Speculation: Roster Building Thread: Part XXXIX

[eco's bones]

This year's playoffs will be an interesting case study because it looks to me like the eventual Stanley Cup winner is not going to have a truly elite player on the roster unless it's Colorado with MacKinnon or I guess San Jose with Burns--if you want to call Burns truly elite. But Boston's Marchand and Bergeron are great players and the Islanders Barzal and Carolina's Aho and Slavin and Columbus's Panarin and Jones. Karlsson of San Jose took a step back this year and Rantanen rides a bit on MacKinnon's coattails and Benn and Seguin are great players and the same with Tarasenko and Pietrangelo but I don't look at any of them as truly elite. Maybe many of them Hall of Famers one day but out of the 8 remaining teams no one's ever really going to mistake anyone other than MacKinnon as being the best player in the league. None other than MacKinnon like McDavid, Ovechkin, Kucherov and Crosby elite anyway and MacKinnon's on the worst regular season team left.

 

[SA16]

This year's playoffs will be an interesting case study because it looks to me like the eventual Stanley Cup winner is not going to have a truly elite player on the roster unless it's Colorado with MacKinnon or I guess San Jose with Burns--if you want to call Burns truly elite. But Boston's Marchand and Bergeron are great players and the Islanders Barzal and Carolina's Aho and Slavin and Columbus's Panarin and Jones. Karlsson of San Jose took a step back this year and Rantanen rides a bit on MacKinnon's coattails and Benn and Seguin are great players and the same with Tarasenko and Pietrangelo but I don't look at any of them as truly elite. Maybe many of them Hall of Famers one day but out of the 8 remaining teams no one's ever really going to mistake anyone other than MacKinnon as being the best player in the league. None other than MacKinnon like McDavid, Ovechkin, Kucherov and Crosby elite anyway and MacKinnon's on the worst regular season team left.

Marchand isn't an elite player? He's 7th in the league in points since last year despite playing less games than anyone else in the top 16. He has 11 less points than MacKinnon despite 9 less games and almost 400 minutes.

 

[eco's bones]

I'm not trying to say there is any blueprint, more so given where the Rangers are, I believe if it's not ideal, why not just go cheaper and shorter term?

Sure in some cases teams are faced with two non ideal options, they want to compete, Rangers will get there. In the mean time I believe they should just stay flexible until they have a better idea what they have. I think a large part of team building is avoiding mistakes. Maybe a better way to put it, in hockey 4 years is a long time to deal with any mistakes, 5, 6, 7 years is a really long time.

The risk of decline, injury, poor play, bad fit... I think they should be looking for lower risk stuff. There are several events that are right on the horizon, expansion, the CBA, large contracts coming off the books, they've have the #2 pick, picks beyond that, they actually have a promising prospect pool, many of which are on the cusp of the NHL, I think they should let that play out before they decide to commit to much of anything long term.

Not necessarily the way I look at it but a fair assessment. I think what I find irritating about this 'youth movement' of ours is how dogmatic some of the proponents of selling off all vets and tanking for lottery picks can be. Those that wanted us to blow every game going down the stretch to increase our odds--cheering for losses. There's something not right about that--it seems dirty to me. No matter how bad things get you don't want your team to roll over and I think the Rangers fought hard last year--a lot of their losses in OT--a lot of losses by one goal or two with an empty netter against. I like to see that fight and I don't want the younger players developing in a negative environment. It was necessary to win games we weren't supposed to. It's necessary to not take shit and drop the gloves when needed. Those are key components in how to build a winning team and I think Quinn's been on the right track.

Anyway I don't know whether the Rangers will be in on Panarin or not or even if they are whether he'll sign with us or with another team. There is really not anyone else that I'm all that jazzed about out of the UFA market--it's not like I think Duchene for instance would be a great consolation prize. Whatever extra cap space we have is not burning a hole in my pocket. I basically see a player that could really help us go forward--be a boon to guys like Kakko or Kravtsov--maybe put a smile on Mika's face knowing he doesn't have to carry the offense every night for the team to have a decent chance to win.

 

[Tawnos]

Ha. Nice. I think an underlying fear of giving Panarin such a big contract is that, down the line, the Rangers younger players will be up for raises around the same time and Panarin's cap hit could be a road block.

My answer to that is who cares. It'd be a great problem to have

I mean, I get it. And I understand the concerns with who Panarin will be at 31 years old. But some of these conversations really just involve people talking past each other. If the more recent comment like that had been from the pro-Panarin crowd, I might have mocked that instead.

 

[Off Sides]

Not necessarily the way I look at it but a fair assessment. I think what I find irritating about this 'youth movement' of ours is how dogmatic some of the proponents of selling off all vets and tanking for lottery picks can be. Those that wanted us to blow every game going down the stretch to increase our odds--cheering for losses. There's something not right about that--it seems dirty to me. No matter how bad things get you don't want your team to roll over and I think the Rangers fought hard--a lot of their losses in OT--a lot of losses by one goal or two with an empty netter against. I like to see that fight and I don't want the younger players developing in a negative environment. It was necessary to win games we weren't supposed to. It's necessary to not take **** and drop the gloves when needed. Those are key components in how to build a winning team and I think Quinn's been on the right track.

Anyway I don't know whether the Rangers will be in on Panarin or not or even if they are whether he'll sign with us or with another team. There is really not anyone else that I'm all that jazzed about out of the UFA market--it's not like I think Duchene for instance would be a great consolation prize. Whatever extra cap space we have is not burning a hole in my pocket. I basically see a player that could really help us go forward--be a boon to guys like Kakko or Kravtsov--maybe put a smile on Mika's face knowing he doesn't have to carry the offense every night for the team to have a decent chance to win.

I agree, they were able to keep the compete level up. It's not a tank, more just rebuilding by using the mechanisms built into the CBA. Gorton referred, paraphrasing, to moving up to #2 as karma for doing the right things. Not sure it's karma, in my opinion just the up side side effects of rebuilding and some luck, yet they had to be in that position first to even have a chance to be lucky.

Panarin, I think they make an offer, yet I'm hoping it's more like, here is an offer, you'll get far better ones, if you really want to be here, it's there.

As far as having vets, they have some, they have others in the 25-26-27 year old range, then some younger who should be turning the corner.

If it turns out Chytil, Howden, Lias, #2 pick, Kravtsov, Buch, Lemieux improve I think Zbad turns out to be in a pretty good spot. If Strome gets unEdmontontized, should Vesey, Name find a consistent game, I guess I see them having the chance to compete, maybe not win, but there is some stuff there.

 

[SML2]

Fun Fact:

The last 1OA draft pick to win a Cup? Patrick Kane, 2007.

So glad we got #2.

Unfair stat. Edmonton made 30% of those picks.

 

[Beacon]

It's going to be a long rebuild (4-6 years from now?) if we haven't even drafted our best d-man yet

We had to draft or acquire 5 first rounders with 1D potential (Staal, Sanguinetti, MDZ, McIlrath and McDonagh) to actually get a 1D. Now we have 1 guy with 1D potential (K'Andre). Maybe he does it, but the odds are against it. We need at least another 2-3 more guys like him. If we could get another lottery ticket by trading away Kreider, we improve our odds of a faster rebuild.

 

[kovazub94]

I feel like, as a broad and general guideline, you need at least 2, ideally 3 elite players, and a balanced team around them.

Now that trio can be different combinations of positions, but I tend to feel that 3 gives you good starting odds.

In that same vein, I tend to feel like it's much easier to get away with not having an elite goalie, than it is not having elite skaters. In others words, in an ideal world, it's better to have two elite forwards and one elite defenseman, or one elite forward and two elite defenseman, than it is to have a 1-1-1 combo, a 2-0-1 combo, or a 0-2-1 combo.

I think we got spoiled with having Lundqvist. There are numerous examples where teams with elite talent and depth were ruined by pedestrian goaltending. A good goaltending can be in the zone for the duration of playoffs once in a while but elite goaltending maximizes your team’s chances during each playoff run (hyperbolically).

 

[Edge]

I think we got spoiled with having Lundqvist. There are numerous examples where teams with elite talent and depth were ruined by pedestrian goaltending. A good goaltending can be in the zone for the duration of playoffs once in a while but elite goaltending maximizes your team’s chances during each playoff run (hyperbolically).

I also think we had a hard time getting our trio to line up.

Lundqvist was the constant. But a trio featuring him, Nash and Gaborik didn't last long because Gaborik was done as an elite player at 30. Moving Gabby helped with the depth we needed, but then we didn't have that third elite element.

Later, McD was just about there, but then he and Nash started to break down at.

Timing is such a funny thing, you take one season, in the grand scheme of time, and bump it up a year or drop it back a year, and you end up with a very different outcome.

 

[Beacon]

Anti-Panarin poster: You can’t build around UFAs.

Pro-Panarin poster: We aren’t talking about building around Panarin... just adding him to the prospects that will be the core of this team.

1. Because the timeline doesn't fit. Prospects normally dont hit their prime until they are 24+. Since all our top ceiling guys are teenagers, and the main one won't even be drafted for 2 more months, we are talking about our core hitting its prime in 5-6 years. Sure, 1-2 early developers may get good by the age of 21, but most won't (none of Mcdonagh, Kreider, Zuccarello, Zibanejad, St. Louis, and our other best players the last few years developed that early). And some will be late bloomers, like St. Louis was.

It's a lie that pro-Panarin posters want him in the mix with youth. Even the most basic understanding of hockey player development should leave you with the understanding that all or almost all our youth will be going through growing pains on the front end of the Panarin contract and by the time our youth will grow up, he will be on the tail end of his UFA deal.

The only reason people want Panarin is the inability to delay gratification so finishing 9th in the East feels better than finishing 14th.

2. Everyone who signs UFAs always says they are just adding him to the existing core. Sometimes it is true, like Tavares going to the Leafs, but it is blatantly false for the Rangers. The idea is based on the presumption that a) no prospect busts, b) none get injured, c) all of them hit their prime by the age of 20 or earlier. Since nobody can possibly believe that, the idea of bringing in a UFA is based purely on the desire to build around Panarin instead of Kakko.

 

[Amazing Kreiderman]

We had to draft or acquire 5 first rounders with 1D potential (Staal, Sanguinetti, MDZ, McIlrath and McDonagh) to actually get a 1D. Now we have 1 guy with 1D potential (K'Andre). Maybe he does it, but the odds are against it. We need at least another 2-3 more guys like him. If we could get another lottery ticket by trading away Kreider, we improve our odds of a faster rebuild.

We have 2.

 

[SML2]

The one positive about this rebuild is that we aren't looking for one guy to turn it all around. In the past we barely drafted anyone, we traded away any picks we had. Any prospect we had was under intense scrutiny. This is allowing those prospect to take whatever time they need to learn their craft without being rushed. I think it will result in better finished products overall.

 

[True Blue]

Anti-Panarin poster: You can’t build around UFAs.

Pro-Panarin poster: We aren’t talking about building around Panarin... just adding him to the prospects that will be the core of this team.

Anti-Panarin poster: You can’t build around UFAs.

Pro-Panarin poster: ...

Anti-Panarin poster: You can’t build around UFAs.

Come on, that is not true. The Anti-Panarin is all about time line and where Panarin's long term, very expensive NTC/NMC contract will fit in as the Rangers are getting ready to truly compete.

Yes, it is true that you can't build around UFAs, but that is not what this debate is about.

 

[Oscar Lindberg]

We have 2.

The second being who?

 

[Amazing Kreiderman]

The second being who?

Lundkvist definitely has 1D potential.

 

[Tawnos]

Come on, that is not true. The Anti-Panarin is all about time line and where Panarin's long term, very expensive NTC/NMC contract will fit in as the Rangers are getting ready to truly compete.

Yes, it is true that you can't build around UFAs, but that is not what this debate is about.

I wasn't saying it was the only thing that gets said, but it's the thing that gets said constantly. It's almost a mantra. It's basically the same as this:

Pro-Panarin poster: Elite players never go to UFA.

Anti-Panarin poster: What about Tavares, Stamkos, x-player, y-player, etc?

Pro-Panarin poster: Elite players never go to UFA

Anti-Panarin poster: ...

Pro-Panarin poster: Elite players never go to UFA

Yeah, there are other arguments, but that one gets repeated as if no one disputed the point.

 

[bobbop]

Come on, that is not true. The Anti-Panarin is all about time line and where Panarin's long term, very expensive NTC/NMC contract will fit in as the Rangers are getting ready to truly compete.

Yes, it is true that you can't build around UFAs, but that is not what this debate is about.

After checking the first round of the playoffs this year, perhaps you would like to redefine exactly what the timeline is.

 

[True Blue]

After checking the first round of the playoffs this year, perhaps you would like to redefine exactly what the timeline is.

I think that next year, the Rangers bottom out. I think that they only start to rise and compete in the 20-21 season. I think that there are at least two more years until they are truly ready to compete and become a real Cup contender. That's 4 years. The acquisition of Panarin would do nothing to change this timeline, IMO. And would waste the prime years of his career and become an albatross of a contract at a time when the Rangers will be looking to add free agents to hopefully augment their playoff run.

 

[SA16]

I think that next year, the Rangers bottom out. I think that they only start to rise and compete in the 20-21 season. I think that there are at least two more years until they are truly ready to compete and become a real Cup contender. That's 4 years. The acquisition of Panarin would do nothing to change this timeline, IMO. And would waste the prime years of his career and become an albatross of a contract at a time when the Rangers will be looking to add free agents to hopefully augment their playoff run.

From 2005 to 2013 there were 9 players who scored 80+ points at age 27. They are Thornton,Hossa,Lecavalier, Jokinen, Datsyuk, Gaborik, Ribeiro, Tanguay. In their age 32 season they scored (prorated to 82 games) 86,86,84,78,77,67,63,56,54. Why would he become an albatross when all of his comparables did not? *Zetterberg and Lecavalier age 32 season came in the lockout year. Keep in mind as well most of those age 27 seasons were right after the lockout which were higher scoring years. Most of their age 32 seasons came in lowing scoring seasons.

Aging curves are general approximations and I believe if you are using them as a one size fits all and applying them to some of the best players in the league you are making a large mistake.

 

[RangerBoy]

The spring of 1993 was the last time we saw so many top teams get knocked out early. Once every 26 years is not how you should build your team. Anything can happen. 1993. 2019. Sure.

Montreal emerged with the Cup. Very similar to 1986. Montreal won that season too. The Ranges knocked out the Flyers. Edmonton lost to Calgary. Flyers-Oilers was the Cup final in 1985 and 1987. They both lost before the conference finals in 1986.

 

[kovazub94]

Not necessarily the way I look at it but a fair assessment. I think what I find irritating about this 'youth movement' of ours is how dogmatic some of the proponents of selling off all vets and tanking for lottery picks can be. Those that wanted us to blow every game going down the stretch to increase our odds--cheering for losses. There's something not right about that--it seems dirty to me. No matter how bad things get you don't want your team to roll over and I think the Rangers fought hard last year--a lot of their losses in OT--a lot of losses by one goal or two with an empty netter against. I like to see that fight and I don't want the younger players developing in a negative environment. It was necessary to win games we weren't supposed to. It's necessary to not take **** and drop the gloves when needed. Those are key components in how to build a winning team and I think Quinn's been on the right track.

Anyway I don't know whether the Rangers will be in on Panarin or not or even if they are whether he'll sign with us or with another team. There is really not anyone else that I'm all that jazzed about out of the UFA market--it's not like I think Duchene for instance would be a great consolation prize. Whatever extra cap space we have is not burning a hole in my pocket. I basically see a player that could really help us go forward--be a boon to guys like Kakko or Kravtsov--maybe put a smile on Mika's face knowing he doesn't have to carry the offense every night for the team to have a decent chance to win.

I completely agree on dogmatic approach of posters on both sides of discussion who got their dogmas from select past examples and then refuse to hear any points that contradict this approach.

Not signing Panarin under ANY circumstances, trade Kreider regardless of a huge hole in top-6 that would force kids into roles they might not be ready for. Don’t get Trouba he’s too expensive - even though in 2 years at most our D will be the cheapest and the Rangers have a clear need for RD at that level and with his characteristics (that is not guaranteed to be filled up via draft, at least not under the current timeline).

 

[kovazub94]

I also think we had a hard time getting our trio to line up.

Lundqvist was the constant. But a trio featuring him, Nash and Gaborik didn't last long because Gaborik was done as an elite player at 30. Moving Gabby helped with the depth we needed, but then we didn't have that third elite element.

Later, McD was just about there, but then he and Nash started to break down at.

Timing is such a funny thing, you take one season, in the grand scheme of time, and bump it up a year or drop it back a year, and you end up with a very different outcome.

Yup, how many times during Ovechkin era Washington run was undermined by goaltending? Last year was the first where Holtby was good / great throughout without laying out a goose egg to cost a series.

 

[haohmaru]

Washington was equally undermined by playing not to lose, instead of playing to win. They reverted this year.

 

[bobbop]

From 2005 to 2013 there were 9 players who scored 80+ points at age 27. They are Thornton,Hossa,Lecavalier, Jokinen, Datsyuk, Gaborik, Ribeiro, Tanguay. In their age 32 season they scored (prorated to 82 games) 86,86,84,78,77,67,63,56,54. Why would he become an albatross when all of his comparables did not? *Zetterberg and Lecavalier age 32 season came in the lockout year. Keep in mind as well most of those age 27 seasons were right after the lockout which were higher scoring years. Most of their age 32 seasons came in lowing scoring seasons.

Aging curves are general approximations and I believe if you are using them as a one size fits all and applying them to some of the best players in the league you are making a large mistake.

Perhaps the best post on this subject.

 

[SML2]

Lundkvist definitely has 1D potential.

I hope they take their time there. There's no reason to see this kid until he's like 22. No rush at all.