Toggle sidebar

Roster Building Thread V (2022-23): Cheese and WINE

  • Xenforo Cloud will be upgrading us to version 2.3.5 on March 3rd at 12 AM GMT. This version has increased stability and fixes several bugs. We expect downtime for the duration of the update. The admin team will continue to work on existing issues, templates and upgrade all necessary available addons to minimize impact of this new version. Click Here for Updates
Status
Not open for further replies.
haohmaru said:
Dolan is a lot more concerned with being on the back page than he is with money.
Click to expand...
The rangers sold tickets when we had cally as our prime offensive weapon.
Dolan isn’t worried about ticket sales.
Do corporations pay more for boxes if we win with panarin than they did when we had nash? No they just want the box if we’re winning, and they want to pay slightly less if we’re losing.
The rangers are also dolans secondary interest, as basketball brings in far more money.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chalfdiggity3
NYRFANMANI said:
The argument went more towards re-signing Mikkola, but ok anyhow, look at it like this:

We would continue cashing in on the Nash trade asset, and for once, not waste the return we get in a TDL deal, by re-signing good players.
Click to expand...

I'm not opposed to the idea in principle, I obviously judge case-by-case, but for me, Jones Robertson and Schneider haven't proven enough for me to be comfortable moving any of our top 4 at defense right now. And I think Mikkola in the top 4 is as big of a problem/weakness/deficit for a contender as Vesey in the top 6.

Plus Lindgren is likely only looking at 4m AAV in an extension. Mikkola probably wants at least half that figure.



I want another full season to decide. Lindgren will still have trade value as an RFA next offseason if we decide it's time. Trouba will be trade-able at that time. The Rangers can pick which of the two they want to keep, maybe both if none of the kids improve.
 
  • Like
Reactions: duhmetreE and bhamill
Fitzy said:
I'm not opposed to the idea in principle, I obviously judge case-by-case, but for me, Jones Robertson and Schneider haven't proven enough for me to be comfortable moving any of our top 4 at defense right now. And I think Mikkola in the top 4 is as big of a problem/weakness/deficit for a contender as Vesey in the top 6.

Plus Lindgren is likely only looking at 4m AAV in an extension. Mikkola probably wants at least half that figure.



I want another full season to decide. Lindgren will still have trade value as an RFA next offseason if we decide it's time. Trouba will be trade-able at that time. The Rangers can pick which of the two they want to keep, maybe both if none of the kids improve.
Click to expand...

We'll have more input after today and tomorrow, but Mikkola looks perfectly fine in the top 4 imo.

Unfortunately he can command money accordingly.
 
If the question is Lindgren at $4M vs. Mikkola at $2M, I can see the debate. But it does make the defense worse.

Lindgren makes $3M next season so the discussion is kind of moot right now, unless you think you can get some serious assets for Lindgren in the trade market.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mac n Gs and duhmetreE
Crease said:
If the question is Lindgren at $4M vs. Mikkola at $2M, I can see the debate. But it does make the defense worse.

Lindgren makes $3M next season so the discussion is kind of moot right now, unless you think you can get some serious assets for Lindgren in the trade market.
Click to expand...
Id assume that Lindgren at 3m gets us a mid -late round first in this draft.
 
Crease said:
If the question is Lindgren at $4M vs. Mikkola at $2M, I can see the debate. But it does make the defense worse.

Lindgren makes $3M next season so the discussion is kind of moot right now, unless you think you can get some serious assets for Lindgren in the trade market.
Click to expand...

I am struggling trying to determine which I would prefer
Lindgren @ $3m
Miller @ $4m
Mikkola @ $1.75m
= $8.75m

Or

Soucy/Gostisbehere @ $2m
Miller @ $4m
Mikkola @ $1.75m
= $7.75m
Plus the assets acquired for Lindgren

IDvsEGO said:
Id assume that Lindgren at 3m gets us a mid -late round first in this draft.
Click to expand...

I would think late 1st or 1st '24 + mid-round pick
 
This fan base is something else. I think you should all reconsider trading Lindgren for the ole fabled assets. Especially to replace him with Mikkola.

Think whatever you like, but I for one would be incredibly unwilling to trade the 25 year old top pair capable defensemen that may be one of the best price to performance contracts in any teams top 4, in favor of Mikkola. Regardless of the useless mid round 2024 first you would get and the extra...1 million in cap? Though he has been good for us, what has it been? 25 games? Maybe 15 on the first pair with Fox? That's how you end up with Brendan Smith making 4.5. I say stick with Lindgren.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rangeri, Longterm, RagFinMet and 5 others
NYR Viper said:
I am struggling trying to determine which I would prefer
Lindgren @ $3m
Miller @ $4m
Mikkola @ $1.75m
= $8.75m

Or

Soucy/Gostisbehere @ $2m
Miller @ $4m
Mikkola @ $1.75m
= $7.75m
Plus the assets acquired for Lindgren



I would think late 1st or 1st '24 + mid-round pick
Click to expand...

Ill go with option 1. Im not moving lindgren until its a year before he should be moved. He isnt going to command more than 4m per on his next contract and while you could get some nice assets for him in the 24 draft, all i have hear about this coming draft in 24 is that it is a very weak draft. I dont want those crap assets for lindy while making our defense weaker because there is NO guarantee that we can sign either of soucy or ghost.

What happens if we trade lindy and dont get either of those players?

I agree that we should trade lindgren but not until he is 29yo and on his last year of his contract. He is easily our best defender and having a 25yo top 4 defender @3 a year is a great deal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MrAlmost
Chalfdiggity3 said:
Ill go with option 1. Im not moving lindgren until its a year before he should be moved. He isnt going to command more than 4m per on his next contract and while you could get some nice assets for him in the 24 draft, all i have hear about this coming draft in 24 is that it is a very weak draft. I dont want those crap assets for lindy while making our defense weaker because there is NO guarantee that we can sign either of soucy or ghost.

What happens if we trade lindy and dont get either of those players?

I agree that we should trade lindgren but not until he is 29yo and on his last year of his contract. He is easily our best defender and having a 25yo top 4 defender @3 a year is a great deal.
Click to expand...

I think the team would need to have some sort of idea that they can get there guy before any trade is made. Re-signing Mikkola would be the start.

It wouldn't be a trade Lindgren and pray situation.
 
effen said:
Mikkola doesn't remotely replace Lindgren in any capacity. Mikkola is a nice 6th D. That's it.
Click to expand...

I don't see anyone saying Mikkola is replacing Lindgren (or if they are, I'm missing it). I think the question is, based on the RD depth and possibly having Mikkola and Miller on the left side already, would it behoove the team to recoup assets by trading Lindgren and re-allocate some of those dollars elsewhere.
 
  • Like
Reactions: egelband
NYR Viper said:
I am struggling trying to determine which I would prefer
Lindgren @ $3m
Miller @ $4m
Mikkola @ $1.75m
= $8.75m

Or

Soucy/Gostisbehere @ $2m
Miller @ $4m
Mikkola @ $1.75m
= $7.75m
Plus the assets acquired for Lindgren



I would think late 1st or 1st '24 + mid-round pick
Click to expand...
Why are Soucy/Gostibehere taking pay cuts?

You want the assets from trading Lindgren. That's the only reason to do this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: egelband
The assets from trading Lindgren are likely to be < Lindgren.

Not to mention the impact it has on Fox. Huge pass at trading him at all. If somebody is going, who we actually have a say in the matter with, it should be Goodrow.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bhamill
NYR Viper said:
I don't see anyone saying Mikkola is replacing Lindgren (or if they are, I'm missing it). I think the question is, based on the RD depth and possibly having Mikkola and Miller on the left side already, would it behoove the team to recoup assets by trading Lindgren and re-allocate some of those dollars elsewhere.
Click to expand...
I don't think for next year at least you're going to get a better value than Lindgren at 3M. Mikkola even at 2 is a significantly worse value proposition.
 
  • Like
Reactions: irishlaxburger2
Lindgren gets dinged by fans because he doesn’t put up points. You would think that a fanbase of an organization whose best three pairs this last half century had one offensive defenseman and one defensive defenseman would know better.

Leetch Beukeboom
McDonagh Girardi
Fox Lindgen

And if durability is the concern, I don’t think anyone should worry about Lindgren until he hits 30, which is still years away.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Longterm, Pawnee Rangers, Chalfdiggity3 and 2 others
I'd generally question Mikkola at 2m. He makes 1.9m now and can easily go to 3m.

We should have approx. 12 millon in cap space for one RW, Key, Laf, backup and a 4th liner.

Laf 2mx2, Key 3.5mx2 (just throwing out numbers), 1.5m for backup and 4th liner.

Leaves 5 million for maybe only one of Tarasenko, Kane or Mikkola.
 
Kane being out tonight with a LBI pretty much confirms he's nursing the hip injury as speculated still.

Sign him for one year, $1 million and LTIR him until after the deadline. Boom. Essentially free TDL acquisition.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bhamill and mas0764
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom