the Isles and Montreal still lost.

There are cinderella runs from teams, but the vast majority of winners, especially multi-time winners, are not Cinderella teams that ride hot goalies.

You want to win a Cup? Don't try to load up for a one-off hot goalie run.

Follow the template of other winners who actually have rings, not losers who've fallen short.

And the winners almost universally have more forward talent than we currently have, even if Laf and Kakko develop. We are still probably short a top center and another top-6 type forward, especially with Kravtsov gone.

I think people don't want this to be true, because they like our team and don't want to have to move guys they like. But it is true. We aren't there yet.