Speculation: Roster Building Thread V (2019/2020)

[nyr2k2]

Interesting. I admittedly haven't watched him play much but I thought the advanced stats on him looked decent enough. But maybe I'm just not looking in the right place

View attachment 255043

It's not even so much that Honka is an awful player, as I think he could still make it on a team in the early stages of a rebuild that could give him a proper situation to develop. But he's the same age as DeAngelo and hasn't shown even a slight ability to translate his natural skills into point production. Even before DeAngelo's "breakout" last year, he had shown that he could pop in some points. Maybe a year ago it would seem like a more reasonable deal, but right now Honka is barely ab asset and DeAngelo's stock might be higher than it has been since he was drafted.

 

[Vitto79]

No strike in a year so all the contracts expire in 2 still. Hank , Smith , Staal

 

[NYR Viper]

I could see Honka going somewhere and Colin Miller’ing his career

 

[Don Chytil]

It's not even so much that Honka is an awful player, as I think he could still make it on a team in the early stages of a rebuild that could give him a proper situation to develop. But he's the same age as DeAngelo and hasn't shown even a slight ability to translate his natural skills into point production. Even before DeAngelo's "breakout" last year, he had shown that he could pop in some points. Maybe a year ago it would seem like a more reasonable deal, but right now Honka is barely ab asset and DeAngelo's stock might be higher than it has been since he was drafted.

Fair enough, I wouldn't consider it if I didn't figure this upcoming year as part of our rebuild. Don't see much risk in giving him a shot as the #6 and seeing if he can handle it. I agree that Dallas would definitely need to add.

 

[DanielBrassard]

I wouldn't mind Honka, however I hope ADA just wises up and signs soon so we don't have to worry about it.

 

[Leetch3]

I've been of the belief for awhile now that you splurge on good players and recoup that space by playing moneypuck with middling players and not giving bad players anything.

Fast falls in the middle. He's not a player we absolutely need but his market value is probably $4-4.5M. As much as I adore Fast, I believe successful teams are going to start cutting out the middle.

Everyone is ****ting on the Leafs because the Leafs are a meme and they say "oh the Leafs have 50+ million tied up in six players and they're have to bargain bin the rest of the roster" and I'm like "you say that like it's a bad thing."

Chicago was really the first team to start doing this. Toews, Kane, and Keith (not Seabrook, **** Seabrook) won the Cup with three different rosters. Their one (huge) mistake was thinking Seabrook crossed over into the core.

I'd like to invest that $$ into more than 3/4 guys so you aren't putting all your eggs in a few baskets...but the point is 100% right. teams get in trouble when they give big $$ to crappy players. you spend the $$ on top guys and then fill in the rest...

and this is also why drafting and player development is so important...and i'm not just talking about during the tank years when you get kakko. I'm talking about when you are good too. continuing to produce players even if they are only bottom 6 forwards or bottom pair d that can play on ELC for super cheap is hugely important. some people think that once we find a 2C we are done and can stop worrying about the draft but this is why the efforts to rebuild/import the scouting staff, player development and hartford are so drastically underrated. get those pipelines flowing...

 

[Machinehead]

I'd like to invest that $$ into more than 3/4 guys so you aren't putting all your eggs in a few baskets...but the point is 100% right. teams get in trouble when they give big $$ to crappy players. you spend the $$ on top guys and then fill in the rest...

and this is also why drafting and player development is so important...and i'm not just talking about during the tank years when you get kakko. I'm talking about when you are good too. continuing to produce players even if they are only bottom 6 forwards or bottom pair d that can play on ELC for super cheap is hugely important. some people think that once we find a 2C we are done and can stop worrying about the draft but this is why the efforts to rebuild/import the scouting staff, player development and hartford are so drastically underrated. get those pipelines flowing...

The more the merrier and if we're lucky enough to bring in 6, 7, 8 core guys, then that's a tough decision.

Keeping Chris Kreider over some combination of Skjei or Namestnikov is not.

 

[Pawnee Rangers]

Kreider is what he is, which is good but he isnt going to get better than he is now, Buch hasnt peaked yet. If I'm keeping one or the other right now considering cap, potential and age I keep Buch. I still think there probably is room for Kreider on a shorter deal but it has to be a discount compared to Hayes. I'm not sure he would accept that so I think he is gone.

Buch could get traded today and I honestly believe they wouldn’t skip a beat. Kreider gets traded and they struggle for most of the season. And even if he is what he is, 28g and 22 assists he’s still a legit top3/top 6 LW who brings something to the lineup most guys don’t. Which to me makes him much more valuable than Buch. And Chytil seems to dig his vibe. Which is good.

 

[Fitzy]

The more the merrier and if we're lucky enough to bring in 6, 7, 8 core guys, then that's a tough decision.

Keeping Chris Kreider over some combination of Skjei or Namestnikov is not.

I dont think there's any plan to keep Namestnikov.

But every big new contract makes us more top-heavy. I really, really don't want to have to see any more buyouts and dead cap. Short of Henrik retiring, I don't see the necessary space next season to fit Kreider under with Shattenkirk's hit coming back to full as well as one more season for the S.S. Bad Defense Contract.

If you can think of a scenario, maybe, but Skjei isn't getting traded for no returning salary. Stuff like that doesn't happen that often any more.

 

[Leetch3]

The more the merrier and if we're lucky enough to bring in 6, 7, 8 core guys, then that's a tough decision.

Keeping Chris Kreider over some combination of Skjei or Namestnikov is not.

only problem is that neither skjei or namestnikov are part of my long term vision of the team where kreider still doesn't fit...yeah in the short term that works if he will take a 3-4 year deal but he's gonna want 7....so the problem is when you've got a 35/36 year old CK making big $$ and we've got to give raise to zibanejad, and hopefully big raises to kakko, kravtsov and fox...plus ELC deals for miller and lundkvist will be done. and any raises to the other kids....

you don't have to convince me on keeping kreider...i badly want to keep him but he has to leave some serious $$ on the table for it to work for us IMO

 

[Leetch3]

Buch could get traded today and I honestly believe they wouldn’t skip a beat. Kreider gets traded and they struggle for most of the season. And even if he is what he is, 28g and 22 assists he’s still a legit top3/top 6 LW who brings something to the lineup most guys don’t. Which to me makes him much more valuable than Buch. And Chytil seems to dig his vibe. Which is good.

well if the plan is to trade buch (and keep kreider), putting him on a line with mika & panarin to inflate his numbers and trade value is a heck of a plan.

 

[Pawnee Rangers]

well if the plan is to trade buch (and keep kreider), putting him on a line with mika & panarin to inflate his numbers and trade value is a heck of a plan.

I think if they were hellbent on trading Kreider it would have happened already. If developing these kids is their main priority, keep him around as long as possible.

 

[Leetch3]

I think if they were hellbent on trading Kreider it would have happened already. If developing these kids is their main priority, keep him around as long as possible.

i 100% think that his potential impact on the development of chytil and others is why he is still hear over just taking whatever offer was on the table...but the clock is ticking. deadline rolls around you have to decide if you are going to resign him long term, its no longer simply about him helping the kids...

of course assuming he wants to be here, that's some huge motivation for kreider cause if he meshes with chytil and kakko and helps them become better players that gives him a heck of an argument why he should be part of the long term plans

 

[Machinehead]

I dont think there's any plan to keep Namestnikov.

But every big new contract makes us more top-heavy. I really, really don't want to have to see any more buyouts and dead cap. Short of Henrik retiring, I don't see the necessary space next season to fit Kreider under with Shattenkirk's hit coming back to full as well as one more season for the S.S. Bad Defense Contract.

If you can think of a scenario, maybe, but Skjei isn't getting traded for no returning salary. Stuff like that doesn't happen that often any more.

It might be too late now. Shattenkirk really wasn't the best option, financially, for a buyout. That was lazy and shortsighted on the part of the Rangers.

only problem is that neither skjei or namestnikov are part of my long term vision of the team where kreider still doesn't fit...yeah in the short term that works if he will take a 3-4 year deal but he's gonna want 7....so the problem is when you've got a 35/36 year old CK making big $$ and we've got to give raise to zibanejad, and hopefully big raises to kakko, kravtsov and fox...plus ELC deals for miller and lundkvist will be done. and any raises to the other kids....

you don't have to convince me on keeping kreider...i badly want to keep him but he has to leave some serious $$ on the table for it to work for us IMO

Let's cross the bridge of retaining more core players when we have more core players. Right now, Kakko is the only one I'm 100% confident in as far as getting a huge extension.

 

[Machinehead]

Also, we've previously gotten involved in dead cap situations because we ignored metrics that were blaring in our faces telling us not to do it.

They say the opposite of Kreider.

 

[DutchShamrock]

The second wave of analytics (GAR/RAPM) are rating Kreider even higher than we thought he was and this team looked lost last year after he got hurt.

I think the one legitimate criticism of Kreider is his injury proneness but I don't think it's a stretch to call him elite when healthy.

And the team didn't look good when he was healthy. It is a stretch to call him elite when he doesn't translate it into more than modest returns. It's not about trashing the guy but he doesn't belong on a pedestal for what he has accomplished, and now he's due on the tail end of his career.

You can't follow the TML model of massively paying a few players when you overpay for a Kreider. That's your template but you are hung up on the next step of cutting out the middle like they did. Walk away from JVR, Bozak, Kadri, Gardner, etc. Kreider is not a star.

Seabrook was always, always, always bad away from Keith.

This is an exaggeration. I wish we could just have honest conversations without the hyperbole.

 

[Machinehead]

And the team didn't look good when he was healthy. It is a stretch to call him elite when he doesn't translate it into more than modest returns. It's not about trashing the guy but he doesn't belong on a pedestal for what he has accomplished, and now he's due on the tail end of his career.

You can't follow the TML model of massively paying a few players when you overpay for a Kreider. That's your template but you are hung up on the next step of cutting out the middle like they did. Walk away from JVR, Bozak, Kadri, Gardner, etc. Kreider is not a star.

It was a different world between the first half of the season and the second half of the season. No, Kreider is not an offensive star but like four players are better at driving play.

This is an exaggeration. I wish we could just have honest conversations without the hyperbole.

There's mountains of evidence to suggest that Seabrook is and always has been really bad. For some reason, people choose to cling to baseless reputations on players they don't even watch over empirical evidence.

 

[aufheben]

Yes but Ceci expires in the summer. I have no problem with "renting"depth for a year. I have a problem with the fact that Ceci is nuclear garage, but different argument.

I'm not saying completely forego depth, but get your **** together first. If we lose Kreider, we lost him to keep depth that won't be on the team that long. It makes zero sense.

Says who?

 

[Machinehead]

Says who?

What core pieces have to be re-signed now?

 

[Leetch3]

What core pieces have to be re-signed now?

is he signing a 1 year deal? what core players have to be re-signed over the next 7 years is the correct question

 

[egelband]

I'd like to invest that $$ into more than 3/4 guys so you aren't putting all your eggs in a few baskets...but the point is 100% right. teams get in trouble when they give big $$ to crappy players. you spend the $$ on top guys and then fill in the rest...

and this is also why drafting and player development is so important...and i'm not just talking about during the tank years when you get kakko. I'm talking about when you are good too. continuing to produce players even if they are only bottom 6 forwards or bottom pair d that can play on ELC for super cheap is hugely important. some people think that once we find a 2C we are done and can stop worrying about the draft but this is why the efforts to rebuild/import the scouting staff, player development and hartford are so drastically underrated. get those pipelines flowing...

Right now the increasingly popular paradigm is stars and cheapies but surely some team will do it the way you suggest, with balance, and then that will be the new thing. Hope NYR can get the cup before that though

 

[aufheben]

What core pieces have to be re-signed now?

 

[Machinehead]

The help emoji needs a new contract?

 

[aufheben]

The help emoji needs a new contract?

You used the past tense, as in they're going to lose Kreider because they chose _____ instead.

 

[Machinehead]

You used the past tense, as in they're going to lose Kreider because they chose _____ instead.

I don't know if you can point to one specific guy, but there's ways to keep Kreider and they should be doing those things.

Obviously, that will require cuts somewhere else in the lineup, none of which is that significant.