Speculation: Roster Building Thread: Part XXXVIII

[Matt4776]

IF we do indeed draft Kakko, the team would have a skilled top 6 that can play a fairly heavy puck control game -- minus a legit 2C. (until a youngster can fill that role one day).

That said, something I haven't heard discussed much is how drafting Kakko has most likely shifted the Rangers larger plan. If they were drafting btw 3-10 then I think they'd have focused on a center of the future. That player might have been 1-2 years away.

But if they add Kakko and don't pick til around 20, then even if they pick a center, that player is most likely 2 or 3 years away from meaningful NHL games.

So, the first question the Rangers will need to address if Kakko is picked is who plays 2C the next 2 years? Do you let a kid suffer through big growing pains there? Do you put Strome there? Do you find another UFA stopgap? Do you look at Hayes knowing you'll need to sign him for more years than you might want him for? Knowing that contract may not look very good in 2 or 3 years?

Sorry in advance for the long ramble. I'm procrastinating studying for my law school finals/finalizing my Comment.

This is a point that is the cause of most arguments around this forum. As someone said, Gorton's comments are a hockey Rorschach test. Gorton said he could make some moves to accelerate the rebuild. Many believe that means signing Panarin/re-signing Kreider (or just signing Panarin) and signing/trading for other players that are already in their primes.

Others (including myself) believe he means doing something like trading up for a 2nd top-10 pick (and stuff like trading for Fox) for the reasons you mentioned. When you're picking at 20, you are lucky if you draft a 2nd line player. Odds are the 20th overall pick is a replacement-level player if he makes the League at all. Even if he does make it as a 2nd line center, it likely isn't until they are 23-25.

Getting a top-10 talent obviously increases the chances he pans out, and also likely decreases the amount of time needed before they're ready (obviously pick dependent as you could pick a project... but generally the higher talent level results in being an acceptable NHLer sooner, though the peak will likely be the same regardless.)

Kakko undoubtedly has a better chance of being elite sooner than anyone we would've picked at 6-9, even if he'd hit his full potential/peak at the same mage. Accordingly, it makes sense to me that accelerating the rebuild would entail acquiring another top-10 player with a more similar trajectory to Kakko than a guy like Kreider (who was a phenomenal pick at 19 given what he provided) who wasn't a solidified plus player at the NHL level until his D+5 or D+6 season.

But we shall see what Gorton has in mind soon enough.

Regarding your actual question about who is our #2C in the meantime, I think almost all of us (even those in the sign Panarin camp that believes we'll be competing for a playoff spot next year) are unified over not wanting to shell out big bucks for the mid-tier UFAs.

As such, I think it will likely be Strome's to lose for next year, regardless of whose definition of "accelerating the rebuild" ends up being correct. Though he likely shot at an unsustainable rate this year, he still played pretty well. He isn't bad enough to be a detriment on Kakko's development if they become linemates. For the same reasons, we might sign a guy like Brassard to a one year deal. They aren't too good where they'll block guys like Howden/Andersson/Chytil if they exceed expectations and become ready for the responsibility on a quicker than anticipated timeline. Good enough to give the young guys talent to play with/prevent them from playing above their heads a la Edmonton/Buffalo, but preserves future flexibility if kids excel.

Of course, it goes without saying that a lot of this is depends on the Rangers' view of Howden/Chytil/Andersson as centers.

 

[Kakko Schmakko]

Honestly if we take KK I’d bring back purple Hayes. 6x6 if he’ll take it (maybe not enough). Don’t go after anymore FAs and keep it going. I think Fast will get extended, I trust JG on whatever he’s going to do with CK. I hope Pionk is scuttled to the bottom of the sound and we can give TDA that top 1RD ice time next year- i think he’ll break out big time.

No way we give Hayes a 6 year contract. 4-5 years at most with only limited trade clause. Pionk is very likely to be traded.

 

[Matt4776]

No way we give Hayes a 6 year contract. 4-5 years at most with only limited trade clause. Pionk is very likely to be traded.

I really don't want to give Hayes 4-5 years. And, while I could be wrong, I think the Rangers share my view. I think we would've just re-signed Hayes long-term last offseason or sometime during the year if they believed in him long term. And during those negotiations, we weren't competing against anyone.

I doubt now we're going to bid against other teams to commit long-term to Hayes when we seemingly had no interest in doing it last off-season or during the year. The Plekanec/Chapman-style trade and re-sign deals are extremely rare. Even more rare when the player is going to want a long-term deal. I doubt the Rangers would risk losing a piece they view as part of the core to free agency for just a late 1st + young and promising but limited upside winger.

 

[gravey9]

Sorry in advance for the long ramble. I'm procrastinating studying for my law school finals/finalizing my Comment.

This is a point that is the cause of most arguments around this forum. As someone said, Gorton's comments are a hockey Rorschach test. Gorton said he could make some moves to accelerate the rebuild. Many believe that means signing Panarin/re-signing Kreider (or just signing Panarin) and signing/trading for other players that are already in their primes.

Others (including myself) believe he means doing something like trading up for a 2nd top-10 pick (and stuff like trading for Fox) for the reasons you mentioned. When you're picking at 20, you are lucky if you draft a 2nd line player. Odds are the 20th overall pick is a replacement-level player if he makes the League at all. Even if he does make it as a 2nd line center, it likely isn't until they are 23-25.

Getting a top-10 talent obviously increases the chances he pans out, and also likely decreases the amount of time needed before they're ready (obviously pick dependent as you could pick a project... but generally the higher talent level results in being an acceptable NHLer sooner, though the peak will likely be the same regardless.)

Kakko undoubtedly has a better chance of being elite sooner than anyone we would've picked at 6-9, even if he'd hit his full potential/peak at the same mage. Accordingly, it makes sense to me that accelerating the rebuild would entail acquiring another top-10 player with a more similar trajectory to Kakko than a guy like Kreider (who was a phenomenal pick at 19 given what he provided) who wasn't a solidified plus player at the NHL level until his D+5 or D+6 season.

But we shall see what Gorton has in mind soon enough.

Regarding your actual question about who is our #2C in the meantime, I think almost all of us (even those in the sign Panarin camp that believes we'll be competing for a playoff spot next year) are unified over not wanting to shell out big bucks for the mid-tier UFAs.

As such, I think it will likely be Strome's to lose for next year, regardless of whose definition of "accelerating the rebuild" ends up being correct. Though he likely shot at an unsustainable rate this year, he still played pretty well. He isn't bad enough to be a detriment on Kakko's development if they become linemates. For the same reasons, we might sign a guy like Brassard to a one year deal. They aren't too good where they'll block guys like Howden/Andersson/Chytil if they exceed expectations and become ready for the responsibility on a quicker than anticipated timeline. Good enough to give the young guys talent to play with/prevent them from playing above their heads a la Edmonton/Buffalo, but preserves future flexibility if kids excel.

Of course, it goes without saying that a lot of this is depends on the Rangers' view of Howden/Chytil/Andersson as centers.

How did I ever forget about Chytil? Right, Chytil and Kakko will probably both have a shot at 2C at different points over the next 2 seasons and Strome will be the insurance policy this year and maybe beyond. Depending on the coaching regime brought in for Hartford, I'd like to see Andersson and possibly Howden starting off in the A. And I wouldn't mind starting the year with Strome and Nieves as 3c, 4c. So, that means with the WPG pick they need to find more forward depth unless there's a can't miss Defender. If Kakko and Kravtsov both end up with the big club, the skilled forward depth in the rest of the system is still incredibly thin.

 

[Matt4776]

How did I ever forget about Chytil? Right, Chytil and Kakko will probably both have a shot at 2C at different points over the next 2 seasons and Strome will be the insurance policy this year and maybe beyond. Depending on the coaching regime brought in for Hartford, I'd like to see Andersson and possibly Howden starting off in the A. And I wouldn't mind starting the year with Strome and Nieves as 3c, 4c. So, that means with the WPG pick they need to find more forward depth unless there's a can't miss Defender. If Kakko and Kravtsov both end up with the big club, the skilled forward depth in the rest of the system is still incredibly thin.

Agreed. We have plenty of depth in our defenseman prospect pool. In the future, we probably won't have a problem filling out the bottom two pairings. Especially if we snag Fox. But we still could use some prospects that have that #1D potential. Miller is probably the only defenseman with true #1D potential, and he just started learning the position. We could definitely use another stud there. Problem is, Byram probably doesn't make it past 6.

We could also use a top-flight center prospect. Howden and Andersson, even if they settle down as centers, don't project to be that. Maybe Chytil becomes that guy if he sticks as a center. But we certainly could use another, which is why I hope we can snag one of Zegras/Turcotte/Cozens/Dach or even Newhook in addition to Kakko.

Overall, we've done a great job at building organizational depth at both forward and D. It's now time to make those high risk/reward picks. Swing for the fences. Due to our depth, we can afford a strikeout or two.

 

[FIRE DRURY]

No way we give Hayes a 6 year contract. 4-5 years at most with only limited trade clause.

If that was possible Hayes would have been re-signed.

Pionk is very likely to be traded.

Hopefully with Kreider at the draft... But it wouldn’t surprise me to see him here next season.

For all of his deficiencies, Pionk is still a 23 year old kid who’s a right handed shot with offensive talent. Teams covet that. I think he has more value than his Corsi suggests.

 

[Kakko Schmakko]

If that was possible Hayes would have been re-signed.



Hopefully with Kreider at the draft... But it wouldn’t surprise me to see him here next season.

For all of his deficiencies, Pionk is still a 23 year old kid who’s a right handed shot with offensive talent. Teams covet that. I think he has more value than his Corsi suggests.

Yes I agree, Pionk likely has some decent trade value for all the things you mentioned plus excellent offensive potential.

Hayes I have no idea what he wanted before ,maybe Rangers had high hopes of their centers and refused anything over 3-4 years, but a lot of things have changed including the not so successful run with the Jets and Rangers getting solid return for Hayes as well as our 3 rookie centers not doing so good yet.

 

[bobbop]

I wouldn't take Ferland at league minimum. Very likely he breaks down.

Ferland wants Tom Wilson money.

 

[Ori]

Wait, so people wouldn't trade Chytil for Huberdeau?

**** outta here.

Yeah well post what you like @I Eat Crow - @Amazing Kreiderman usually get married to most of our prospects way before they have done anything for this Franchise. I understand the connection, but this is buisness and if Jeff Gorton can see an option to improve the team as whole he will do it for sure.


The only downside is that you lose all the years for Chytil since he is only 19 years old, and when we compete Huberdeau is probably near 30 years old. But no doubt it will be a larger impact with such a signing in the next couple of years.

 

[Amazing Kreiderman]

Yeah well post what you like @I Eat Crow - @Amazing Kreiderman usually get married to most of our prospects way before they have done anything for this Franchise. I understand the connection, but this is buisness and if Jeff Gorton can see an option to improve the team as whole he will do it for sure.


The only downside is that you lose all the years for Chytil since he is only 19 years old, and when we compete Huberdeau is probably near 30 years old. But no doubt it will be a larger impact with such a signing in the next couple of years.

What? When did I ever say I wouldn't trade Chtyil for Huberdeau? I would take it and run

 

[Ola]

Sorry in advance for the long ramble. I'm procrastinating studying for my law school finals/finalizing my Comment.

This is a point that is the cause of most arguments around this forum. As someone said, Gorton's comments are a hockey Rorschach test. Gorton said he could make some moves to accelerate the rebuild. Many believe that means signing Panarin/re-signing Kreider (or just signing Panarin) and signing/trading for other players that are already in their primes.

Others (including myself) believe he means doing something like trading up for a 2nd top-10 pick (and stuff like trading for Fox) for the reasons you mentioned. When you're picking at 20, you are lucky if you draft a 2nd line player. Odds are the 20th overall pick is a replacement-level player if he makes the League at all. Even if he does make it as a 2nd line center, it likely isn't until they are 23-25.

Getting a top-10 talent obviously increases the chances he pans out, and also likely decreases the amount of time needed before they're ready (obviously pick dependent as you could pick a project... but generally the higher talent level results in being an acceptable NHLer sooner, though the peak will likely be the same regardless.)

Kakko undoubtedly has a better chance of being elite sooner than anyone we would've picked at 6-9, even if he'd hit his full potential/peak at the same mage. Accordingly, it makes sense to me that accelerating the rebuild would entail acquiring another top-10 player with a more similar trajectory to Kakko than a guy like Kreider (who was a phenomenal pick at 19 given what he provided) who wasn't a solidified plus player at the NHL level until his D+5 or D+6 season.

But we shall see what Gorton has in mind soon enough.

Regarding your actual question about who is our #2C in the meantime, I think almost all of us (even those in the sign Panarin camp that believes we'll be competing for a playoff spot next year) are unified over not wanting to shell out big bucks for the mid-tier UFAs.

As such, I think it will likely be Strome's to lose for next year, regardless of whose definition of "accelerating the rebuild" ends up being correct. Though he likely shot at an unsustainable rate this year, he still played pretty well. He isn't bad enough to be a detriment on Kakko's development if they become linemates. For the same reasons, we might sign a guy like Brassard to a one year deal. They aren't too good where they'll block guys like Howden/Andersson/Chytil if they exceed expectations and become ready for the responsibility on a quicker than anticipated timeline. Good enough to give the young guys talent to play with/prevent them from playing above their heads a la Edmonton/Buffalo, but preserves future flexibility if kids excel.

Of course, it goes without saying that a lot of this is depends on the Rangers' view of Howden/Chytil/Andersson as centers.

Great stuff! Good luck with your finals!

 

[darko]

Ferland wants Tom Wilson money.

Good luck.

 

[eco's bones]

I'd rather the Rangers try and add a few younger players who have struggled to find a spot on their current team than go strictly after UFAs. Burakovsky, Bennett, Fabbri, etc.

I love Sam Bennett but he's not really struggling to find a spot and I don't think the Flames or the Flames fans are in any hurry to move him. He's kind of a fan favorite in Calgary which may seem odd for a top 5 pick who turned into a 3rd liner but he plays all out. He gives everything night in and night out.

 

[Ola]

Unless they love Pionk I can't see it being enough, a team like Philly who needs RHD and has better defensive prospects+11th pick could beat that.

Yeah, its so hard to evaluate with all the Cap implications. A few brief thoughts I have on the Jacob Trouba situation.

1. Trouba is one year removed from UFA. Winnipeg must offer him a 1 year 5.5m qualifying offer.

Any team trading for Trouba would of course work out an extension before a trade is made. But, Trouba holds all the leverage nonetheless.

2. All teams are looking for RD's. At the deadline one insider reported, with a chuckle, that this season even some RDs was available. Imagine if that was said about another position, 'boys buckle up, it will be crazy out there today, I am even hearing that a right winger could be moved'. We all laugh at the Larsson-Hall trade, Hammonic returning one 1st round pick and two 2nd round picks. But these guys are not moved, take half a decade to develop in-house, if you are prepared to invest a high pick in them, otherwise you will never get them. Its how the market it.

What would Trouba make as a UFA? A lot.

To expand a bit on this topic. There is a good argument to be made that the outside world is pretty worthless at valuating contracts giving on the free agent market. We look at at a contract and (1) compare it with other contracts, and (2) evaluate if its optimal for a team to have in the perspective of being a contender. Something like that. But that is pretty irrelevant for a GM. A GM only has options, (A), (B), (C)... and so forth. Sure, in some cases a GM might have an option to instead of overpaying for someone instead give a good contract to someone else also fitting the requirement bill. But that is far from always the case.

Instead, a GM often must navigate between options each having negative implications. This is described perfectly in the economic theory about search frictions, mostly focused on the labor market as a whole but also applicable in more or less all areas including some kind of transactions when various options are available. In short, applied to a GMs work, a player is not worth what he will contribute for you on the ice (called X hereinafter), he is worth X + the negative impacts of not getting him, i.e. if you have to keep "searching" (called y hereinafter). If there are other options available, Y will be small. If there aren't, Y could be substantial.

We can look at an obvious example. Lets say a team has a very good powerplay, that only will function with a RHS PPQB. Like Washington. The point man must be someone that is a shooting threat and that can move over the puck to AO in one motion. No ifs or buts about it. If the GM for that team is considering a PPQB fitting that bill on the UFA market, that individually would contribute to Washington a play worth 5m per, that player's value is not X. Its X + the search costs (Y) for Washington if they don't get him. The search costs being lost productions from other players on the team on the PP, maybe what it would cost to trade for someone fitting the bill with a reasonable contract, or signing someone else down the road, and probably overpaying for him too.

Here is a short brief on the search friction theory:
The 2010 Nobel Prize in Economics has been awarded to Peter Diamond, Dale Mortensen, and Christopher Pissarides "for their analysis of markets with search frictions". Search theory provides a versatile framework for understanding market outcomes in a variety of situations in which trade is complex. One key lesson is that, with search frictions, markets fail to clear at all points in time – some buyers and/or sellers remain unmatched. Another important implication is that, when access to information is costly and trade opportunities are infrequent, not all traders may trade at the same market price, leading to dispersion in equilibrium prices. Finally, decentralised equilibrium may be inefficient in a search market, if individuals engage in “too much” or “too little” search, and in this case policy intervention may improve on what markets alone would be able to achieve.

In short, a player worth 2m to one GM might be worth 8m to another. Sometimes its better to bite the bullet and overpay, other times its not. Its all common sense, we all think along these lines. But sometimes its good to get a more clear picture.

Any team trading for Trouba, have to pay twice for him. First in terms of assets when they acquire his rights, secondly when they resign him. That will effect his trade value, significantly, but what that trade value actually is, is of course hard to know for sure.

3. Its important to remember that Trouba is a very good D, but that he is not a top defender in the NHL. His stats where-ever he goes will as always be dependent on if he can get top PP time and if its a high scoring team he plays on. If we get Trouba and he does not get top PP time, and we don't score a ton 5 on 5, all of a sudden he is scoring 25-30 pts and not 50 pts.

We in NY should know all to well that pressure can get to just about every player. There is not only upside in trading for Trouba.

4. What will Winnipeg want in return for Trouba? It seems very likely that Winnipeg will want to clear cap-space when trading Trouba. The have 12 players under contract for next season and 25m of cap space. Laine and Connor are RFAs and could eat up a significant part of those 25m. Myers is a UFA. Trouba is on their books at 5.5m, its a big upside for them if they can take back less than those 5.5m.

Maybe Winnipeg gets an offer of like Nylander for Trouba, and they think its worth making that trade, taking on cap-space, and losing other players on their roster. Having little flexibility down the road. But (1) there aren't many teams out there that are willing to give up an asset like Nylander. Toronto may or may not be, we don't know, (2) Winnipeg does have a ton of options to put their money on. It cannot be super attractive for them to take on a big contract in a Trouba trade.

If Winnipeg want to clear money when dealing Trouba, say clearing 3m by only taking on about 2m, the team getting Trouba is taking on about 5-6m of cap space. Since Trouba will make around 7-8m. This significantly reduces the number of teams that would have interest in him.

5. It is perfectly possible that Jacob Trouba has somewhat strong preferences of where he wants to play next, if he wants out of Winnipeg.

Trouba may love it in Winnipeg, but no matter what has been said in front of cameras, from afar there are many other factors indicating that he wants out more or less ASAP. The usual suspects might not be an option for him when picking teams. This could also reduce the number of suitors.

6. Winnipeg has had the deepest right side in the league forever, it might not be for long. Buff has injury problems, and is getting older. Myers is a UFA, and the term 'iron man' wouldn't be used to describe his career so far. They have very little RD depth on the farm. They may definitely want a RD in return for him.

Not many teams are looking to trade a cheap RD that can play, and among the Trouba suitors that number is of course smaller. Since it can be assumed that many of them are in dire needs of RDs to start with.

7. So what is the bottom line? Well who knows exactly. But:

a) They can resign him,

b) They can trade him 1 for 1 for someone like Nylander,

c) They can trade him without taking back much cap commitment.

In relation to option c), that does seem to be the most likely scenario, I cannot see any team being prepared to give up a huge offer. A pick in the 18-20 range + a young right defender with some upside wouldn't be way off.

 

[eco's bones]

I loved Brassard when he was here but I see less reason to bring him back than I would Zucc or Hayes.

The best way forward with Kakko IMO is to get Panarin. While true he may end up in Florida you don't know unless you try and anyway the Rangers have been a rumored destination of his for over a year. Will the hiring of Quenneville by the Panthers completely change everything?--we should see.

Panarin though could be a good addition for more players than just Kakko--the Rangers have other options--playing him also with Kravtsov or Chytil and considering how many players we're going to have still on ELC's and will have control of until they're 25/26 we can afford to pay Panarin premium. He won't break the bank.

 

[The Sweetness]

So have any quotes come out about moving Kreider or is it speculation at this stage?

I think it makes sense to move him but was wondering if there is anything more concrete I’ve missed.

 

[Ola]

Best case scenario from my POV:

Tyler Myers tells Chevy that he is signing with Dallas no matter what. He wants home to Texas.

Jacob Trouba tells Chevy that he is jumping on the QO unless he gets traded.

Winnipeg is not on FattyShatty's NTC list.

FattyShatty@50% and Pionk for Trouba.

 

[Kakko Schmakko]

We have a bunch of players that don't in any way help the rebuild:

Vesey why keep him?
Namestnikov why keep him?
Shattenkirk why keep him?

These 3 don't really display any qualities that you would want to rub off on rookies.

 

[Off Sides]

If anything I think they should go bargain bin hunting in free agency.

Sign a vet player or two to short term, even need be at an inflated cap hit, who could play among the prospects. Shelter them sometimes, mentor them if they have that trait, yet not guys who are going to play above them in every important situation or take away big chunks of what should be their developmental ice time. Vet competition for playing time and roles, yet players the youth still would have to beat to get that time/role.

 

[Kakko Schmakko]

If anything I think they should go bargain bin hunting in free agency.

Sign a vet player or two to short term, even need be at an inflated cap hit, who could play among the prospects. Shelter them sometimes, mentor them if they have that trait, yet not guys who are going to play above them in every important situation or take away big chunks of what should be their developmental ice time. Vet competition for playing time and roles, yet players the youth still would have to beat to get that time/role.

and what leave no spots to develop rookies on a rebuilding team? That would be typical of "Rangers Rebuild"

 

[Edge]

No way we give Hayes a 6 year contract. 4-5 years at most with only limited trade clause. Pionk is very likely to be traded.

You know, it's funny. I've watched Hayes in Winnipeg, both in the regular season and so far in the playoffs, and I'm just as hesitant as ever to go down the path of a long-term contract with a movement clause.

He's a good player, at times a very good player. But I feel like his next contract is going to pay him to be closer to a great player, and I just feel like that's a high probability for disaster.

 

[Lion Hound]

Another reason I don’t see #20 getting traded at the draft or in the off season.

The Rangers top 6 next year maybe all
Over the place but I find highly unlikely that the club is going to play more then 1 rookie on a single line. Also find it highly unlikely that the club will even play a rookie like (Kravtsov or Kakko) with Chytil.

I think one of the aforementioned will play with ZBad, and likely Buch on the right side.

The 2nd line (Barring any trade) I think will be centered by Strome with Kreider on the Left wall and one of Kakko or Kravtsov on the right side. Spreads out the youth with quality vets that they can learn from.

 

[Kakko Schmakko]

You know, it's funny. I've watched Hayes in Winnipeg, both in the regular season and so far in the playoffs, and I'm just as hesitant as ever to go down the path of a long-term contract with a movement clause.

He's a good player, at times a very good player. But I feel like his next contract is going to pay him to be closer to a great player, and I just feel like that's a high probability for disaster.

What do you think his next contract will pay him per year?

 

[Kakko Schmakko]

Another reason I don’t see #20 getting traded at the draft or in the off season.

The Rangers top 6 next year maybe all
Over the place but I find highly unlikely that the club is going to play more then 1 rookie on a single line. Also find it highly unlikely that the club will even play a rookie like (Kravtsov or Kakko) with Chytil.

I think one of the aforementioned will play with ZBad, and likely Buch on the right side.

The 2nd line (Barring any trade) I think will be centered by Strome with Kreider on the Left wall and one of Kakko or Kravtsov on the right side. Spreads out the youth with quality vets that they can learn from.

I can see Kreider traded if we sign Hayes. Hayes can play center or LW.

 

[Off Sides]

and what leave no spots to develop rookies on a rebuilding team? That would be typical of "Rangers Rebuild"

They'll have spots for them, especially if they trade Kreider this draft, and after next deadline if they also sell of Namestnikov, Fast, Vesey as pending UFAs instead of extending them.