Speculation: Roster Building Thread: Part XXXII

[True Blue]

This is all subjective, but I fully expect Panarin to be a point per game player, well into his 30's. 34-35 he might show some decline.

Recent trends do not support this statement.

If Kovalchuk accepted 2 years , he'd be a Ranger.
If Panarin accepts 6years, he'll be a Ranger.

Ok. We are all given to flights of fancy, but those are major "IFs". You have no idea about Kovulchuk and there is NOTHING that Gorton has done to make me think this.

As for Panarin, why would the premier free agent accept anything less than maximum? Panarin IS going to get a max years, with max cash offer. Why would he accept anything less?

And again, that does not even address that there is anything at all to suggest that Gorton is going to go off script.

 

[RangerBoy]

Every team in the league signs players in their late 20's to long term deals.

Every single team. Go over to the Bruins board and tell them they made a mistake signing Marchand or Bergeron.

Why didn't Gorton re-sign McDonagh?

Why didn't Gorton re-sign Miller?

Why didn't Gorton re-sign Hayes?

Why didn't Gorton re-sign Zuccarello?

Why did Gorton trade all of them?

I remember you were saying the Rangers would re-sign Hayes or Zuccarello and probably re-sign both of them about a week before the deadline.

Why didn't Gorton re-sign any of these players?

Gorton signed Shattenkirk and Smith to 4 year deals. 28-32. Larry Brooks wrote Shattenkirk is playing for his Rangers career. Both of those contracts stink. Gorton held the line at 4 years for Shattenkirk for a reason.

Bergeron and Marchand are the Bruins own players. They weren't strangers coming from some other team. They know everything about those players. The Rangers did it with Lundqvist.

Again. Gorton could kept his guys just like Boston did. He didn't. Why?

 

[True Blue]

We’re the Gary Oldman of the sports world.

Gary Oldman also gave us Commissioner Gordon. Malkovich makes for the better villain.

 

[East Coast Bias]

Strome is on pace for 29 points. He has 12 goals and 25 points in 68 games.

$3.2M salary/$3.1M cap hit.

His value was so down that Edmonton traded him for Spooner. Edmonton tried to trade him and couldn't find a taker for Strome.

A player making $3.2M in salary and a $3.1 cap hit should have more 29 points at the end of the season. He had 1 good season 4 years ago.

You think this player is worth those numbers.

Now that's funny.

I don't think anyone thinks he is.

But what's the difference? We're tanking right? Why buy him out? Why bother buying out overpaid players?

 

[Trxjw]

You say this like it's a joke but here are the two highest paid FA for the last 10 years

2018 off season - Tavares/JVR
2017 - Shattenkirk/Radulov
2016 - Eriksson/Backes/Lucic/Okposo (all 6M)
2015 - Green (nobody else over 6M)
2014 - Stastny/Vanek
2013 - Ribeiro/Filppula
2012 - Suter/Parise
2011 - Richards/Wisniewski
2010 - nobody of note
2009 - Gaborik/Cammalleri

The history of FA is nothing like having guys like Hall/Panarin available. There was Tavares last year and then nobody even close to that level until 2012 with Suter/Parise (and that was in a different CBA where you could really drive down AAVs). You could argue Richards was on a similar level except he was 31 years old when he was a FA. And then Gaborik who was that level but had a very long injury roster.

From 2013-2017 the best available FA was I guess...Paul Stastny?

Tavares/Hall/Panarin are easily the top 3 FA of the last 10 years and there's a strong chance Hall doesn't even make it to FA. Well sorry, Erik Karlsson too.

Every couple of years this same argument creeps up. It was Gomez and Drury, then it was Parise and Super, Hossa, Gaborik, Richards, Shattenkirk, Tavares, and now Panarin. Then it will be Hall, then Dougie Hamilton, and this will go on and on in perpetuity because the bar moves every year in accordance with who we have to sign. "Oh this won't be like Gomez because Richards is a fitness fanatic and elite #1 center!" "Shattenkirk is nothing like Redden! He's an elite #1 in his prime!"

Signing big time free agents almost always cause more problems than they solve. They're a quick fix tactic and there's nothing here that will be fixed quickly no matter how badly people want to hope Gorton is going back to the old Ranger ways.

 

[Kovalev27]

There’s one trend though outside of Gomez that seems to be the dagger in most of our big ufa signing that don’t pan out and that’s signing guys about to hit 30 or 31 that aren’t particularly strong skaters in the first place. Redden Drury Shatty Richards all guys who’s games have never been about skating that sure enough hit 30 and lose a step they desperately couldn’t afford to lose.

I worry less about signing a kreider or Panarin guys that can skate and in Panarin’s case have low mileage. Having said that it just doesn’t appear like gorton wants guys in that age group as part of the rebuild.

 

[Ola]

Brendan Lemieux is doing well, like I expected.

Just get rid of the old effin trash and start building a team.

 

[Machinehead]

I really like how we're set up on D with Miller, Hajek, Lundkvist, Lindgren, DeAngelo, Keane, and Rykov.

I also really like how we're set up at wing with Kravtsov, Chytil, Andersson, Lemieux, Buchnevich, Vesey, and hopefully Kreider.

At center we have Zibanejad and, well, uh.... Zibanejad.

 

[Ghost of jas]

I really like how we're set up on D with Miller, Hajek, Lundkvist, Lindgren, DeAngelo, Keane, and Rykov.

I also really like how we're set up at wing with Kravtsov, Chytil, Andersson, Lemieux, Buchnevich, Vesey, and hopefully Kreider.

At center we have Zibanejad and, well, uh.... Zibanejad.

I know you’re not impressed by Howden, but, I think he’ll fit in fine as the 3C flanked by Lemieux and Buchnevich. Plus, we’re drafting Turcotte, so do not fear our center position.

I also am starting to wonder how long Andersson is for this organization.

 

[Jaromir Jagr]

Every couple of years this same argument creeps up. It was Gomez and Drury, then it was Parise and Super, Hossa, Gaborik, Richards, Shattenkirk, Tavares, and now Panarin. Then it will be Hall, then Dougie Hamilton, and this will go on and on in perpetuity because the bar moves every year in accordance with who we have to sign. "Oh this won't be like Gomez because Richards is a fitness fanatic and elite #1 center!" "Shattenkirk is nothing like Redden! He's an elite #1 in his prime!"

Signing big time free agents almost always cause more problems than they solve. They're a quick fix tactic and there's nothing here that will be fixed quickly no matter how badly people want to hope Gorton is going back to the old Ranger ways.

There is also generally a reason players become 'Free' agents and aren't traded or re-signed. Something is usually wrong or the team of origin does not see them worth the money (while also knowing them best). It is extremely rare when a Tavares-type situation happens where the player is top-flight with almost no glaring issue, yet still makes it to FA.

Anyway, we are in no place to sign Panarin and I'm confident that if we do, it will be looked back on at best as Gaborik (pretty good performance, enormous contract, no cups) and at worst as yet another in a long line of our failed, overpaid FA's.

You think we would have learned our lesson by now and I pray Gorton has. As @RangerBoy wrote earlier, the signs are somewhat promising seeing how he dealt Shatty and Smith only 4 year deals and jettisoned off our other late 20's, upcoming FA's.

Unfortunately for players in their 30's, the recent trend is unkind to them.

 

[kovazub94]

29. But honestly, there is the possibility that he’s still not recovered from the surgery. Wouldn’t be the first injury recovery I’ve seen take more than a year...

Shattenkirk's decline has been so severe that I just can't buy that it's simply due to age if we are talking becoming 28/29 yo. To me there's no other (reasonable) explanation other than that it's caused by a badly healed torn ligament, whether due to playing on injections early last season before the surgery, trying to get back too early at the end of last season after the surgery or some other similar reason preventing him to get back to where he was prior to injury.

 

[SA16]

Every couple of years this same argument creeps up. It was Gomez and Drury, then it was Parise and Super, Hossa, Gaborik, Richards, Shattenkirk, Tavares, and now Panarin. Then it will be Hall, then Dougie Hamilton, and this will go on and on in perpetuity because the bar moves every year in accordance with who we have to sign. "Oh this won't be like Gomez because Richards is a fitness fanatic and elite #1 center!" "Shattenkirk is nothing like Redden! He's an elite #1 in his prime!"

Signing big time free agents almost always cause more problems than they solve. They're a quick fix tactic and there's nothing here that will be fixed quickly no matter how badly people want to hope Gorton is going back to the old Ranger ways.

That is because it is true. Under this current CBA the best available FA has been John Tavares. The second best has been Paul Stastny. That is precisely one elite top line player in six years. Parise and Hossa on the previous CBA were at a similar level however both have AAV cheating contracts that are no longer allowed. Parise's cap hit is 7.5M. If you took only the first 7 years which is all that is permitted now it would be 10M. Gaborik is most definitely a strong comparable in a previous CBA so if you include him I guess you can then say 2 in the past 10 years but you can not deny that teams were scared off due to his very extensive injury history.

The majority of years if you're looking to add someone your best bet is going to be an overpaid 2nd liner. I am fine with, in general, overpaying an elite first line player since it is easy to fill in the bottom of the roster very cheaply and when they decline they tend to still remain very productive as opposed to the Lucic's/Eriksson's/Okposo's/Ladd's of the world who were never at that level and decline in to disasters

 

[Edge]

I know you’re not impressed by Howden, but, I think he’ll fit in fine as the 3C flanked by Lemieux and Buchnevich. Plus, we’re drafting Turcotte, so do not fear our center position.

I also am starting to wonder how long Andersson is for this organization.

While I've pushed back on some of the Andersson narratives, I continue to get the vibe that the Rangers are not inherently opposed to moving him in the right situations.

Would they move Andersson in a package with their top pick to move up? Yeah, I honestly think they might.

 

[Ghost of jas]

While I've pushed back on some of the Andersson narratives, I continue to get the vibe that the Rangers are not inherently opposed to moving him in the right situations.

Would they move Andersson in a package with their top pick to move up? Yeah, I honestly think they might.

It’s something I’ve trade to explain to people. Not every player drafted is going to be a part of the final product. People will likely be reactionary and scream ‘see, I told you so’. But, at the end of the day, you’re not going to be at 100%. If Chytil, Kravtsov, Miller and Lundkvist all become key cogs when this process is complete, but Andersson gets moved for a different important piece, then the Rangers did very well.

 

[Tawnos]

Im sorry Tawnos but its not comparable. Youre guess is as good as anyones that his reaction time will slow down. Maybe it wont. Maybe because he doesnt have the miles on his body it wont. It makes a difference.

Reaction time isn't really about physical condition, so it has nothing to do with wear and tear. Rick Nash's reaction time declined before his skating did. So did Brad Richards'.

Strome is on pace for 29 points. He has 12 goals and 25 points in 68 games.

$3.2M salary/$3.1M cap hit.

His value was so down that Edmonton traded him for Spooner. Edmonton tried to trade him and couldn't find a taker for Strome.

A player making $3.2M in salary and a $3.1 cap hit should have more 29 points at the end of the season. He had 1 good season 4 years ago.

You think this player is worth those numbers.

Now that's funny.

First of all, I never said I thought Strome was worth $3.2m. I laughed at the suggestion that $3.2m was a high salary. It's not because it isn't 2009. As I've mentioned, $3.2m is a below average salary on a team that spends to the cap. One common theme of the salary cap era... people can't seem to adjust their perception of salaries as the cap increases.

Even so, I do think $3.2m is fine for Strome. Let's not forget that high-end 4th liners routinely get $2.5m (Brian Boyle, Jannick Hansen, etc), and Strome is a 3rd liner. By the way, 25 points in 68 games is a 30 point pace, not 29. We can probably reasonably wipe out the 18 games in Edmonton, since something clearly wasn't right there, but even if we don't... the guy is a 30-40 point player and has been for 4 years now. 3rd liner.

 

[kovazub94]

Condescending and absolute...

Your entire argument is based on what you think might happen after he signs and you're piggybacking off of it, as if it's an absolute. Hence, 'you're running wild with conjecture.'

It's either win-now or full rebuild? I don't see it that way. I think we can start moving forward and be contenders in a couple years. While keeping draft picks and developing kids in the background.

I know @Edge is fine putting forth the arguments here (there is absolutely nothing condescending about content or tone of his posts) but you're just refusing to hear them. I made a similar point yesterday so let me jump in again - if an organization makes a commitment and investment to the tune of $11m per year (or something like $70m-$80m over the course of the contract) to a single player you can bet it changes the mindset. Staying the course? How likely is that? Maybe they'd be fine with this approach for a year but if the team will continue to have issues because they don't have 1RD or scoring depth to be a contender, would they "stay the course" or try to address these issues via UFAs and or trades? What type of personnel would they bring / be available and what "currency" would be used?

In this situation as far as rebuild is concerned, staying the course is definitely a more wild conjecture than a change in approach.

 

[Trxjw]

While I've pushed back on some of the Andersson narratives, I continue to get the vibe that the Rangers are not inherently opposed to moving him in the right situations.

Would they move Andersson in a package with their top pick to move up? Yeah, I honestly think they might.

Or perhaps straight across for a sliding player in the mid-teens that they really like. Sort of a Rundblad for Tarasenko redux.

 

[Edge]

It’s something I’ve trade to explain to people. Not every player drafted is going to be a part of the final product. People will likely be reactionary and scream ‘see, I told you so’. But, at the end of the day, you’re not going to be at 100%. If Chytil, Kravtsov, Miller and Lundkvist all become key cogs when this process is complete, but Andersson gets moved for a different important piece, then the Rangers did very well.

I know it sounds cold, because we're essentially talking about kids, but from a business standpoint I view it as acquiring assets.

I want as many high-value assets as possible. I try to deal from a position of depth and strength, and I use that depth to plug holes.

I might move a kid because he has value to help me fill a hole, not necessarily because I don't think he's progressing well.

In the case of Andersson, it could end up becoming a numbers game. If the Rangers like Cozens, and draft him/move up for him, Andersson might be the price with guys like Chytil, and Howden also in the mix. And I use the word COULD there, because I honestly don't know.

For all I know, the Rangers love Podkolzin and are elated to see Byram, Cozens and Dach go 3-4-5 in the draft. Maybe they think Turcotte is the second best center in the draft and the idea would be to trade up for him at the 5 spot. It's all speculation.

But while no one has ever come out and flat out said it, I think the Rangers view Andersson as the chip they're most likely willing to cash-in if the opportunity presents itself.

 

[kovazub94]

At what cost though?

Because in Trouba’s case, you’re talking about a trade and not a free agent.

So depending on the approach and opinion, say like the difference Bobbop and I have, there could be a pretty decent range there.

And that’s where it gets interesting.

At this point given where organizational depth is a Skjei for Trouba trade would make a lot of sense.

 

[Edge]

Or perhaps straight across for a sliding player in the mid-teens that they really like. Sort of a Rundblad for Tarasenko redux.

Also possible.

At the end of the day, the Rangers are trying to put together a matching set. And while it's easy to get attached to these kids, they're not all going to be here in 2023.

The Rangers are going to explore options in this draft, even if it means standing pat. But they're going to want to know the costs and different choices they have. Does that change if they have 3 first round picks instead of two? Maybe. Does it change if they somehow have four? I'd almost guarantee it.

 

[Edge]

At this point given where organizational depth is a Skjei for Trouba trade would make a lot of sense.

I think Winnipeg asks for more than that. Finding that sweet spot could be interesting. Trouba, when healthy, is a better player than Skjei. But durability and contract is a factor. So how much of a factor?

I couldn't tell you.

 

[JimmyG89]

I know his name has come up here in the past, but you have to wonder if the Flames will be looking to move Sam Bennett. He's an RFA and there is no route for him into their top 6. Monahan and Backlund are their top centers. Jankowski is producing at a similar rate to Bennett and is cheaper. They have to pay Tkachuk and they could look at using that extra space to get a player who is currently better than Bennett.

I wonder if something around Andersson for Bennett could get done. I think Bennett is a classic change of scenery guy. If we're trying to pull off a move similar to Brass for Zib, this could be it. He'd all but immediately slide into our 2nd line center spot and have a shot at legit minutes.

 

[Trxjw]

Also possible.

At the end of the day, the Rangers are trying to put together a matching set. And while it's easy to get attached to these kids, they're not all going to be here in 2023.

The Rangers are going to explore options in this draft, even if it means standing pat. But they're going to want to know the costs and different choices they have. Does that change if they have 3 first round picks instead of two? Maybe. Does it change if they somehow have four? I'd almost guarantee it.

People also tend to forget how rapidly the view of the future can change. A year ago a lot or the discussion around here was about how the Rangers would be dumb to take a center in the first because we already had Chytil, Zibanejad, Andersson, and Howden. Now only two of those guys look like NHL centermen and the #1C of the future is the guy everyone thought would lineup behind Chytil until Andersson took the mantle.

A lot of folks are talking about our depth on the blue line in terms of prospects, well I say to those people that you should cut that list by 70% and then determine if you're still happy with the depth. Most of these kids won't pan out, so stockpile the best assets you can regardless of position, handedness, size, nationality, or whatever other things you can think of. If you end up with too much of a good thing then you're in the best possible position to fill another hole in the org.

 

[Tawnos]

People also tend to forget how rapidly the view of the future can change. A year ago a lot or the discussion around here was about how the Rangers would be dumb to take a center in the first because we already had Chytil, Zibanejad, Andersson, and Howden. Now only two of those guys look like NHL centermen and the #1C of the future is the guy everyone thought would lineup behind Chytil until Andersson took the mantle.

A lot of folks are talking about our depth on the blue line in terms of prospects, well I say to those people that you should cut that list by 70% and then determine if you're still happy with the depth. Most of these kids won't pan out, so stockpile the best assets you can regardless of position, handedness, size, nationality, or whatever other things you can think of. If you end up with too much of a good thing then you're in the best possible position to fill another hole in the org.

I still think all 3 of Chytil, Andersson and Howden will be centers jf we need them to be. People's perception of the future is far too tied up in what guys are doing right at this moment.

 

[Edge]

People also tend to forget how rapidly the view of the future can change. A year ago a lot or the discussion around here was about how the Rangers would be dumb to take a center in the first because we already had Chytil, Zibanejad, Andersson, and Howden. Now only two of those guys look like NHL centermen and the #1C of the future is the guy everyone thought would lineup behind Chytil until Andersson took the mantle.

A lot of folks are talking about our depth on the blue line in terms of prospects, well I say to those people that you should cut that list by 70% and then determine if you're still happy with the depth. Most of these kids won't pan out, so stockpile the best assets you can regardless of position, handedness, size, nationality, or whatever other things you can think of. If you end up with too much of a good thing then you're in the best possible position to fill another hole in the org.

When I was an intern, there was a scout with San Jose who once said something along the lines of, "Take your top 6, put their names in a hat, and randomly pick 3. Now take your 6-10 and randomly pick 1. Finally, take your 11-20 and also randomly pick 1. That's who you can hope to have contribute to your team or be an regular NHL for a moderate amount of time --- and that's on the good side."

For the sake of discussion, let's even take into account the number of young talent the Rangers have and consider them in the top 1/3 of the league in drafting/scouting. That's still a lot of "Where are they now?" message board topics.