Speculation: Roster Building Thread: Part XXXVII

[NernieBichols]

I would oppose Panarin even if he came here on a minimum contract. He simply does not fit our timeline. All he will do is prevent the Rangers from getting a top pick. I am not interested in bringing in a guy who will make the Rangers go from the 5th overall pick in 2020 to an 11 overall pick.

The idea of getting Panarin is based exclusively on the unicorn world where 1) all our prospects hit their ceiling; 2) none of them are busts, late bloomers or even regular bloomers who take until 23-26 to reach their prime. Everyone explaining why Panarin makes sense is posting lineups where 18-21 year olds are at the top of their game. In real life, that will never happen. If you assume that our prospects have a normal development curve and we have to wait until they are a minimum 22-23 before they get over the rookie hickups, sophomore slumps, etc, then Panarin's contract will be in its last couple of years when the youth just starts getting good. A UFA contract is always an anchor by its last two years - that's the sacrifice you make to improve the team immediately. So signing Panarin DELAYS our ability to contend for the Cup by killing the cap just as the kids approach their prime.

And this flaw may be fatal for the Rangers' chances of winning the the Cup in the next dozen years. Why? Because you need ELCs with low cap hits to win the Cup, but just as our kids get good and enter their last year of ELC (usually the most productive one), we destroy the cap space with an aging UFA at the tail end of his contract. So the most prime part of our Cup window when the kids are already good, but still underpaid, gets wiped out because fans with no patience would rather finish 10th in the East than 14th next season. The level of idiocy is mind-numbing.

Please. What a joke
I live in a unicorn world where the rangers moved up to 2OA in the draft lotto with a 10-15% of doing so.

 

[DanielBrassard]

It is for sure, but Zibanejad still had a ton of ?'s around him.

In hindsight, it was clearly a move that they wanted to make to clear up some space for Shattenkirk while restocking the system a bit. I don't think they anticipated the team being as bad as they were the following season.

I don't think it had anything to do with Shattenkirk. They weren't even going to sign him until he came to them with the 4-year deal and it was too solid of a deal to pass up. What they were planning on doing was going after Thornton or Marleau according to most reports to replace Stepan I suppose and ADA was going to replace Girardi was probably their hope. I don't think anyone anticipated them being that bad, but when you go from Stepan-Zibanejad-Hayes-Lindberg/Pirri to Zibanejad-Hayes-Desharnais-whoever what can you expect lol.

 

[haohmaru]

It is for sure, but Zibanejad still had a ton of ?'s around him.

In hindsight, it was clearly a move that they wanted to make to clear up some space for Shattenkirk while restocking the system a bit. I don't think they anticipated the team being as bad as they were the following season.

I don't think Gorton & Co. really went into the season thinking they were better adding Shattenkirk and losing Stepan down the middle. If they did, then we should be seriously concerned. Zibby was a 40-50 guy, same for Hayes (who had a lot of questions even going into THIS season), and you lost your best point producer (Center wise) and two way center. No idea how they could think they wouldn't be worse.

 

[Beacon]

look at your own Blue Jackets example - Texier 19, Werenski 21, Dubois 20, Jones 24, Bjorkstrand 23, Nutivaara 24. Islanders Barzal 21, Beauvillier 21, Pelech 24, Pulock 24. Avalanche Rantanen 22, Compher 23, MacKinnon 23, Girard 20, Zadorov 23, Jost 20, Kerfoot 24.

Every roster will have a few guys who are early bloomers and a few who are late bloomers. (Note that even on your list, most of them are 23 or older.) That, however, is why it takes so long. You don't get good when the first player hits his ceiling. If, say, Chytil proves to be an early bloomer and becomes a 60 point scorer next season, are the Rangers Cup contender? Do they even make the playoffs? No, not even close. Even at the average age when players are supposed to develop, "average" means 50% will be faster, but 50% will be slower, meaning that at the average point, half the youths are still going through growing pains.

Look at that Avalanche starting lineup - SEVEN guys 24 or under. That's where the league is going. Quit looking to the past and start looking ahead.

A player turns 24 years old a full 6 years after he's drafted. Six years from now, Panarin and Kreider are in their mid-30s.

Also, I'm pretty sure you need to dress 20 guys, not 7 for any given game.

 

[GoAwayPanarin]

I don't think it had anything to do with Shattenkirk. They weren't even going to sign him until he came to them with the 4-year deal and it was too solid of a deal to pass up. What they were planning on doing was going after Thornton or Marleau according to most reports to replace Stepan I suppose and ADA was going to replace Girardi was probably their hope. I don't think anyone anticipated them being that bad, but when you go from Stepan-Zibanejad-Hayes-Lindberg/Pirri to Zibanejad-Hayes-Desharnais-whoever what can you expect lol.

I think they had some sort of an agreement well ahead of time with Shattenkirk. I remember the Marleau buzz but was it that serious?

I don't know how they expected this team to not be horrible either. It was really bad and masked by Hank 2 seasons prior and less bad and masked by hank the season before.

 

[Beacon]

Please. What a joke
I live in a unicorn world where the rangers moved up to 2OA in the draft lotto with a 10-15% of doing so.

1. A single stroke of luck does not prove that luck will always happen. Did we hit the lottery last year? Are you willing to bet money we'll hit it next year?
2. While there was a 15+% shot at a top-2 pick, there is literally a zero percent shot that all the players will not bust or get injured, and all of them will be early bloomers. That chance is not low, it's just nonexistent. It never happened for any team before. It's like saying, "we won the NHL lottery, so maybe next year we will get a Mars Alien to play center for the Rangers."

 

[GeorgeKaplan]

I think they had some sort of an agreement well ahead of time with Shattenkirk. I remember the Marleau buzz but was it that serious?

I don't know how they expected this team to not be horrible either. It was really bad and masked by Hank 2 seasons prior and less bad and masked by hank the season before.

I think they expected a playoff bubble team, not a contender, which is what they were, but they saw Hank was masking a lot of problems and decided to make tough decisions earlier, rather than having those decisions be made for them in a few years

 

[haohmaru]

A player turns 24 years old a full 6 years after he's drafted. Six years from now, Panarin and Kreider are in their mid-30s.

Also, I'm pretty sure you need to dress 20 guys, not 7 for any given game.

This is being intentionally obtuse. No, not everyone can be 24 and under. I'm addressing an NHL trend. Of course you need vets on a team. I've never advocated for anything else. All I'm saying is that the 4-8 year plan for young athletes isn't as prevalent as it once was. It's likely Kakko or Kravstov or someone else can, and will, succeed in the NHL at 20 years old. Or 19.

Chytil, Andersson, Buchnevich, DeAngelo, Howden, Lemieux, etc.. are all further along in your window than you're caring to admit. In 3 years Panarin will be 30. Our argument is, primarily, that our timelines don't match up for when we think we'll be competitive. We'll see in three years and dozens of roster moves who was right. The parity in the league makes everything much more of a crapshoot than it once was.

 

[ZestyMest]

Per the vaunted letter:

"We began the process of reshaping our team this past summer, when we traded for assets that we believe will help us in the years to come"

I rest my case.

Its purely semantics that ultimately mean absolutely nothing, I have no idea why you care. Regardless of when the rebuild began it doesn't change the ultimate timeline of when its over (which itself will be up for pointless debate). We'll see good hockey again in like 1-2 seasons give or take assuming nothing goes horribly wrong, that's all that really matters.

 

[Beacon]

This is being intentionally obtuse. No, not everyone can be 24 and under. I'm addressing an NHL trend. Of course you need vets on a team. I've never advocated for anything else. All I'm saying is that the 4-8 year plan for young athletes isn't as prevalent as it once was. It's likely Kakko or Kravstov or someone else can, and will, succeed in the NHL at 20 years old. Or 19.

Chytil, Andersson, Buchnevich, DeAngelo, Howden, Lemieux, etc.. are all further along in your window than you're caring to admit. In 3 years Panarin will be 30. Our argument is, primarily, that our timelines don't match up for when we think we'll be competitive. We'll see in three years and dozens of roster moves who was right. The parity in the league makes everything much more of a crapshoot than it once was.

No, you're not understanding what I'm saying. I get the NHL trend. But the NHL trend does not change the fact that basic biology says that it takes a kid time to develop. You can sometimes choose a 23-24 year old today whereas in the 90s maybe you'd take a 32-33 year old. Fine. But in the history of the NHL, we never saw a team where 1) nobody busted; 2) everyone became good by their 21 birthday. Teams getting younger means we have a 26 year old Zibanejad, not a 33 or 40 year old Messier. It does not mean suddenly we rely on 19 year olds. The next 2-3 years, we will not be good. Maybe if prospects overperform, we can be make the playoffs, but that would require a lot of skyrocketing by a lot of guys (Vinni suddenly can score in the NHL, Chytil scores 60+ points in the upcoming season, Pionk proves to be a top-4 blueliner, etc).

Also, keep in mind that most good young regular season teams tend to choke in the playoffs he first year they make it due to a lack of experience.

 

[haohmaru]

Its purely semantics that ultimately mean absolutely nothing, I have no idea why you care. Regardless of when the rebuild began it doesn't change the ultimate timeline of when its over (which itself will be up for pointless debate). We'll see good hockey again in like 1-2 seasons give or take assuming nothing goes horribly wrong, that's all that really matters.

I don't "care" other than what my timeline is for when the Rangers should challenge for a playoff spot and be competitive and how that interplays with Gorton & Co. - if we're at 5 years and still nowhere then it's time to reevaluate from the top down.

 

[Trxjw]

I think some of the Stepan maneuvering was the Rangers seeing if they could adjust the course of the team by changing it's make-up. The wheels coming off in 2018 just solidified that they needed a more drastic change. Keep in mind that in addition to moving Stepan there were rumblings about Thornton coming to NY as a UFA. That probably changes things quite a bit had he not elected to stay in San Jose.

I also think the Rangers had some legitimate concerns about Stepan's longevity and wanted to get out from under his contract. There was likely a bit of marketing laid over the top of that for the casual fan base.

Despite where the true rebuild may or may not have started, we're at best coming up on the 2 year mark. That's not a lot of time under normal circumstances, but Gorton has done an excellent job of extracting value out of his trade assets. I think now is the time they'll turn up the dial a little bit and try to focus on landing those premium pieces. Chytil, Howden, Lemieux, etc, all look like a solid supporting core up front. Kakko, Zibanejad, and Kravtsov could be a great foundation for the top-six. There are a lot of quality pieces on the way to build the blue line.

That being said, I don't think there's any point in adding expensive older players until you get a better picture of how this plan is going to take shape. It could be 3 years before this team shows enough progression to start making a run at the playoffs. It could be 5. It could be next year if our top prospects make huge impacts and we see monstrous progression from some of the other guys. Until that happens though, I think staying the course is the best way to go.

 

[GoAwayPanarin]

I think we're a bubble team by 20-21, even if we don't do anything outside of trading Kreider and signing stop gaps.

 

[Lindberg Cheese]

Anybody think that a Krieder / Kravtsov / Kakko line could work?

 

[ZestyMest]

I don't "care" other than what my timeline is for when the Rangers should challenge for a playoff spot and be competitive and how that interplays with Gorton & Co. - if we're at 5 years and still nowhere then it's time to reevaluate from the top down.

I don't think anyone is saying we're 5 years out, you are likely misinterpreting Beacon (please correct me if I'm wrong Beacon). As I understand it, although not explicitly, he is making a distinction between true contention like the bolts right now and being a young bubble team like the Avs/yotes are right now or the Leafs/Jets in 2017. There is a gap in time between sucking and being a contender in successful rebuilds.

 

[haohmaru]

I don't think anyone is saying we're 5 years out, you are likely misinterpreting Beacon (please correct me if I'm wrong Beacon). As I understand it, although not explicitly, he is making a distinction between true contention like the bolts right now and being a young bubble team like the Avs/yotes are right now or the Leafs/Jets in 2017. There is a gap in time between sucking and being a contender in successful rebuilds.

I'm less pessimistic about the timeline than he is. I get what he's saying.

 

[haohmaru]

Anybody think that a Krieder / Kravtsov / Kakko line could work?

Racist. KKK line.

 

[True Blue]

Until that happens though, I think staying the course is the best way to go.

I think that is the only course to go.

 

[Lindberg Cheese]

Racist. KKK line.

There would have to be another nickname given besides yours

 

[haohmaru]

Smiley face = joke.

 

[Irishguy42]

Racist. KKK line.

I don't see DeAngelo on that line...

 

[Fitzy]

Anybody think that a Krieder / Kravtsov / Kakko line could work?

If Kakko were the center, probably.

If we keep Kreider I'd just as soon keep him with Zibanejad and Buchnevich however.

Ideally I'd also like to start building a rapport between Lemieux and Howden.

 

[Good Intentions]

Painting with a thick brush, our near-future/foreseeable future forward situation is beautiful. (say that 10x fast)

However, there is a defensive move that Gorton needs to find. It's a move that would get Gorton from a B+ to A territory if it hits. It's more than a buyout - it's probably a trade - and it's probably something we haven't covered...

I'm semi-sorry for mentioning Lias again (final time until May) but a hockey trade - Lias for a defenseman in need of a change of scenery - seems like a viable path.

 

[NYR Viper]

If Kakko were the center, probably.

If we keep Kreider I'd just as soon keep him with Zibanejad and Buchnevich however.

Ideally I'd also like to start building a rapport between Lemieux and Howden.

I actually think Lemieux and Andersson should stapled to each other.

 

[Edge]

I don't think anyone is saying we're 5 years out, you are likely misinterpreting Beacon (please correct me if I'm wrong Beacon). As I understand it, although not explicitly, he is making a distinction between true contention like the bolts right now and being a young bubble team like the Avs/yotes are right now or the Leafs/Jets in 2017. There is a gap in time between sucking and being a contender in successful rebuilds.

I've been arguing for a while that there's a transition era that often gets overlooked, and the era is more or less what you're describing.

Even if everything falls into place, it's not typically a prolonged period of time, but it's an essential one.