Speculation: Roster Building Thread: Part XXXIX

[kovazub94]

For next year, I agree. But 2 years from now when they still have dead cap space and may begin trying to improve their roster it would be a hindrance.

Ergo, Smith’s decision could be delayed without being an issue until the next offseason, in meantime letting him be a 4th liner and emergency defenseman like he was at the end of the season. I

If Shattenkirk can somewhat rebuild his value and agreeing with @bobbop that Staal’s hockey worth is undervalued around here, I’d try to move at least one of these players with money retained in the next 12months, and at least 2 out of 3 before the start of 2020-2021. All three would be ideal but still all three are off the books in two years regardless. I think the severity of the problem is overblown given where the team is in the rebuild process and could be significantly mitigated with a single move.

 

[ETTER DE]

Or, it started as a retool, then they decided if they were going to retool, it would be better to just rebuild because they didn’t have any sort of cornerstone players on the team or coming up through the system

Maybe I am wrong, but when you trade your top 2 centers, try to trade your no1 D plus all other peaces that left, I call it a rebuild. In my eyes in a retool you keep most of your better peaces.

 

[GeorgeKaplan]

Maybe I am wrong, but when you trade your top 2 centers, try to trade your no1 D plus all other peaces that left, I call it a rebuild. In my eyes in a retool you keep most of your better peaces.

It was a retool (trying to get younger while still trying to make the playoffs, lasted about a season and a half starting with the Brassard trade) until they decided to fully rebuild (when they sent the letter) then they started tearing it down by trading McDonagh and co.

 

[Edge]

This is where the Rangers doing their due diligence comes in to make a judgement whether the health concerns are warranted. Judging by the type of injuries, Trouba’s body type, his ability to recover and lack of lasting effect on his performance I cannot see a risk that’s greater than normal.

The challenge also is figuring out that projects when he's 30, 31, 32, etc.

Obviously, chronic problems always a concern. But it's those guys who don't have any one specific problem that can sneak up on you.

When you're 23 or 24, you bounce back a little easier. But as you get older, that becomes more challenging and the concept of "various nagging injuries" becomes a thing.

Now, all players miss games at some point, it's inevitable. But, there's no getting around that Trouba's numbers are a bit higher than normal, or at least what you'd like to see before making a big investment. And Trouba would be a big investment, because he's talented.

And somewhere in all this, is the very real probability that we aren't a match for Winnipeg on the trade front.

Winnipeg is in a go for it mentality, and their roster is young enough that they shouldn't need to be trading prime assets for prospects and picks any time soon. So with that said, it's very likely that they're not looking for what we'd be willing to part with. Instead, I would imagine they'd prefer to get back younger, cap-friendly NHL talent that is established, but not necessarily peaking yet.

In that regard, someone like Florida, or even teams like Boston and Colorado might be better matches.

 

[kovazub94]

While they are cheap, they are teenagers who need to be sheltered to produce even a fraction of what they will do later. Their second contracts won't be huge unless they massively exceed expectations. They are cost-controlled into the second half of the next decade. There's a big difference between a UFA contract and a bridge contract, or even a UFA contracts vs a long term contract that spans both the bridge and the UFA years. That's how you get McDonagh for $4.5 or Zibanejad for $5. When you sign straight up UFAs, they no longer worry about how their career or injuries will go before they get cash in, so they get crazy money. Everyone expects UFAs to sign for RFA money, then looks shocked on July 2. Every year, same thing. Let me repeat this again: to sign a high-level UFA that every team would want, you have to offer him a contract that the other 30 GMs look at and think, "I wouldn't want that guy for free with that kind of a contract." Because so long as there's even 1 other GM who thinks your offer is not insane, he will keep on bidding to sign this player.

P.S. Is it fun for you to change every time you quote me from beacon to bacon? I'm just curious about the entertainment value in that. Unless you're 12 years old?

So in a hypothetical where Trouba was homegrown by the Rangers and everything else were identical, you would be against extending him?

IMHO, it would be just as egregious of mistake (or risk of missing a portion of a contending window) to not have a RD in place when our forwards are ready, because as things stand the team’s D in general and RD specifically is lacking by a lot compared to F while it takes longer to develop.

 

[Edge]

Instead of Trouba lets spend assets and poach the next Trouba from some GM

In a nutshell, I'm of the mindset to try and find as many our own players as possible and turn the table on other teams. Let them try to find the next Miller, or Kravtsov, or Kakko, or whoever.

And then, let's take our own trendsetters, and augment them, when the time is right, with the attractive outside options that come around far more often than we might realize, especially in a cap-crunching world.

And we can deal from positions of strength, knowing what we have or don't have, and accelerate the progress of a team of young NHL players, rather than "potential" NHL players.

To everything there is a season, and we will have ours. But right now we're still planting seeds and tending to the soil.

Let's give that a little time. We're not even into our second post-letter off-season.

 

[kovazub94]

The challenge also is figuring out that projects when he's 30, 31, 32, etc.

Obviously, chronic problems always a concern. But it's those guys who don't have any one specific problem that can sneak up on you.

When you're 23 or 24, you bounce back a little easier. But as you get older, that becomes more challenging and the concept of "various nagging injuries" becomes a thing.

Now, all players miss games at some point, it's inevitable. But, there's no getting around that Trouba's numbers are a bit higher than normal, or at least what you'd like to see before making a big investment. And Trouba would be a big investment, because he's talented.

And somewhere in all this, is the very real probability that we aren't a match for Winnipeg on the trade front.

Winnipeg is in a go for it mentality, and their roster is young enough that they shouldn't need to be trading prime assets for prospects and picks any time soon. So with that said, it's very likely that they're not looking for what we'd be willing to part with. Instead, I would imagine they'd prefer to get back younger, cap-friendly NHL talent that is established, but not necessarily peaking yet.

In that regard, someone like Florida, or even teams like Boston and Colorado might be better matches.

Of course, but again, I don’t see his risk being bigger than someone who played 75+ games per season everything else being equal. Unless you’re in a group that thinks 25 is too old for the Rangers to bring / keep on a team.

 

[Edge]

Of course, but again, I don’t see his risk being bigger than someone who played 75+ games per season everything else being equal. Unless you’re in a group that thinks 25 is too old for the Rangers to bring / keep on a team.

Other than not wanting to see it, I don’t see how a guy who has played 65 games or less four times in six seasons isn’t a bigger risk.

The difference between playing 65 games vs 75 is not a small difference. And having it happen four times is not an outlier either.

It has nothing to do with him being “too old.” That’s a genuine concern at the price points we’re talking about.

 

[SA16]

Well for starters, he isn't and he doesn't.

Well actually he is and does.

See, I can say the same thing with no evidence.

But I can also post evidence that supports my statements (both using statistics and video).

 

[bobbop]

Well actually he is and does.

See, I can say the same thing with no evidence.

But I can also post evidence that supports my statements (both using statistics and video).

If Smith is such a good defenseman how come he couldn’t hold a top six spot on this team the least two years? That’s all the evidence I need.

 

[DanielBrassard]

If Smith is such a good defenseman how come he couldn’t hold a top six spot on this team the least two years? That’s all the evidence I need.

Because they refuse to sit Staal.

 

[bobbop]

Because they refuse to sit Staal.

Not buying that either.

 

[Irishguy42]

If Pionk is so bad, how come he held a top pairing role on this team all year? That's all the evidence I need.

 

[SA16]

If Smith is such a good defenseman how come he couldn’t hold a top six spot on this team the least two years? That’s all the evidence I need.

If Marchessualt is such a good forward how come TB let him go/FLA paid to give him up?
If William Karlsson is such a good forward why did CBJ play him on the 4th line and pay to give him up?
If Dylan Strome is such a good forward why did ARI never give him a chance in a key role?
If Max Domi is such a good forward why did ARI decide that he needed a change of scenery?
If Erik Gustafsson is such a good defenseman why did CHI never give him a chance full time until the age of 27?
If Frank Vatrano is such a good goal scorer (AHL and NHL) why did Boston never give him a chance in a top six role?
If Jared McCann can play on the top line with Sidney Crosby why could he never play above the 3rd line in Florida?
If Wayne Simmonds is so bad at 5v5 why was he continuously played in a top six role the last four years?
If Colin Miller is a quality defenseman why didn't Boston give him a key role/protect him?
If Tanner Glass is such a bad forward why did AV constantly play him?
If Quinn is such a good coach why did he play McQuaid with Skjei constantly and then McQuaid couldn't even make Torts lineup?

I'm not sure why I should be looking at a coach's decision to determine if I think a player is good when we have seen them time and time again make large errors. That's all the evidence I need.

 

[haohmaru]

If all I ask are rhetorical questions why can't I get a straight answer?

 

[Edge]

If all I ask are rhetorical questions why can't I get a straight answer?

Fine, fine.

When a mommy and a daddy love each other, sometimes they decide to have a baby.

And in order to make a baby, there’s a lot of hugging and kissing and a few other things involved that your mom can explain.

But a baby comes into the world and grows up to become a child, and eventually an adult.

Sometimes they grow up and become police officers, or doctors, or bankers, or even Kevin Hayes.

And we’ll love you no matter what you become.

Unless it’s Kevin Hayes. We can’t go through that again.

 

[haohmaru]

So, you're saying there's a chance?

 

[Edge]

So, you're saying there's a chance?

You know, I haven’t been paying attention to the Smith-Staal-Pionk debate, so I don’t know who I agree with there.

But I do know that that any conversation involving all 3 of those players is already somewhat depressing, with or without agreement.

 

[haohmaru]

You know, I haven’t been paying attention to the Smith-Staal-Pionk debate, so I don’t know who I agree with there.

But I do know that that any conversation involving all 3 of those players is already somewhat depressing, with or without agreement.

Oh, I was talking about the Rangers re-signing Hayes. Smith/Staal/Pionk isn't worth talking about.

 

[JESSEWENEEDTOCOOK]

You know, I haven’t been paying attention to the Smith-Staal-Pionk debate, so I don’t know who I agree with there.

But I do know that that any conversation involving all 3 of those players is already somewhat depressing, with or without agreement.

I think it’s fairly pointless considering none of them will likely be here when the team is actually decent. Mayyyyybe Pionk hangs around to our dismay, but we’ll see.

 

[Edge]

Oh, I was talking about the Rangers re-signing Hayes. Smith/Staal/Pionk isn't worth talking about.

Hmm.

How’s this for an answer?

I think the Rangers might prefer to throw $11 million at Panarin than $13 million plus for Hayes and Kreider.

 

[Kupo]

Hmm.

How’s this for an answer?

I think the Rangers might prefer to throw $11 million at Panarin than $13 million plus for Hayes and Kreider.

I’d rather we go 0/3 on all those scenarios.

 

[Beacon]

So in a hypothetical where Trouba was homegrown by the Rangers and everything else were identical, you would be against extending him?

Yes, for the same reason I am against extending Kreider. But it's worse to acquire a player because we don't know how he will react. There are a ton of examples of small town guys who come here from smaller markets and just become bad because there is too much for them to do here off ice with their multi-million annual contract. It's a risk worth taking sometimes, but this is not that time. I'll be all in favor of the Rangers signing a star UFA when the rest of the pieces are set.

The UFAs must be the last piece of the puzzle, not the first piece which you build around. The very reason we got 1 Cup in 80+ years is that we always rebuild around stars we acquired via trade or UFA instead of building our own. The only time in 80 years that we won the Cup, we did it by drafting Richter, Leetch, Zubov, Amonte, Weight, Kovalev, Turcotte, Nemchinov, etc. True, we also acquired Messier, Graves, Beukeboom in the summer of 1991, and then we traded some youth for vets, but we already had a spectacular core by that point. Leetch, Zubov, Richter, Kovalev, Amonte and Weight were All Stars a total of 28 times (all of them at least 3 times), among many other honors. When we get that kind of young talent, we'll start talking about bringing in a vet like Messier.

 

[Mac n Gs]

Disagree.

With Miller, Hajek, and Rykov they already have plenty of LHD with size who are likely NHL players. Day is less likely, but if he makes it, will be another with excellent size. Then, there are Crawley and Lindgren, who are both a bit shorter, but solidly built. Followed by Reunanen, Själin, Ragnarsson – all of whom have a solid shot of making it (listed in decreasing likelihood IMO) and, while only average sized, are all as big or bigger than our biggest RHD in the system.

Meanwhile, Keane is our only RHD in the entire organization who isn't undersized (and he's only 6'0, 185 lbs).

I wasn't arguing against the size on the backend, and I totally agree with you that it's better to have bigger dmen (not at the expense of ability). It's a basic physics situation where their size helps close down gaps and lanes and yields less space to opponents in your zone.

My point was that as of right now, trading Skjei for Trouba is cutting our nose to spite our face. It leaves us with a left side of Staal-Smith-Lindgren/Hajek, and that's not a good environment to continue developing this young core. That's why I'd rather add Trouba, or another comparable dman like him to Skjei to have that solidified 25 y/o pairing that can grow as our defensive leaders for the next few years.

I lean more towards being cost prohibitive in these scenarios and would like them to maximize player's aging curves. I also think it's vitally important to make sure you're adding the right age groups of players to help balance out your ELCs and establish your core. Having that mix of ELCs, cost-controlled contracts, and upper end deals for your high-end to elite level players is the ideal mix you need. So someone like Trouba, in an ideal situation with no injuries, would fit in that latter tier through his age 25-32 seasons. It helps balance out the defense perfectly when you look at Skjei's contract, ADA coming into his own, and the rest of the ELCs on their way.

 

[Edge]

I’d rather we go 0/3 on all those scenarios.

I wouldn’t be upset about that.

My preference is to stockpile, develop and sort out what we have before getting into long-term commitments and expensive contracts.

I just think that if the Rangers do end up being aggressive in this draft, and Kreider is part of that approach, that the odds of going balls to walls for Panarin increase substantially.