Speculation: Roster Building Thread: Part XXXII

[nyr2k2]

I just want to re-state that just because Gorton may try to start building this off-season doesn't mean the team all of a sudden starts mortgaging the future to compete again. There is nothing that says they an't sign Panarin this off-season and then deal Shattenkirk, Fast and Namestnikov at the deadline to get more futures. The question is, would Panarin be a good long-term piece for this organization. If the answer is yet, sign him

Yeah exactly, I don't get the feeling that's what we're talking about at all. I think they want to nail the draft again, maybe lure a nice FA or two, move out some guys at the TDL, and then really gear up for a couple seasons down the road. That's just my feeling. I don't think we're going to be trading Kravtsov and Miller and firsts and all kinds of crazy shit.

 

[Edge]

Yeah, and I'm not advocating just doing it quick for the sake of doing it quick. But if the team thinks they can make some reasonable signings (Panarin or otherwise), move some picks around, and evaluate their current players/prospects and move on them, quickly enough to become a good team by 20-21? I'm happy to hear that.

I'm somewhat skeptical, but I like what we've done so far and have no reason to think Gorton is going to **** it up.

At the end of the day, I can't control what the Rangers do or don't know. My personal opinion is that now is not the time to try speed things up --- there's simply too many holes at the moment and doing so will inevitably impact the timeline we give to our kids. And I've already stated a bunch of reasons that could essentially be copied and pasted from previous threads.

Having said that, if the Rangers are going to go down that path, there's no way the cost is cheap. It won't be some picks, or a couple of prospects.

And beyond all the talk of would/could/should, none of which we control, I'm not terribly convinced that a lot of people realize just how high that cost would be. I think the concept sounds significantly better in one's head than when you read about it as breaking news.

I think there will be some free agent signings. But I don't think they're going to be the magnitude some think...or want.

 

[SA16]

I think this is one the most ridiculous posts I’ve ever read.

21/31 of the current GM's are former professional players. Many of these have no college degree at all. You cannot possibly convince me that these are the most qualified people to run organizations worth hundreds of millions of dollars and that someone who is a high level manager of any other company could not be just as successful if they had the interest to do it. This happens all the time in other industries.

 

[JESSEWENEEDTOCOOK]

21/31 of the current GM's are former professional players. Many of these have no college degree at all. You cannot possibly convince me that these are the most qualified people to run organizations worth hundreds of millions of dollars and that someone who is a high level manager of any other company could not be just as successful if they had the interest to do it.

Yeah, I’m not disagreeing that a lot of the guys who are GMs aren’t particularly qualified, I’m disagreeing that the job isn’t difficult.

 

[TheBloodyNine]

I don't think "Speed up" means Panarin. I think it means what has been being said by Gorton, maybe acquiring a young building block player already in the league that fits in line with the rebuild.

 

[Edge]

This is true, but when have we ever done what we've done the past two years? Or even going back to the Stepan deal. This is atypical for the Rangers. I recall one substantial selling of assets that I think most of us knew even at the time we screwed up. They've taken a smart, measured approach the past few seasons and maybe will do it again next year, or at least leading up to this draft. So if we were to try to go a little faster, spend some money, I don't know that it's really fully comparable to the past since the build up was so different.

The reality is that even if we go back to the Stepan deal (and I personally view that as more of a prologue), we're still not even two years out from that point.

I think there's a mindset in today's day and age that two years is a long time, and it's really not.

The assets we have are still very young. And the holes we have, are still plentiful.

And that doesn't take into account that when you're in the position we're in, you're usually not getting your pick of the litter or getting a lot of discounts. So I'm not really sure if just going out and signing quality free agents to reasonable contracts is as attainable as we might think. There's probably a decent premium to be payed.

 

[SA16]

Yeah, I’m not disagreeing that a lot of the guys who are GMs aren’t particularly qualified, I’m disagreeing that the job isn’t difficult.

Maybe I should have said it is difficult to diagnose whether or not someone is doing a good job because there is a massive appeal to authority with these things and even more of a results-oriented approach as opposed to process-oriented. My belief is the majority of them are doing a very poor job.

For example, you have the Giants GM last year basically saying positional value in football is total nonsense. This is obviously a blatantly false statement yet he clearly believes it to be true given he took a RB 2nd overall.

 

[Edge]

It seems a lot of people subscribe to the thought process in bold. I don't know how you could feel strongly about that without knowing exactly what it would entail.

I take it at face value of the definition of the world accelerate: to cause to move faster or speed up.

To me, in the context of a rebuild, that implies not letting things progress in a natural manner.

I don't think natural progression excludes any free agents. But I don't think it includes premium free agents. And when most people talk about speeding things up, I've gotten the sense that the vision in their head definitely leans toward the latter.

 

[JESSEWENEEDTOCOOK]

Maybe I should have said it is difficult to diagnose whether or not someone is doing a good job because there is a massive appeal to authority with these things. My belief is the majority of them are doing a very poor job.

For example, you have the Giants GM last year basically saying positional value in football is total nonsense. This is obviously a blatantly false statement yet he clearly believes it to be true given he took a RB 2nd overall.

When you put it like that, I agree with you.

 

[Trxjw]

Still not sure how Panarin speeds anything up. Adding 82 points to the wing doesn't suddenly mean our prospects are ready for prime time. It doesn't mean that Staal, Smith and Shattenkirk are gone. It doesn't mean that Hank is suddenly rejuvenated.

To me it's a move to appease restless fans and not much more than that.

 

[JESSEWENEEDTOCOOK]

Still not sure how Panarin speeds anything up. Adding 82 points to the wing doesn't suddenly mean our prospects are ready for prime time. It doesn't mean that Staal, Smith and Shattenkirk are gone. It doesn't mean that Hank is suddenly rejuvenated.

To me it's a move to appease restless fans and not much more than that.

Agreed. I’m just hoping that was McKenzie speculating more than it was him reporting.

 

[FIRE DRURY]

An NHL GM job is not particularly difficult and I think the evidence of that is pretty obvious. The main qualification is generally "was a former player"

 

[DanielBrassard]

I just want to re-state that just because Gorton may try to start building this off-season doesn't mean the team all of a sudden starts mortgaging the future to compete again. There is nothing that says they an't sign Panarin this off-season and then deal Shattenkirk, Fast and Namestnikov at the deadline to get more futures. The question is, would Panarin be a good long-term piece for this organization. If the answer is yet, sign him

Well said Viper. Signing a big UFA or making a trade to add someone doesn't mean the rebuild is over or the team is going to stop acquiring assets for the future.

 

[effen]

21/31 of the current GM's are former professional players. Many of these have no college degree at all. You cannot possibly convince me that these are the most qualified people to run organizations worth hundreds of millions of dollars and that someone who is a high level manager of any other company could not be just as successful if they had the interest to do it. This happens all the time in other industries.

I don't think GMs are part of the organizations in the way you're describing. They're not, like, negotiating the nacho cheese vendor contract.

 

[Edge]

But that's my thing--moving a couple picks and signing a couple players WOULD be speeding up the rebuild, even if it's not in a dramatic way. The rebuild to this point has been the standard sign basically no one, suck, trade your good pieces, and repeat. So it doesn't take much to speed things up, even if it's not substantial. I said in another post I don't expect any type of dramatic, aggressive attempt to turn this around because the team has no shown any interest in doing that, to this point. But you can make moves to theoretically help now AND down the line without going crazy.


It's not a really long time and I expect at least another full year of this. Four summers and three full seasons of adding younger, controllable assets is where we'd be at that time. And I think that's about when the team will really try to make a move. I don't think the team will have trouble luring talent here; the market is attractive, which helps, but I think if you can sell a plan, a vision, it becomes totally realistic.

But who knows.

I'm not completely oppossed to some of the concept, I just don't really see how it works.

Teams aren't necessarily trading young, cost-controlled core players unless something has seriously gone off the rails, or because they are trading for pieces to shore-up other areas. Those are the guys who help now, and over the long haul.

But those guys generally aren't traded for a pair of prospects or picks. There's little value in a team doing that. Hell, if we had a player like that in a few years, would we trade them for prospects/picks? Probably not.

So right off the bat, I think that eliminates the type of player that most people hope/think/envision the Rangers getting, and leaves us with either older players who earned their contracts for past accomplishments, or guys who are more suspect than prospect.

I get the "concept" of what we're talking about. It's the fit and context I have a hard time envisioning.

 

[NYR Viper]

I know this has been discussed but the Rangers could conceivably:

Trade Kreider for a 1st '19 + good prospect + middling NHLer

2019 draft:
NYR 1st
WPG 1st
XX 1st (Kreider deal)
*TB 1st (assuming they win the Cup)

NYR 2nd
*DAL 2nd (assuming they don't win 2 rounds)

Sign Panarin for 7 years

Trade Shattenkirk, Fast, Vesey and Namestnikov at next years deadline, say they return (3) 2nd's and a 3rd.

2020 draft:
NYR 1st
DAL 1st (assuming Zuccarello re-signs in Dallas)

NYR 2nd
XX 2nd
XX 2nd
XX 2nd

That would conceivably be a rebuilt roster on 2 years.

 

[NYR Viper]

Still not sure how Panarin speeds anything up. Adding 82 points to the wing doesn't suddenly mean our prospects are ready for prime time. It doesn't mean that Staal, Smith and Shattenkirk are gone. It doesn't mean that Hank is suddenly rejuvenated.

To me it's a move to appease restless fans and not much more than that.

Well, there is the advantage of not throwing your kids into the proverbial fire and developing a legitimate top-line with Panarin and Zibanejad growing together moving forward.

 

[SA16]

I don't think GMs are part of the organizations in the way you're describing. They're not, like, negotiating the nacho cheese vendor contract.

I would think negotiating multimillion dollar contracts with athletes is something that might require a little bit of business acumen and a little less "has played the game."

 

[Trxjw]

Agreed. I’m just hoping that was McKenzie speculating more than it was him reporting.

I think it's still some residual speculation from the rumors that Panarin wants to play in NY, and the fact that we've been a big time player in free agency historically. Lots of people are reluctant to believe that the rebuild is real.

Now if some things break right for the Rangers then there are some scenarios when I could see them making a play for Panarin. However almost all of them start with "The Rangers are proud to select, from the USNTDP, Jack Hughes."

 

[Ghost of jas]

I'm not completely oppossed to some of the concept, I just don't really see how it works.

Teams aren't necessarily trading young, cost-controlled core players unless something has seriously gone off the rails, or because they are trading for pieces to shore-up other areas. Those are the guys who help now, and over the long haul.

But those guys generally aren't traded for a pair of prospects or picks. There's little value in a team doing that. Hell, if we had a player like that in a few years, would we trade them for prospects/picks? Probably not.

So right off the bat, I think that eliminates the type of player that most people hope/think/envision the Rangers getting, and leaves us with either older players who earned their contracts for past accomplishments, or guys who are more suspect than prospect.

I get the "concept" of what we're talking about. It's the fit and context I have a hard time envisioning.

The scenario I could see happening is a potential RFA that has made it clear they have no intention of re-signing with their current team.

 

[Trxjw]

Well, there is the advantage of not throwing your kids into the proverbial fire and developing a legitimate top-line with Panarin and Zibanejad growing together moving forward.

Sure, but don't we already have that guy in Kreider? Plus we have the luxury of knowing for sure that the two of them have chemistry. It's more of a hope and pray situation with Panarin. He's a fantastic player but finding the right linemates for people isn't an exact science by any stretch.

 

[Off Sides]

I thought @Edge did a masterful job portraying the likely foreshadowing which led to my conception.

 

[Matt Rentfree]

I'm just gonna leave this right here:

sat·ire
/ˈsaˌtī(ə)r/
noun
noun: satire
the use of humor, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people's stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues.

 

[NYR Viper]

Sure, but don't we already have that guy in Kreider? Plus we have the luxury of knowing for sure that the two of them have chemistry. It's more of a hope and pray situation with Panarin. He's a fantastic player but finding the right linemates for people isn't an exact science by any stretch.

Yes, possibly. I just happen to think that Panarin is the better player and if he was to come to NY, trading Kreider for additional assets leads to a quicker rebuild. Adding another 1st and (2) possible good prospects (similar to Lucic) would be a nice addition to the organization.

Panarin's contract also takes up more prime years as compared to Kreider's next deal. Panarin will be ~27 when his next deal starts. Kreider will be 29. I assume both will get 7 years

 

[effen]

I would think negotiating multimillion dollar contracts with athletes is something that might require a little bit of business acumen and a little less "has played the game."

Every front office has a team of several guys, including one or more "cap guys". It's not necessary for the guy interfacing and shaking hands to be well versed in SPC details -- having a Dubas or Chakya type backed up by other Dubas types is a big overlap of resources and puts at a big risk of groupthink.

If I were an org with a ton of smart guys in it behind the scenes, I'd be smart enough to shore up areas I was weak in. Every industry has some level of "this guys knows everyone" guys in it and it's not just for nepotism reasons.