Speculation: Trade / Roster Speculation Thread XXXII: To Smurf or not to Smurf

[Trxjw]

Tamps still doesn't have to trade him while some GMs like Feaster will just accept garbage for one of their best player, Stevie Y could have easily just hung up the phone and told Sather he is happy to keep a disgruntled MSL.

And the Rangers had no obligation to trade for him either. Just because MSL wants to join the Rangers, it doesn't mean the team has to go out of it's way to acquire him in a trade. They could very well have let MSL stew in Tampa for the next several months and force Yzerman to lower the price or keep a cancerous situation in his locker room.

The Rangers made that trade because they're under the false impression that this is a team capable of making a deep playoff run this year, and our GM is obsessed with adding stars to the lineup. In reality, it's looking more like they may have torpedoed any chance they had of making a run.

 

[NYR Viper]

And the Rangers had no obligation to trade for him either. Just because MSL wants to join the Rangers, it doesn't mean the team has to go out of it's way to acquire him in a trade. They could very well have let MSL stew in Tampa for the next several months and force Yzerman to lower the price or keep a cancerous situation in his locker room.

The Rangers made that trade because they're under the false impression that this is a team capable of making a deep playoff run this year, and our GM is obsessed with adding stars to the lineup. In reality, it's looking more like they may have torpedoed any chance they had of making a run.

This is exactly how I feel.

Just so frustrating

 

[silverfish]

Since the Rangers have size like that I assume when size is mentioned it is in reference to toughness and players that hit, and fight, you know stuff like that

As I figured. Thank you.

I still like the trade

 

[AHB*]

Here's how St. Louis compares to some other high-profile Ranger acquisitions after 7 games:

So your argument for St. Louis, and I agree, he shouldn't be judged after 7 games, is a bunch of players, outside of Jags and Shanny, that were failures here?

Promising.

If the Rangers dont' win a cup with MSL, this trade is a failure. I might call it a wash if they make the SCF. They won't.

It was horrible asset management. However, a very typical, predictable, Ranger move.

Please tell me, outside of Jagr, whom the Rangers got for basically free (and was also 7 years younger then MSL) when has a trade like this worked out in our favor?

 

[Ex Officer Friendly]

So it was a knee-jerk reaction. What I don't understand is that the rangers were #1 in the NHL the year of the rumored Nash deal. Sather decided to wait. This year they are a borderline playoff team in a very weak Eastern Conference and they decide to pull the trigger on adding a 38 year old MSL. Huh?

Yes I said it was knee jerk... I can see why he did it... whether I agree with it or not I never actually said

Why does it have to be "toughness" when it could just be players who utilize their size effectively and consistently? Is Chimera a "tough" player? He utilizes his size consistently. And I am not saying go after Chimera just an example.

"Toughness" is what it seems to be called around here.. I find myself in debates (not many people just one) with those who advocate for toughness and I always heard toughness and equate players like Scott and Orr. But I was told that toughness would include those like Lucic and Backes. Players like Lucic and Backes are ones I would want on the team I do not want to see Scott and Orr

 

[Samuel Culper III]

And the Rangers had no obligation to trade for him either. Just because MSL wants to join the Rangers, it doesn't mean the team has to go out of it's way to acquire him in a trade. They could very well have let MSL stew in Tampa for the next several months and force Yzerman to lower the price or keep a cancerous situation in his locker room.

The Rangers made that trade because they're under the false impression that this is a team capable of making a deep playoff run this year, and our GM is obsessed with adding stars to the lineup. In reality, it's looking more like they may have torpedoed any chance they had of making a run.

Exactly. I never understood why MSL wanting to come to NY meant we suddenly were interested in acquiring him. Obviously when a good player wants to play for you, it's intriguing, but really you should hold all the cards in that situation. You have no obligation to pay a high pride to acquire them just because they want you to. Our management is clearly under the false impression that this team is within striking distance because there's simply no logical explanation for a move like this otherwise.

 

[Ex Officer Friendly]

And the Rangers had no obligation to trade for him either. Just because MSL wants to join the Rangers, it doesn't mean the team has to go out of it's way to acquire him in a trade. They could very well have let MSL stew in Tampa for the next several months and force Yzerman to lower the price or keep a cancerous situation in his locker room.

The Rangers made that trade because they're under the false impression that this is a team capable of making a deep playoff run this year, and our GM is obsessed with adding stars to the lineup. In reality, it's looking more like they may have torpedoed any chance they had of making a run.

see the post I just made.. I agree it was knee jerk I like St Louis but I don't like the deal so much

 

[Thirty One]

So your argument for St. Louis, and I agree, he shouldn't be judged after 7 games, is a bunch of players, outside of Jags and Shanny, that were failures here?

Promising.

If the Rangers dont' win a cup with MSL, this trade is a failure. I might call it a wash if they make the SCF. They won't.

It was horrible asset management. However, a very typical, predictable, Ranger move.

Please tell me, outside of Jagr, whom the Rangers got for basically free (and was also 7 years younger then MSL) when has a trade like this worked out in our favor?

I made no argument. I only thought it was to look back.

I would suggest that the Rangers have never made a trade like this. I think Bure is the closest, and he was an outstanding success with the Rangers when he played, but he had a pre-existing injury.

 

[Trxjw]

Size doesn't have to equate to throwing punches or big hits. Sometimes a line just needs a guy who will make a B line for the net and create space for his linemates. It's easier, and often more effective, if the guy has the body for it.

Also, just because the bottom-six has size, it doesn't mean that it's a non-issue. Only 3 of the 9 players who can reasonably play on your top-three lines have size. The rest are either very small, or just simply aren't the type of players who create space and win puck battles. Zucc and MSL have a ton of heart, but it's very difficult to out-heart a guy who dwarfs you by 6 or 7 inches and 35lbs. It's also extremely taxing on a shift-to-shift basis and wears players out quicker.

 

[silverfish]

Size doesn't have to equate to throwing punches or big hits. Sometimes a line just needs a guy who will make a B line for the net and create space for his linemates. It's easier, and often more effective, if the guy has the body for it.

Also, just because the bottom-six has size, it doesn't mean that it's a non-issue. Only 3 of the 9 players who can reasonably play on your top-three lines have size. The rest are either very small, or just simply aren't the type of players who create space and win puck battles. Zucc and MSL have a ton of heart, but it's very difficult to out-heart a guy who dwarfs you by 6 or 7 inches and 35lbs. It's also extremely taxing on a shift-to-shift basis and wears players out quicker.

So essentially this thread is an argument about how the Rangers don't have players like:

Lucic, Buff, Kesler, etc.... (first three that came to mind). And not necessarily just, we need more players over 6' tall.

Team toughness, not Brashear toughness.

 

[Trxjw]

see the post I just made.. I agree it was knee jerk I like St Louis but I don't like the deal so much

I think it's inexcusable for a NHL GM to make a knee-jerk trade of that magnitude. The Rangers pay him, and his cronies, millions every year to be able to plan for and ice a successful team. I honestly think Sather gets more pleasure out of making big trades and signing big-time free agents than he does in actually winning hockey games.

 

[AHB*]

Size doesn't have to equate to throwing punches or big hits. Sometimes a line just needs a guy who will make a B line for the net and create space for his linemates. It's easier, and often more effective, if the guy has the body for it.

Also, just because the bottom-six has size, it doesn't mean that it's a non-issue. Only 3 of the 9 players who can reasonably play on your top-three lines have size. The rest are either very small, or just simply aren't the type of players who create space and win puck battles. Zucc and MSL have a ton of heart, but it's very difficult to out-heart a guy who dwarfs you by 6 or 7 inches and 35lbs. It's also extremely taxing on a shift-to-shift basis and wears players out quicker.

People don't seem to get this. Having size doesn't mean OMG COLTON ORR!!! It means get a guy who can play physical, play the boards well and be effective in creating space for other, skilled, smaller players.

If anyone watched the last two games with the MSL-Zucc line, you could see the importance of having big bodies put with them.

Pouliot is a good example of that. Is he an overly physicaly player, no. But he is a big body, that can create space. There's a reason I think he meshed very well with Zucc this year.

I wish Nash was playing like he was in years past but he's not. And that is really hurting us.

I would consider this for the lines next game

Nash-Step-MSL
Pouliot-Brass-Zucc
Kreider-Richards-Hags.

Just to throw an edit in here, I know some will scream, off-side omg. But Nash has been trash lately and a switch can only improve him.

I'll live with a Hags experiment on the right side.

 

[NYR Viper]

So essentially this thread is an argument about how the Rangers don't have players like:

Lucic, Buff, Kesler, etc.... (first three that came to mind). And not necessarily just, we need more players over 6' tall.

Team toughness, not Brashear toughness.

Again, why is toughness coming into this at all? No one has said toughness.

I think what we are talking about is player who can compliment the smaller skilled forwards they currently have by doing some of the dirty work and creating some room by going to the net.

Kreider is doing that. That's one. Nash doesn't do much of this anymore. Pouliot is hot or cold. Hagelin is a good board player. Stepan, Brassard and Richards don't give them anything in this area. MZA and MSL are 5'6.

The team as a whole is not skilled enough to win on skill alone and they don't have the pieces to win a dirty below the goal line game either.

 

[silverfish]

Again, why is toughness coming into this at all? No one has said toughness.

I think what we are talking about is player who can compliment the smaller skilled forwards they currently have by doing some of the dirty work and creating some room by going to the net.

Kreider is doing that. That's one. Nash doesn't do much of this anymore. Pouliot is hot or cold. Hagelin is a good board player. Stepan, Brassard and Richards don't give them anything in this area. MZA and MSL are 5'6.

The team as a whole is not skilled enough to win on skill alone and they don't have the pieces to win a dirty below the goal line game either.

My apologies. You and I are arguing the same concept. I just equated strong, physical, go and get it in the dirty areas type of play as "team toughness". I go back to what AV said in the beginning of the season about the Red Wings. The fact that they are "tough" to play against because when they have the puck, they make you take it from them, and when they don't have it, they work like dogs to get it.

I equated all that and more into the simple "team toughness" term.

 

[NYR Viper]

My apologies. You and I are arguing the same concept. I just equated strong, physical, go and get it in the dirty areas type of play as "team toughness". I go back to what AV said in the beginning of the season about the Red Wings. The fact that they are "tough" to play against because when they have the puck, they make you take it from them, and when they don't have it, they work like dogs to get it.

I equated all that and more into the simple "team toughness" term.

Understood, I think that confuses people into believing we all want players who can drop the gloves regularly (which is another issue to discuss at another time), IMO.

 

[Gardner McKay]

It doesn't always take 5-6 years to rebuild. Sometimes all it takes is a re-shuffling. Look at Anaheim or SJ. You don't need to blow the whole thing up.

People, and not just you Gadner, like to make this a black and white issue, when there is a grey area somewhere in the middle that has seemed to work for a lot of teams.

I understand. A quick re-tool wouldn't be the worst idea in the world. A player at 5-8 spot could step in next year. I just get overly frustrated when I see people talking about the #1 overall and that being a magic bullet. If you are correct about the grey area (and I think you are), what is black and white is a #1 overall pick being fantasy. Focusing on that as the best way to improve will serve no purpose for us. Making a smart trade to trade up in the draft last year to maybe 6th - 7th overall and grab a player like Lindholm or Monahan or depending on where Draisatl (sp?) falls to this year could be very beneficial. I am all for a re-tool on the fly. Unfortunately that went out the window with the MSL trade IMO.

 

[Trxjw]

So essentially this thread is an argument about how the Rangers don't have players like:

Lucic, Buff, Kesler, etc.... (first three that came to mind). And not necessarily just, we need more players over 6' tall.

Team toughness, not Brashear toughness.

I think it really depends on who you ask. However I think it's closer to the former than the latter.

To me, the "size" issue is just a microcosm of how the Rangers operate. There's always some gaping hole in the team, followed by some over-the-top move to address it which throws the entire thing out of whack and sends the team from one side of the spectrum to the other. The Rangers seem to be incapable of taking measured steps to address an issue. Instead they make a huge splash to address it and sacrifice in other areas. Sather is basically moving the same pile of dirt to different parts of the yard every year and saying he's trying to build a mountain.

 

[Ex Officer Friendly]

Understood, I think that confuses people into believing we all want players who can drop the gloves regularly (which is another issue to discuss at another time), IMO.

There needs to be a second term for what we are discussing other then size and toughness

Because having the size and skill to make a hit, score some goals, and jump in front go the goalie that is good and something that I would like to see

 

[NYR Viper]

I understand. A quick re-tool wouldn't be the worst idea in the world. A player at 5-8 spot could step in next year. I just get overly frustrated when I see people talking about the #1 overall and that being a magic bullet. If you are correct about the grey area (and I think you are), what is black and white is a #1 overall pick being fantasy. Focusing on that as the best way to improve will serve no purpose for us. Making a smart trade to trade up in the draft last year to maybe 6th - 7th overall and grab a player like Lindholm or Monahan or depending on where Draisatl (sp?) falls to this year could be very beneficial. I am all for a re-tool on the fly. Unfortunately that went out the window with the MSL trade IMO.

And that's the issue I see. Where is the young talent that can help improve this team in the long-run? They need a forward who can help carry this team. Where do you get such a player? The Draft. What do the Rangers seem happy to do? Trade away picks.

 

[stan the caddy]

I'd like the Rangers to have more size. A line with MZA and MSL is way too small. The second the puck hits the boards it's all over because they're too small to play that game. Unfortunately, size isn't the reason why they can't score a goal. Someone has to bury a chance once in awhile.

 

[Ex Officer Friendly]

And that's the issue I see. Where is the young talent that can help improve this team in the long-run? They need a forward who can help carry this team. Where do you get such a player? The Draft. What do the Rangers seem happy to do? Trade away picks.

I agree, also it always seems like the Rangers have never been bad enough to get a good draft pick and when they did they took mcilrath (not bashing him) but even Chicago had a few years where they were able to draft Toews and Kane.

 

[silverfish]

I think it really depends on who you ask. However I think it's closer to the former than the latter.

To me, the "size" issue is just a microcosm of how the Rangers operate. There's always some gaping hole in the team, followed by some over-the-top move to address it which throws the entire thing out of whack and sends the team from one side of the spectrum to the other. The Rangers seem to be incapable of taking measured steps to address an issue. Instead they make a huge splash to address it and sacrifice in other areas. Sather is basically moving the same pile of dirt to different parts of the yard every year and saying he's trying to build a mountain.

And this goes back and back to what we've all known about Sather's tenure here, in that there is no fundamental philosophy to build upon. We had it in NY one year 2011/2012. It's no surprise that is the farthest we have gone under Sather. We had a team philosophy from the top down. Black and Blueshirts. Blew it up for Nash, and didn't re-sign Prust. All seemingly good moves, but when you go back to trying to build the mountain, it messes up the plan.

Then we didn't have enough depth to run Tortorella's black and blue system, so we trade Gaborik for further depth. Again, not necessarily a bad move.

However, we took it even further to firing the guy the team was built around, and bringing in AV to settle the pieces. Square pegs into round holes. Was it a bad move to fire Torts? Of course not.

Just because these are all seemingly good moves though, doesn't mean it's helping the big picture. It's a changing philosophy every year. That in itself is the biggest problem the Rangers have.

Now, this St. Louis trade, which seems to be the biggest argument of them all, is actually a trade I still agree with. It kills the Rangers in the draft pick situation, without a doubt, but it makes the on-ice product better. Are we seeing the dividends that we wanted yet? No, of course not. Is it fair to judge MSL after 7 games? I don't think so.

And, of course we didn't *have* to trade for MSL just because he wanted to come to New York. On the other hand, it was more and more apparent that Callahan was not coming back to the team next season. Sather, instead of choosing to lose Callahan for nothing, and deal other pieces for MSL, decided to wash his hands of the situation and let Callahan go early.

You say that MSL's trade value would have declined had we waited, but it surely wouldn't have declined enough to be had for the rights to Ryan Callahan, seeing as how it's doubtful enough that the Lightning will sign him on their own accord anyway.

So, let's say for fun that MSL didn't get traded to the Rangers at the deadline, but could instead be had at the 2014 draft. What would his value be? And now, who/what are we trading for him since we don't have Callahan as a proper trading piece?

/EndRamble

 

[NYR Viper]

I agree, also it always seems like the Rangers have never been bad enough to get a good draft pick and when they did they took mcilrath (not bashing him) but even Chicago had a few years where they were able to draft Toews and Kane.

Skilled players are available past the first few picks of each draft. Look at Detroit. Nyquist, Jurco, Tatar, Sheahan, Ferraro, etc. Where do they pick these players?

 

[silverfish]

Skilled players are available past the first few picks of each draft. Look at Detroit. Nyquist, Jurco, Tatar, Sheahan, Ferraro, etc. Where do they pick these players?

Skilled players? I thought we wanted dirty area players like JT Miller in the draft?

 

[NYR Viper]

Skilled players? I thought we wanted dirty area players like JT Miller in the draft?

And that's fine if that's the way they want to play. What is the philosophy like you said before? Does it stay in place more than 5 years?