This is such an unreasonable position.
It isn't.
They need young, long term forwards, especially centers, more than anything else. They need that more than they need to increase their Cup odds from 1% to 4%. They need it more than increasing their Cup odds from 15% to 18%. Or whatever it could be expressed as mathematically.
Buying at the deadline is almost always bad, losing value. Institutionally at the NHL, it's an inefficiency that GMs have not caught on to because it's a good old boys club that still pretends they are in the 1980s far too much. The vast majority of big buys end up as busts, and the vast majority of Cup winners the past few years haven't made any large buys, with the exception being the Lightning who were correcting a roster imbalance with grit, but we already did that in our past offseason by adding Blais, Goodrow, Reaves and Hunt. At this point what we need is long term skill, not deadline playoff grit.
The Rangers are too young, lack too much playoff experience, and have too many future holes.
Renting is a terrible idea for them at almost any circumstance.
Because we won't due the truly smart thing and double down for the future by taking advantage of other team's foolish deadline splurge instincts, at the very least any renting we do should merely be at the expense of lesser picks and prospects (ie, nothing at Matthew Robertson's level or above, no firsts, even reluctant to part with seconds).
The teams where it makes sense to rent is the teams who are nearing the end of their road and the mid-level prospects they are parting with can't save them from impending rebuilds. A team like the Penguins might as well empty the cupboard to supplement Crosby, Malkin and Letang, because when those guys are done, it's rebuild time. A Matthew Robertson-like player isn't saving them.
The Rangers are a completely different situation. They are not established and they still need to find probably 2 long term centers and another long term winger if Kravtsov isn't one of them.
They don't even know what roles certain players will end up having long term. They don't even truly know what they are gonna need from year to year or what they are gonna look like from year to year.
Selling off valuable assets, they might not even know that they need, is a horrible idea.
If the Rangers run through their competition leading up to the trade deadline, they'll be right around the best record in the NHL.
That's more or less irrelevant.
This team isn't beating four straight grizzled teams who are all better than the Rangers at 5 v 5 on the strength of their goaltending.
They've got the opportunity to add talent to this group that they really won't have going forward with the cap constraints.
People keep citing this opportunity to suck up contracts without ever proving it's a wise thing.
Yeah, they can take on salary. Why do I want to do it? "Because we can't do it again," isn't an explanation. If I jump off a 10 story building I won't be able to do that again either, that's not an argument for doing it.
Oh yeah, moving Matthew Robertson for Richard Rackell. We won't be able to afford a Rackell-like addition next deadline. And? Who cares? Tell me again why I want a player like that. He's not moving the needle for this team. That's a delusion.
These guys are available at the deadline usually because they are not core pieces. They are spares who aren't worth building around. That's why teams are making them available.
This team still needs to be in the market for forwards to build around. Once it has all those in hand, then it can start deducing what it has that it doesn't need that it can spend on throw aways. Truly extra assets should be spent on additions that are shots in the dark which may or may not have any impact.
We aren't at that spot. When we burn our assets, we are burning assets we still desperately need.
If our top guys are healthy and rolling, sitting back and watching our competition improve around us would be a terrible decision.
No, it wouldn't. We're not winning this year.
Accept it and make the moves that will allow you to win in a year that you'll have a chance, instead of squandering assets to make yourself feel good by winning an extra round.
Take your shot while you have it. People thinking Lundkvist and a late first round pick will bring back a sure fire franchise changing young center are not being realistic. Even if every move works out in your 3-5 year plan, 1 injury tears the whole thing down. And for what?
History tells you again and again that a Lundkvist-level prospect and a first round pick can bring you back a core long term piece, and yes, perhaps even a center. It will be a player with an asterisk, but so what? It can and does happen so your assertion is false as it's been proven many, many, many times that Lundkvist and a first would be a tremendous package.
Your philosophy about buying is misguided. You have to treat deadline purchases as unlikely to put you over the top. You have to be ok with the loss of the asset and walking away still Cupless.
That isn't where the Rangers are at. They cannot afford to burn assets they still need to turn this forward core into a group of contenders, which it currently isn't.
