Speculation: Roster Building Thread: Part XXXVII

[Fugazy]

The Hayes ship has sailed.

If he was going to be extended, he would have been already.

Yeah I think people really need to let go of that thought.

 

[haohmaru]

I agree. But I can see us signing Hayes this summer still. It's a position of weakness, and none of the 3 you mention can fill that role

I'll live with growing pains and being weak there over signing Hayes to a 7 year deal. No thanks.

 

[haohmaru]

Are you suggesting that if those players were a little better, the Rangers would've won the Cup or even made a good playoff run? Fleury got bad in the last year, which is what people remember. His first 3 years, he was great. In the second season, he had 76 points in 64 games. But let's say the Rangers had a better player, would it make any difference? Gretzky failed. Bringing back Messier failed. Anyone? Would prime Gretzky get the Rangers of 2000 to make a deep playoff run at least?

It's time-consuming enough to make salient points about topics without refuting arguments that I haven't made. I'm not going to get into the above.

Before signing Fleury, among others, in the summer of 1999:

7 overall in 1998
4 overall in 1999
9 overall in 1999

Which does nothing to refute the point that I made. In the last two years we've had FIVE 1st round draft picks vs. 3 in the two years you're looking at. We could have up to four more 1st in this year's draft. That's 7-9 1st round picks in 3 years with a front office (Gorton) that has a proven track record (Boston) of doing well in the draft. We've never had this many quality/quantity of picks in a three year period in our history. That was my point. The above just proves my point further.

But regardless, all these picks we have now will need 4-8 years to mature. Panarin will retire or be a shell of himself by the time all of the youth is ready (not the first early bloomer, but all of them).

And this is where we really disagree - if it takes 8 years (+ the 1 1/2 that's already behind us) then we're doing it wrong. Draft. Hockey trades. Team building. UFA's. Coaching. The goal is to make the team better every year and if we're not good enough to compete in 4+ years since starting this (McD/Nash/Grabs/Stepan, etc...) began then Gorton isn't doing a good enough job.

(Edit) I actually forgot that the Stepan trade was pre-draft 2017, so this off season really is the beginning of year 3 of the rebuild and I don't care when the letter went out. I think 2020-21 we should be competing for playoff spots and 2021-22 should be competitive. That's the timeline or shit isn't working. If you're 5 years in and not competitive then something is wrong. With or without Panarin.

 

[Amazing Kreiderman]

I'll live with growing pains and being weak there over signing Hayes to a 7 year deal. No thanks.

I feel the same. I don't want Hayes, let me be clear. I'm just saying I could see him return this summer.

This team is entering year 2 of the 5-year rebuild.

 

[DutchShamrock]

Strome is an adequate placeholder for a 2nd line center on a non playoff team. Bigger fish to fry. You have contenders in the system for 2 and 3 C. If you aren't contending, just go with the serviceable option until a candidate emerges. Avoid a long term and unnecessary commitment.

 

[haohmaru]

I feel the same. I don't want Hayes, let me be clear. I'm just saying I could see him return this summer.

This team is entering year 2 of the 5-year rebuild.

As above, I see as entering year 3 with Stepan/Raanta being the starting point.

 

[Elliman]

Strome is an adequate placeholder for a 2nd line center on a non playoff team. Bigger fish to fry. You have contenders in the system for 2 and 3 C. If you aren't contending, just go with the serviceable option until a candidate emerges. Avoid a long term and unnecessary commitment.

The argument for Strome is

Do you sell high on him? Expecting him to return to the player he has been?

Or

Has he finally found a home and figured it all out and he’s ready to breakout and become a major player & asset? Late bloomer?

Tough decisions to make this offseason.

 

[Amazing Kreiderman]

As above, I see as entering year 3 with Stepan/Raanta being the starting point.

Signing Shattenkirk doesn't really mark the start of a rebuild for me.

 

[Beacon]

It's time-consuming enough to make salient points about topics without refuting arguments that I haven't made. I'm not going to get into the above.

Your argument was that Fleury and others were not good enough. That was the statement you made. So my question is: would someone else make any difference? Looking back, was there anyone - Lidstrom, Forsberg, etc - who could've made the Rangers good at the time or was the better strategy to trade away all the vets for youth, and draft very early for 4-5 years?

And this is where we really disagree - if it takes 8 years (+ the 1 1/2 that's already behind us) then we're doing it wrong.

Look, if it takes kids 3-8 years to develop, all of them will develop in 8 years. Meaning, some after 3 at 21, some after 5 at 23, some at 24, at 25, at 26. By the time the growing pains are done with all of them, you need to go through the whole time frame to the last late bloomer.

The team can get better earlier. A 20 year old Kakko is hopefully a star. Hopefully one of Kravtsov or Chytil. So maybe we make the playoffs in 2021 or 2022, maybe enough youth improves that we win a round.

But it takes time to go from utter crap to winning the Cup.

Trade Kreider, Names, Vesey, Fast, Staal, Shatty and Smith in the next 10-22 months. If we need vets, lower guys like Brassard can provide leadership without a long term contract.

 

[FIRE DRURY]

Signing Shattenkirk doesn't really mark the start of a rebuild for me.

Smith too.

 

[GeorgeKaplan]

As above, I see as entering year 3 with Stepan/Raanta being the starting point.

That’s not the starting point, they still tried to make the playoffs the next season, their hope of Hayes/Zibanejad being ready to move up a slot in the line up was a year off, but already too late at that point

 

[DutchShamrock]

The argument for Strome is

Do you sell high on him? Expecting him to return to the player he has been?

Or

Has he finally found a home and figured it all out and he’s ready to breakout and become a major player & asset? Late bloomer?

Tough decisions to make this offseason.

I can appreciate this sentiment. But I guess someone makes the decision for you. A buyer comes calling with a really good offer. I don't shop him, personally. I don't think he holds a lot of value until he puts together more time as a viable NHLer.

 

[haohmaru]

Your argument was that Fleury and others were not good enough. That was the statement you made. So my question is: would someone else make any difference? Looking back, was there anyone - Lidstrom, Forsberg, etc - who could've made the Rangers good at the time or was the better strategy to trade away all the vets for youth, and draft very early for 4-5 years?.

No, had you taken the time to read what I wrote you'd see that my argument was that Fleury the other guys that you were throwing out there weren't comparable to Panarin. Fleury was 31 and played here for three years. Panarin is 27/28 and will play here for 7 years. In three years from now, when I think the Rangers SHOULD be competitive through drafting, development, trades, and UFA's, Panarin will be the same age then that Fleury was in his first season here.

Look, if it takes kids 3-8 years to develop, all of them will develop in 8 years. Meaning, some after 3 at 21, some after 5 at 23, some at 24, at 25, at 26. By the time the growing pains are done with all of them, you need to go through the whole time frame to the last late bloomer.

That timeline is too long. Sure, some (particularly D) will take longer and the Marchands of the world are few and far between. If we're at year 5 of this rebuild and we still don't know what we have with Andersson and Chytil then we probably just don't have what we thought we would when they were drafted. Gorton isn't getting 8 years to field a contender. At least I don't think so.

Trade Kreider, Names, Vesey, Fast, Staal, Shatty and Smith in the next 10-22 months. If we need vets, lower guys like Brassard can provide leadership without a long term contract.

I've openly said Kreider should go. He's not worth whatever contract he'll get. Staal? Good luck trading him. Same for Smith. I'll reserve judgment on Shattenkirk until next season. I like what I've seen from Namestnikov this year, and Fast every year. Vesey for a 3rd or whatever is fine with me. Namestnikov and Fast are role players that don't hurt the team and aren't going to get you a whole lot in a trade. I keep them until a younger guy fills their spot effectively.

 

[haohmaru]

That’s not the starting point, they still tried to make the playoffs the next season, their hope of Hayes/Zibanejad being ready to move up a slot in the line up was a year off, but already too late at that point

I disagree. They traded their (at the time) #1 center for draft picks and prospects. That's the beginning of raising the white flag. Depth at center is a pretty important component of competing for a Cup - Stepan is what he is but trading him made the team worse, not better, for futures.

 

[HatTrick Swayze]

I disagree. They traded their (at the time) #1 center for draft picks and prospects. That's the beginning of raising the white flag. Depth at center is a pretty important component of competing for a Cup - Stepan is what he is but trading him made the team worse, not better, for futures.

IMO that’s revisionist history. A large percentage of this board argued that summer that “swapping Stepan for Shattenkirk” was a net upgrade.

 

[Amazing Kreiderman]

IMO that’s revisionist history. A large percentage of this board argued that summer that “swapping Stepan for Shattenkirk” was a net upgrade.

Exactly. A team committing to a rebuild doesn't spend 10m a year for the next 4 seasons on 2 defensemen

 

[Tawnos]

The magic words.

My point is that if a contending team could afford it, so can a non-contending team.

 

[wafflepadsave]

Even that Carolina should be grateful. But agreed that’s the pick id give up to get him here a year early. A late 2nd max.

Really should be a third

Agreed but I like the idea of trying to compensate teams who lose the ncaa guys because of a loophole.

 

[haohmaru]

IMO that’s revisionist history. A large percentage of this board argued that summer that “swapping Stepan for Shattenkirk” was a net upgrade.

Gorton himself said that trading Stepan was part of "rebuilding on the fly" on that draft day.



Stepan's NTC was kicking in that summer. Hayes wasn't a lock as a #2 or even #3. Shattenkirk wasn't signed until 7/1.

You can believe what you like. When a team trades its #1 center for a pick and a prospect, that screams rebuild. Zibby's breakout year was THIS year, not the two preceding it.

 

[haohmaru]

Exactly. A team committing to a rebuild doesn't spend 10m a year for the next 4 seasons on 2 defensemen

See above. Gorton himself called it a rebuild.

 

[Leetch3]

Gorton himself said that trading Stepan was part of "rebuilding on the fly" on that draft day.



Stepan's NTC was kicking in that summer. Hayes wasn't a lock as a #2 or even #3. Shattenkirk wasn't signed until 7/1.

You can believe what you like. When a team trades its #1 center for a pick and a prospect, that screams rebuild. Zibby's breakout year was THIS year, not the two preceding it.

rebuilding on the fly isn't a rebuild

 

[Amazing Kreiderman]

See above. Gorton himself called it a rebuild.

A rebuild on the fly, which is just a different way of saying retool.

That's different from an actual rebuild

 

[GeorgeKaplan]

I disagree. They traded their (at the time) #1 center for draft picks and prospects. That's the beginning of raising the white flag. Depth at center is a pretty important component of competing for a Cup - Stepan is what he is but trading him made the team worse, not better, for futures.

It freed up cap space to upgrade their defense while they thought Hayes and Zibanejad can slid up the depth chart, they couldn’t, then throughout the season management took a hard look at what they had and decided to tear it down. It was a misstep as a retooling trade rather than a rebuilding trade

 

[Vitto79]

So what’s the timeline on the LD?

Skjei stays
Staal, Smith , Claesson stop gaps
Hajek, Lindgren .. 1 makes it?
Rykov -AHL
Miller - still in College ?

 

[Beacon]

That timeline is too long. Sure, some (particularly D) will take longer and the Marchands of the world are few and far between. If we're at year 5 of this rebuild and we still don't know what we have with Andersson and Chytil then we probably just don't have what we thought we would when they were drafted. Gorton isn't getting 8 years to field a contender. At least I don't think so.

It took 10 years from the 2004 firesale to the 2014 SCF.

Mcdonagh was sent to the minors at 21. Kreider and Callahan at 22. Zuccarello at 24. Martin St. Louis at almost 25. Zibanejad hit his ceiling at 25, Brassard at 27, St. Louis at 28.

But no doubt the new crop of prospects will all put the likes of St Louis and McDonaugh to shame, becoming veteran-level good by their 21 birthday. No doubt.