Speculation: Roster Building Thread: Part XXXVII

[Winston2018]

Miller

r u saying K'Andre could be Seth?

 

[brians1128]

What type of contract is Wayne Simmonds gonna be looking at this offseason?

If Krieder is traded I wouldnt mind given him a shorter term contract. Could provide some more grit and some net front presence that we will lose if Krieder is gone.

 

[Fvital92]

r u saying K'Andre could be Seth?

Hopefully, a man can dream...

 

[GoAwayPanarin]

Hopefully, a man can dream...

I think he can be as good as he is defensively, not so sure I see the offense coming around to that point.

 

[Leetch3]

I'm happy with two of them and two are developing. Strome is a very good Tweener now can play top/middle/bottom. All purpose. Howden did very well for his age/experience despite half this board wanting to send him to the gallows for most of the season.

Lemiuex showed flashes, let's see if he can hang with Prentiss have a monster summer, and be like an 18-22G and 18-22A guy.

Anderson I wasn't particularly happy with but I'm not "mad" at him. If he does what he did this season next year, then it's time to be concerned. I'm in my 30s so to me a player beginning his NHL journey 2-3 full seasons after a draft year is normal. I expect a little progress from him this year. Too many times this season he was invisible but as I said, he's ahead of the game in terms of arrival (he probably should have been left in Sweden for another year or two).

As for the bottom 6 in general, if you can improve it immediately, why not? If they can be competitive next season, it's ok. Don't tank for the sake of tanking.

No one is tanking for the sake of tanking but having an improved 4th line isn’t the difference between picking top 5 and making the playoffs. Once you fix the blue line we can worry about the bottom 6 if it doesn’t work itself out by then

 

[Matt4776]

Cap space is an asset. Without a doubt. You maximize that asset by using it. The use of that cap space is a a huge factor on success.

What do trades cost versus ufas?

Are the Rangers accumulating all of these young assets to trade them in 2-3 years before they hit their prime? Because that's what it will cost. All of those younger assets are cost controlled for another 5 years or longer.

You win with elite players, and great depth and contributors on ELCs. The teams in contention now, with the window open have the majority of their core in the 23-29 range. That's when the window is open for most teams if their core is there, and the surrounding players can fill roles.

I suggest you look at the UFAs that hit the market prior to last year. Players of Taveres ilk rarely... and I mean rarely hit UFA.

Who was the best PPG UFA in 2015?
Who was the best PPG UFA in 2016?
Who was the best PPG UFA in 2017?

The Rangers will have enough young talent to absorb cap hits. Those players aren't earning top dollars. And if they earn it. Mazel Tov. But with the exception of Kakko I don't think a home grown asset is going to break the bank.

Stamkos in 2016.

So, in 2016 there was Stamkos. 2018 Tavares. 2019 Karlsson and Panarin.

If you include deadline/offseason sign-and-trades, you have Karlsson a second time, McDonagh, Stone. Dropping down in quality just a touch, you have Duchene available like every offseason. We'll see what happens with Marner. Hall was made available to trade. MVP.

 

[HFsNumber1Heel]

No one is tanking for the sake of tanking but having an improved 4th line isn’t the difference between picking top 5 and making the playoffs. Once you fix the blue line we can worry about the bottom 6 if it doesn’t work itself out by then

The Blue Line is already being fixed the ETA is just 1-2 seasons. They have 7 DMen prospects between Miller/Hajek/Lindgren/Reunnenan/Keane/Rykov/Lundkvist and that's not even including Gross or Sjallin. Plus they definitely do have a shot at Fox after next summer.

That's not even counting what they do at this draft with the WPG first, and the TBL/DAL picks wherever they end up. They can't magically make Shattenkirk/Staal/Smith disappear this summer unless they "bribe" a team with a pick which makes zero sense. Smith can be a 13th forward or 7th DMen, the other two will play. Summer 2020 they can get creative or even buyout 1 in a worst case scenario.

My point on the bottom 6 is that it is something that could and should be fixed this summer with the money available. Fixing the PK and actually holdings leads could very well be the difference between a bottom 10 finish and a wild card spot.

 

[HFsNumber1Heel]

What type of contract is Wayne Simmonds gonna be looking at this offseason?

If Krieder is traded I wouldnt mind given him a shorter term contract. Could provide some more grit and some net front presence that we will lose if Krieder is gone.

He hasn't had a productive stay on Nashville. Slightly overpay him for two years and give him an A. He's a leader, plays the game the right way, will stick up for his teammates, and can still cycle. I know people say he's going to want term, but overpaying by a million for two years is worth it for this team. And yes, he'll go the front of the net on PP2 and open up space for the Stromes, Chytils, Kravstovs, and Kakkos of the world.

 

[brians1128]

He hasn't had a productive stay on Nashville. Slightly overpay him for two years and give him an A. He's a leader, plays the game the right way, will stick up for his teammates, and can still cycle. I know people say he's going to want term, but overpaying by a million for two years is worth it for this team. And yes, he'll go the front of the net on PP2 and open up space for the Stromes, Chytils, Kravstovs, and Kakkos of the world.

Yea he's not the scorer that he used to be but I like what he brings, everything you said is spot on.

To me I would target him and Boyle. trade Fast and Vesey at the draft, they wont deliver much in return, and then sell Names and Strome at next deadline.

 

[Mikos87]

Stamkos in 2016.

So, in 2016 there was Stamkos. 2018 Tavares. 2019 Karlsson and Panarin.

If you include deadline/offseason sign-and-trades, you have Karlsson a second time, McDonagh, Stone. Dropping down in quality just a touch, you have Duchene available like every offseason. We'll see what happens with Marner. Hall was made available to trade. MVP.

The question is around who hits UFA. You can make the argument for Stamkos, but he re-signed prior to July 1st. Granted teams were allowed to talk to him, but he didn't make a move.

 

[Jaromir Jagr]

The Blue Line is already being fixed the ETA is just 1-2 seasons. They have 7 DMen prospects between Miller/Hajek/Lindgren/Reunnenan/Keane/Rykov/Lundkvist and that's not even including Gross or Sjallin. Plus they definitely do have a shot at Fox after next summer.

That's not even counting what they do at this draft with the WPG first, and the TBL/DAL picks wherever they end up. They can't magically make Shattenkirk/Staal/Smith disappear this summer unless they "bribe" a team with a pick which makes zero sense. Smith can be a 13th forward or 7th DMen, the other two will play. Summer 2020 they can get creative or even buyout 1 in a worst case scenario.

My point on the bottom 6 is that it is something that could and should be fixed this summer with the money available. Fixing the PK and actually holdings leads could very well be the difference between a bottom 10 finish and a wild card spot.

I agree with most, if not all of what you said. But just to play devil's advocate for a second, let's assume we have the following:

Kreider-Zib-KK
Buch-Chytil-Kravtsov
Names-Lias-Strome
Lemieux-Howden-Fast

Boo
Vesey
Lettieri
Fogarty
Gettinger

That bottom 6 is pretty solid. The problem of course, is the NHL level D and that second line, which is a complete wildcard.

I assume we're not going to go into the season with Vesey and Boo as bench players, so we can assume 1 or 2 of Vesey, Names or Fast will be moved at the draft.

Still, I see three questions/problems caused by your proposal:

1. Who are we benching/trading in favor of signing solid, veteran bottom 6 players?

2. Isn't it more important to have Lias/Lemieux/Howden playing, than worrying about replacing them with guys who might be a bit more solid/NHL ready in the bottom 6?

3. If we assume Strome, 1 of Names/Vesey/Fast and Boo are rounding out the bottom 6, besideh the 3 previous youngsters, who is available that would make the bottom 6 that much better? Strome is a legit bottom guy, as are Names/Fast/Vesey, and I might like Boo more than others, but I also think he is pretty solid and has upside still.

 

[Mikos87]

Barron and Miller as an NCAA tag team for a playoff run spring 2020 lol

Wisconsin is supposed to be really good next year. But I think both Barron and Miller turn pro as soon as their seasons are up.

I wouldn't be surprised if that meant burning a year off of the ELC as a part of the signing.

 

[Jaromir Jagr]

Cap space is an asset. Without a doubt. You maximize that asset by using it. The use of that cap space is a a huge factor on success.

What do trades cost versus ufas?

Are the Rangers accumulating all of these young assets to trade them in 2-3 years before they hit their prime? Because that's what it will cost. All of those younger assets are cost controlled for another 5 years or longer.

You win with elite players, and great depth and contributors on ELCs. The teams in contention now, with the window open have the majority of their core in the 23-29 range. That's when the window is open for most teams if their core is there, and the surrounding players can fill roles.

I suggest you look at the UFAs that hit the market prior to last year. Players of Taveres ilk rarely... and I mean rarely hit UFA.

Who was the best PPG UFA in 2015?
Who was the best PPG UFA in 2016?
Who was the best PPG UFA in 2017?

The Rangers will have enough young talent to absorb cap hits. Those players aren't earning top dollars. And if they earn it. Mazel Tov. But with the exception of Kakko I don't think a home grown asset is going to break the bank.

You're making a ton of assumptions here, most of which is assuming none of our home grown assets will break the bank. There is a lot of upside in Chytil, Howden, Lias, Kravtsov, Shesty, as well as others who are not here yet. We are not talking about 3-4 years for Panarin, we're talking about 7.

Moreover, where did I say we are trading all of our young assets? The Rangers have a plethora already and will have a ton more at the beginning of the season and again after next season. They won't have room to fit all of those players. Trading some of them is what good teams do to get the supplemental pieces they need to win cups.

Panarin is great right now. There is absolutely no way anyone can foresee him being great when we need him to be. I have no interest in being saddled by a contract, yet again, when this team is ready to compete.

As I and others have proven, players like him become available time and time again. Whether it's via UFA or trade. Generally, when it's by trade, it takes a 1st round pick, decent/good prospect and decent NHL player. We should be able to do that, assuming things pan out, quite easily and still boast a significant prospect pool.

Finally, we are pretty set on the flank right now. Why not see what we have in KK and Kravtsov before going and investing a high percentage of cap space and term to a guy that might end up being redundant. If anything, I would be much more likely to invest in someone who was a C and a few years younger.

The Rangers paid through the teeth for Nash, Yandle and St. Louis. They remained competitive for years. They acquired three really high-end pieces in a span of a few years. It's pretty obvious that we'll be able to do that when the time is right. Which right now, it is not.

 

[Heckler81]

I agree with most, if not all of what you said. But just to play devil's advocate for a second, let's assume we have the following:

Kreider-Zib-KK
Buch-Chytil-Kravtsov
Names-Lias-Strome
Lemieux-Howden-Fast

Boo
Vesey
Lettieri
Fogarty
Gettinger

That bottom 6 is pretty solid. The problem of course, is the NHL level D and that second line, which is a complete wildcard.

I assume we're not going to go into the season with Vesey and Boo as bench players, so we can assume 1 or 2 of Vesey, Names or Fast will be moved at the draft.

Still, I see three questions/problems caused by your proposal:

1. Who are we benching/trading in favor of signing solid, veteran bottom 6 players?

2. Isn't it more important to have Lias/Lemieux/Howden playing, than worrying about replacing them with guys who might be a bit more solid/NHL ready in the bottom 6?

3. If we assume Strome, 1 of Names/Vesey/Fast and Boo are rounding out the bottom 6, besideh the 3 previous youngsters, who is available that would make the bottom 6 that much better? Strome is a legit bottom guy, as are Names/Fast/Vesey, and I might like Boo more than others, but I also think he is pretty solid and has upside still.

I’m sorry but you don’t waste Lemieux and Howden on the 4th line. I also think Lias needs to be in the AHL to start the year. We need to trade Names, he makes too much and he’s taking up a spot for a kid.

Fast, Strome, and Vessey fight for the one spot on the 3rd line. Whoever doesn’t make it goes to the 4th line.

I’m against kids playing on the 4th line. Not enough ice time and it stunts there growth.

 

[haohmaru]

What type of contract is Wayne Simmonds gonna be looking at this offseason?

If Krieder is traded I wouldnt mind given him a shorter term contract. Could provide some more grit and some net front presence that we will lose if Krieder is gone.

He's a shadow of his former self. Rather see a kid in there developing than watching Simmonds deteriorate further.

 

[Mikos87]

I agree with most, if not all of what you said. But just to play devil's advocate for a second, let's assume we have the following:

Kreider-Zib-KK
Buch-Chytil-Kravtsov
Names-Lias-Strome
Lemieux-Howden-Fast

Good post, but that roster would be a repeat of this year. I would want to see the kids battle for prime ice-time and insulate their minutes. I'd also get rid of the temps for picks. Start the 2020 sell-off a year in advance.

See I look at it differently. Here's what I would do if you know Panarin is coming:

Kreider-> ARI 1st 2019 & an SPC.
Vesey-> EDM 2020 3rd. Or a package of other picks.
Names-> Retain 25% Ship to COL for 2020 3rd. Or a package of other picks.
Fast-> 2020 3rd. Or a package of other picks.

Say you get another 1st, 3-4 more 2020 picks. But you clear $11M off the decks. Cap goes up by $4M. That $15M on top of the $17M you have open.

$32M in cap space. The price you paid is liquidation value for Names, Fast & Vesey... which most folks would say is edible.

Panarin-Zib-KK
Buch-Chytil-Kravtsov
Lias-Howden-Strome
Lemieux-Bellmare-Accriari-Hathaway

That roster supports 7 kids upfront to build a new core. 7. You get another 1st from dealing Kreider. 3-4 more picks in 2020.

You tell me that's not effectively managing a rebuild. Kids get to play. You get a game breaker. You load up more picks in 2020.

You plug all of the holes on your bottom six. You still have a utility guy like Strome that can slot in the middle if there are issues there. You get a bunch of 4th liners who can play a 4th line game.

Plenty of cap space available.

That's what I would like to see this off-season.

Doesn't fix the defense. That's a bigger mess, but the forwards- That's more than doable.

 

[Jaromir Jagr]

Good post, but that roster would be a repeat of this year. I would want to see the kids battle for prime ice-time and insulate their minutes. I'd also get rid of the temps for picks. Start the 2020 sell-off a year in advance.

See I look at it differently. Here's what I would do if you know Panarin is coming:

Kreider-> ARI 1st 2019 & an SPC.
Vesey-> EDM 2020 3rd. Or a package of other picks.
Names-> Retain 25% Ship to COL for 2020 3rd. Or a package of other picks.
Fast-> 2020 3rd. Or a package of other picks.

Say you get another 1st, 3-4 more 2020 picks. But you clear $11M off the decks. Cap goes up by $4M. That $15M on top of the $17M you have open.

$32M in cap space. The price you paid is liquidation value for Names, Fast & Vesey... which most folks would say is edible.

Panarin-Zib-KK
Buch-Chytil-Kravtsov
Lias-Howden-Strome
Lemieux-Bellmare-Accriari-Hathaway

That roster supports 7 kids upfront to build a new core. 7. You get another 1st from dealing Kreider. 3-4 more picks in 2020.

You tell me that's not effectively managing a rebuild. Kids get to play. You get a game breaker. You load up more picks in 2020.

You plug all of the holes on your bottom six. You still have a utility guy like Strome that can slot in the middle if there are issues there. You get a bunch of 4th liners who can play a 4th line game.

Plenty of cap space available.

That's what I would like to see this off-season.

Doesn't fix the defense. That's a bigger mess, but the forwards- That's more than doable.

I'm for this, minus the Panarin. I'd love to stock up assets by trading those 4 guys. To appease you, I'd say we could keep Kreider and ignore Panarin. But still, those three guys should be moved separate from that situation.

I still don't think you're accounting for the long-term issues Panarin could pose.

If you assume we sign him to a 7 year deal, literally every player we have will need a raise in that time. Despite some big contracts coming off the books, the cap could get tighter quite quickly, especially if Kravtsov and KK and to a lesser extent Chytil, pan out as we hope.

Finally, if the Rangers are absolutely set on signing one of Panarin/Kreider, I'd much rather they move Kreids for another big asset and sign Panarin. But I'd just prefer we not get involved with either long-term.

 

[HFsNumber1Heel]

I agree with most, if not all of what you said. But just to play devil's advocate for a second, let's assume we have the following:

Kreider-Zib-KK
Buch-Chytil-Kravtsov
Names-Lias-Strome
Lemieux-Howden-Fast

Boo
Vesey
Lettieri
Fogarty
Gettinger

That bottom 6 is pretty solid. The problem of course, is the NHL level D and that second line, which is a complete wildcard.

I assume we're not going to go into the season with Vesey and Boo as bench players, so we can assume 1 or 2 of Vesey, Names or Fast will be moved at the draft.

Still, I see three questions/problems caused by your proposal:

1. Who are we benching/trading in favor of signing solid, veteran bottom 6 players?

2. Isn't it more important to have Lias/Lemieux/Howden playing, than worrying about replacing them with guys who might be a bit more solid/NHL ready in the bottom 6?

3. If we assume Strome, 1 of Names/Vesey/Fast and Boo are rounding out the bottom 6, besideh the 3 previous youngsters, who is available that would make the bottom 6 that much better? Strome is a legit bottom guy, as are Names/Fast/Vesey, and I might like Boo more than others, but I also think he is pretty solid and has upside still.

For question 2 and this also goes for what @Heckler81 said I'm fine with Lias/Lemieux/Howden playing and they should but they don't have to play strictly third line every night. They are all developing players and will be moved up and down the lineup based on performance, special teams, injuries, chemistry, game situations, etc. A few games on the fourth line is not going to do what Muckler did to Malholtra.

For question 3, Strome can move up and down the lineup. I don't think a second line of Chytil centering Buch and Kravstov is realistic. That's a lot of responsibility for a player who is turning 20 in September, a 19 year old rookie who hasn't played an NHL preseason game yet, and one guy who just finally seems to have figured it out.

We also don't know what will happen with Kreider.

Veterans can be signed to play up and down the lineup. A guy like Bellemare or even Ferland (I'm not saying sign him he's the next in line to get one of those deals that Vancouver gave out to Roussell or Beagle etc.) are going to get their minutes in and be useful.

I'm not insulting anyone on this board and I don't mean to in any way, I think sometimes labels get used for certain players like "4th line guy" or "2nd line center" when the modern NHL is a lot more intricate and versatile than back in the 70s and 80s when a 4th line was a mucker, a goon, and a faceoff specialist.

 

[Rangerfan4life90]

I'm for this, minus the Panarin. I'd love to stock up assets by trading those 4 guys. To appease you, I'd say we could keep Kreider and ignore Panarin. But still, those three guys should be moved separate from that situation.

I still don't think you're accounting for the long-term issues Panarin could pose.

If you assume we sign him to a 7 year deal, literally every player we have will need a raise in that time. Despite some big contracts coming off the books, the cap could get tighter quite quickly, especially if Kravtsov and KK and to a lesser extent Chytil, pan out as we hope.

Finally, if the Rangers are absolutely set on signing one of Panarin/Kreider, I'd much rather they move Kreids for another big asset and sign Panarin. But I'd just prefer we not get involved with either long-term.

I think one of Kreids or Panarin will be here. I'd love if both were, but that might be unrealistic.

 

[Mikos87]

You're making a ton of assumptions here, most of which is assuming none of our home grown assets will break the bank. There is a lot of upside in Chytil, Howden, Lias, Kravtsov, Shesty, as well as others who are not here yet. We are not talking about 3-4 years for Panarin, we're talking about 7.

Moreover, where did I say we are trading all of our young assets? The Rangers have a plethora already and will have a ton more at the beginning of the season and again after next season. They won't have room to fit all of those players. Trading some of them is what good teams do to get the supplemental pieces they need to win cups.

Semiotics aside, both your prior and current post. Which I don't disagree with. We're have different view points on the timing of signing a UFA. I'm not saying that you stop the rebuild. I look at the rebuild as a way of accumulating assets and currency. The way I calculate it, the Rangers really have two meaningful RFAs. Both of whom are worthy of bridge deals.

They've got 4 upcoming UFAs, 3 of whom will not be part of the new core. 4 if you're not sentimental about Kreider. All assets to be sold.

What we are disagreeing with is not whether to keep rebuilding or see what the kids can do, but rather when do you buy?

I think the Rangers are in prime position to solidify the forward ranks through this draft and free agency period.

The defense.... that's going to require more time.

 

[Mikos87]

I'm for this, minus the Panarin. I'd love to stock up assets by trading those 4 guys. To appease you, I'd say we could keep Kreider and ignore Panarin. But still, those three guys should be moved separate from that situation.

I still don't think you're accounting for the long-term issues Panarin could pose.

If you assume we sign him to a 7 year deal, literally every player we have will need a raise in that time. Despite some big contracts coming off the books, the cap could get tighter quite quickly, especially if Kravtsov and KK and to a lesser extent Chytil, pan out as we hope.

Finally, if the Rangers are absolutely set on signing one of Panarin/Kreider, I'd much rather they move Kreids for another big asset and sign Panarin. But I'd just prefer we not get involved with either long-term.

Not about appeasing. I've been in the sell Kreider boat for a long time. Fast is consistent, and Names gave it his all. But moving those 4... you change the culture real fast.

I see a greater benefit on top of the assets. Hell even if you don't get Panarin, and that's Joonas Donskoi for 2 seasons in the Kreider slot. I'm still game.

Kakko's going to need a guy that can help him adjust to NA.

 

[Vitto79]

I agree with most, if not all of what you said. But just to play devil's advocate for a second, let's assume we have the following:

Kreider-Zib-KK
Buch-Chytil-Kravtsov
Names-Lias-Strome
Lemieux-Howden-Fast

Boo
Vesey
Lettieri
Fogarty
Gettinger

That bottom 6 is pretty solid. The problem of course, is the NHL level D and that second line, which is a complete wildcard.

I assume we're not going to go into the season with Vesey and Boo as bench players, so we can assume 1 or 2 of Vesey, Names or Fast will be moved at the draft.

Still, I see three questions/problems caused by your proposal:

1. Who are we benching/trading in favor of signing solid, veteran bottom 6 players?

2. Isn't it more important to have Lias/Lemieux/Howden playing, than worrying about replacing them with guys who might be a bit more solid/NHL ready in the bottom 6?

3. If we assume Strome, 1 of Names/Vesey/Fast and Boo are rounding out the bottom 6, besideh the 3 previous youngsters, who is available that would make the bottom 6 that much better? Strome is a legit bottom guy, as are Names/Fast/Vesey, and I might like Boo more than others, but I also think he is pretty solid and has upside still.

I don’t think any of the depth guys are dealt until the deadline ... Fast , Names , Vesey

Some of the kids will start in the AHL and get call ups a injury then get full time later

 

[HFsNumber1Heel]

I don’t think any of the depth guys are dealt until the deadline ... Fast , Names , Vesey

Some of the kids will start in the AHL and get call ups a injury then get full time later

Gettinger/Virta and to a lesser extent Meskannen and Fontaine, I'm really curious to see their progress and if one can steal a spot. Also let's see how Elmer does in this first full season and if Ronning can establish himself as a solid AHL player.

 

[Matt4776]

The question is around who hits UFA. You can make the argument for Stamkos, but he re-signed prior to July 1st. Granted teams were allowed to talk to him, but he didn't make a move.

Why is the question just who hits UFA? That's arbitrary. There are other avenues to acquire talented individuals.

Also, Stamkos was a UFA for all intents and purposes. He took meetings with other teams. It's semantics to say because he decided to sign with his original team, and thus was able to "officially" sign before July 1st instead of just waiting for July 1st to make the same agreement, that he wasn't a free agent.

 

[SA16]

Why is the question just who hits UFA? That's arbitrary. There are other avenues to acquire talented individuals.

Also, Stamkos was a UFA for all intents and purposes. He took meetings with other teams. It's semantics to say because he decided to sign with his original team, and thus was able to "officially" sign before July 1st instead of just waiting for July 1st to make the same agreement, that he wasn't a free agent.

It’s not really semantics. If he officially became a UFA he would not have been able to get 8 years from his original team like he did. If they could not offer him 8 years then it is much more likely he may have signed elsewhere since they would all be on the same playing field