Speculation: Trade / Roster Speculation Thread XXXIII: Clever Title Pending

[SingnBluesOnBroadway]

There's a big difference between trading picks for a young player/prospect and trading them for a soon to be 39 year old player with 1 year left on his contract.

And there's also that whole dealing picks when the previous offseason you didn't pick until the 3rd round thing.

 

[Thirty One]

Nothing like a solid Mean Girls reference

Seriously though.

Hagelin
Miller
McIlrath
1st round pick in 2016

I don't give a ****. Get Bjugstad here NOW.

Sign Scooter Vaughan, and stack the AHL/ECHL with undrafted college FAs

I'm for signing any player named Scooter.

 

[RangerBoy]

Bettman was at the game last night. He said the cap would be set at $69-$70M. Brooks wrote a few weeks ago the two parties were meeting and the cap would be set at $70 million. TV money for next season can be added into the coming year cap. Both sides have to agree on how much. The players are concerned about escrow so they have to find the right number. The Canadian dollar is 90 cents.

 

[Fitzy]

I'm for signing any player named Scooter.

You'd like him. He's got spunk.

 

[GAGLine]

Who has been an absolute force for the Rangers so far in these (young) playoffs.

Which is great. But for how much longer? If we lose in the 2nd round this year and next and then MSL retires or leaves, is that worth what we paid to get him? Not in my book.

On the other hand, a player like Bjugstad probably won't score as much as MSL, but he's cost controlled and can help this team for many years to come.

Teams need a steady influx of young talent, especially under a cap. As we've seen with Cally, players become too costly for us to re-sign. We can't always go to free agency to fill holes. Deep teams that can realistically compete for the cup year after year do so because they have strong farm systems and young players contributing above and beyond what they are paid.

 

[Bluenote13]

Which is great. But for how much longer? If we lose in the 2nd round this year and next and then MSL retires or leaves, is that worth what we paid to get him? Not in my book.

On the other hand, a player like Bjugstad probably won't score as much as MSL, but he's cost controlled and can help this team for many years to come.

Teams need a steady influx of young talent, especially under a cap. As we've seen with Cally, players become too costly for us to re-sign. We can't always go to free agency to fill holes. Deep teams that can realistically compete for the cup year after year do so because they have strong farm systems and young players contributing above and beyond what they are paid.

100% agreed.

Picks/prospects are a sports franchise lifeblood, truly amazes me how some fans can think otherwise.

Gimme now gimme now, i want it now mommy, now now now.....

Some kids never grow up

 

[silverfish]

Which is great. But for how much longer? If we lose in the 2nd round this year and next and then MSL retires or leaves, is that worth what we paid to get him? Not in my book.

On the other hand, a player like Bjugstad probably won't score as much as MSL, but he's cost controlled and can help this team for many years to come.

Teams need a steady influx of young talent, especially under a cap. As we've seen with Cally, players become too costly for us to re-sign. We can't always go to free agency to fill holes. Deep teams that can realistically compete for the cup year after year do so because they have strong farm systems and young players contributing above and beyond what they are paid.

This season and next? Maybe we flip him at the 2015 deadline for a 1st rounder to get back the one we lost? I don't know, I'm not a fortune-teller. I can tell you that at this moment, MSL is a dynamic player leading the Rangers to a 2-1 series lead in the first round of the playoffs. Callahan is out of the playoffs, and who in God's name knows what our first round pick in 2015 is doing right now. Probably getting hammered with JT Miller somewhere

I understand that you build the pipeline through the draft, believe me. I also understand that the Rangers FO is doing quite a reasonable job in securing players for the pipeline through college free agency. In a sort of way to make up for picks lost.

When you have an opportunity to add a guy like MSL, you take it. Worst case scenario, for some reason, the Rangers don't make the playoffs in 2015, and win the draft lottery and don't have that pick because of the MSL trade, and now we can't draft McDavid. On the other hand, if it's obvious we'll be missing the playoffs:

A) There is WAY more wrong with this team than losing their 2015 1st rounder
B) We have plenty of assets to flip for picks if necessary at the deadline.

As you noted, and I appreciate it, my other trade offer that included prospects and picks was for a 22 year old Nick Bjugstad. So I thank you for that

 

[HatTrick Swayze]

The problem is that the Rangers convince themselves that they near-perpetually are a piece away and in a 2-3 year window. How many times have we heard both of those things?

The best teams in the Cap NHL year after year are built through the draft. The Rangers have middling success drafting which requires them to overcompensate elsewhere. And the costly overcompensation always leads to brief windows and making moves in a vacuum.

Lastly - the absolute last thing I would hang my hat on is the Rangers ability to sign undrafted NCAA kids. No disrespect to Haggerty or Bodie but expecting either, let alone both, to fill the void of not having top 60 picks is extremely unrealistic at this point. Is it possible, sure. The fact is the Rangers best UDFA signing out of the NCAA in recent history is Matt Gilroy.

 

[Inferno]

The problem is that the Rangers convince themselves that they near-perpetually are a piece away and in a 2-3 year window. How many times have we heard both of those things?

The best teams in the Cap NHL year after year are built through the draft. The Rangers have middling success drafting which requires them to overcompensate elsewhere. And the costly overcompensation always leads to brief windows and making moves in a vacuum.

Lastly - the absolute last thing I would hang my hat on is the Rangers ability to sign undrafted NCAA kids. No disrespect to Haggerty or Bodie but expecting either, let alone both, to fill the void of not having top 60 picks is extremely unrealistic at this point. Is it possible, sure. The fact is the Rangers best UDFA signing out of the NCAA in recent history is Matt Gilroy.

Here are the list of players who played at least 60 games with the Boston Bruins:

C Gregory Campbell 82 8 13 21 1 0 1 2 47 84 9.52 11:54
C Brad Marchand 82 25 28 53 36 1 5 5 64 149 16.78 15:56
R Reilly Smith 82 20 31 51 28 6 0 3 14 146 13.70 14:42
C Patrice Bergeron 80 30 32 62 38 7 1 7 43 243 12.35 17:59
C David Krejci 80 19 50 69 39 3 0 6 28 169 11.24 19:07
L Milan Lucic 80 24 35 59 30 3 0 5 91 153 15.69 17:22
D Torey Krug 79 14 26 40 18 6 0 2 28 183 7.65 17:30
R Jarome Iginla 78 30 31 61 34 4 0 8 47 209 14.35 18:12
D Zdeno Chara 77 17 23 40 25 10 0 3 66 168 10.12 24:39
D Johnny Boychuk 75 5 18 23 31 0 0 1 45 142 3.52 21:11
C Carl Soderberg 73 16 32 48 4 5 0 3 36 129 12.40 14:15
L Daniel Paille 72 9 9 18 9 0 1 1 6 71 12.68 10:57
L Shawn Thornton 64 5 3 8 3 0 0 1 74 93 5.38 8:47
D Matt Bartkowski 64 0 18 18 22 0 0 0 30 91 0.00 19:32
D Dougie Hamilton 64 7 18 25 22 2 0 1 40 114 6.14 19:06
L Loui Eriksson 61 10 27 37 14 2 0 2 6 115 8.70 16:31

Eriksson: Drafted by Dallas
Hamilton: Boston
Bartkowski: Florida
Thornton: Toronto
Paille: Buffalo
Soderberg: St. Louis
Boychuk: Colorado
Chara: Islanders
Iginla: Dallas
Krug: Boston
Lucic: Boston
Krejci: Boston
Bergeron: Boston
Smith: Dallas
Marchand: Boston
Campbell: Florida

So out of the 16 players who played at least 60 games for the team...only 6 of them were actually drafted by the Bruins.

Not even half.

37.5%.

If you include their 2 goalies, Rask and Johnson, that becomes 6 out of 18.

33%


I would call complete and utter shenanigans that the only way to build an elite team is through the draft.

 

[Inferno]

Let's look at it even further.

the 6 guys who are actually draft picks of the Bruins...

Marchand:3rd rounder
Hamilton: 1st Rounder
Krug: Undrafted (i'm putting him as a draft pick because they signed him as an undrafted player...same thing to me)
Lucic: 2nd
Krejci: 2nd
Bergeron: 2nd

So the big bad unstoppable juggernaut presidents winning monster machine Boston Bruins have a grand total of 1 first round draft pick of theirs playing on their roster.

1.

Dougie Hamilton.



I'd like to take that shenanigans from my previous post and double down.

Thank you.

 

[HatTrick Swayze]

Disregarding that it is just one team...by that logic it is just as easy to acquire a Krejci as it is a Paille. Only need to draft Pailles and you can fill in the rest through other means.

How about the Bruins core from this year's team? Top scorers: Krejci, Bergeron, Iginla, Lucic, Marchand, Smith top 6 scoring forwards. 4 drafted. Top dmen: Chara, Krug, Hamilton, Boychuk. 1 drafted, 1 NCAA signing. Rask in goal acquired but it was as a prospect. It's completely irrelevent that they were able to acquire Greory Campbell.

 

[Boom Boom Geoffrion*]

Which is great. But for how much longer? If we lose in the 2nd round this year and next and then MSL retires or leaves, is that worth what we paid to get him? Not in my book.

On the other hand, a player like Bjugstad probably won't score as much as MSL, but he's cost controlled and can help this team for many years to come.

Teams need a steady influx of young talent, especially under a cap. As we've seen with Cally, players become too costly for us to re-sign. We can't always go to free agency to fill holes. Deep teams that can realistically compete for the cup year after year do so because they have strong farm systems and young players contributing above and beyond what they are paid.

Great post, as usual.

 

[Inferno]

Disregarding that it is just one team...by that logic it is just as easy to acquire a Krejci as it is a Paille. Only need to draft Pailles and you can fill in the rest through other means.

How about the Bruins core from this year's team? Top scorers: Krejci, Bergeron, Iginla, Lucic, Marchand, Smith top 6 scoring forwards. 4 drafted. Top dmen: Chara, Krug, Hamilton, Boychuk. 1 drafted, 1 NCAA signing. Rask in goal acquired but it was as a prospect. It's completely irrelevent that they were able to acquire Greory Campbell.

Rangers top 2 scoring forwards obv not including St. Louis, were Zucc and Stepan, 1 a draft pick, on an undrafted player.

Kreider & Hagelin were tied for 5th on the team in goals. so 4 top offensive weapons, all 4 essentially drafted.

Top defenseman. Girardi, McD, Staal....all 3 either essentially drafted or didnt start their career till they came here.

Both goalies drafted by the Rangers.

 

[Inferno]

It really doesnt matter at all how you get your top players to me.

not in the slightest. The ONLY thing that matters is..

1)do they fit in within the confines of your team structure.

2)are they cost controlled? if not, how big of a contract do they have?

3)if they leave, are you able to replace them, either on the free agent market, via trade, or via the draft.


other than that, i dont particularly care HOW you get your team put together.

 

[Barnaby]

I didnt say that guy calm down...I was just looking at the options regarding UFA, specifically someone who would step in replacing richards role. Not saying for or against it, discussing options. Im one of Miller's biggest fans and hope thats the case. To me at the end of the day you better your team the most through the draft, all these teams have great young talented stud centers drafted, we have nothing too amazing besides Step, who will be 24 in 2 mths.

I like how you say 24 like it's 38.

 

[Gardner McKay]

Here are the list of players who played at least 60 games with the Boston Bruins:

C Gregory Campbell 82 8 13 21 1 0 1 2 47 84 9.52 11:54
C Brad Marchand 82 25 28 53 36 1 5 5 64 149 16.78 15:56
R Reilly Smith 82 20 31 51 28 6 0 3 14 146 13.70 14:42
C Patrice Bergeron 80 30 32 62 38 7 1 7 43 243 12.35 17:59
C David Krejci 80 19 50 69 39 3 0 6 28 169 11.24 19:07
L Milan Lucic 80 24 35 59 30 3 0 5 91 153 15.69 17:22
D Torey Krug 79 14 26 40 18 6 0 2 28 183 7.65 17:30
R Jarome Iginla 78 30 31 61 34 4 0 8 47 209 14.35 18:12
D Zdeno Chara 77 17 23 40 25 10 0 3 66 168 10.12 24:39
D Johnny Boychuk 75 5 18 23 31 0 0 1 45 142 3.52 21:11
C Carl Soderberg 73 16 32 48 4 5 0 3 36 129 12.40 14:15
L Daniel Paille 72 9 9 18 9 0 1 1 6 71 12.68 10:57
L Shawn Thornton 64 5 3 8 3 0 0 1 74 93 5.38 8:47
D Matt Bartkowski 64 0 18 18 22 0 0 0 30 91 0.00 19:32
D Dougie Hamilton 64 7 18 25 22 2 0 1 40 114 6.14 19:06
L Loui Eriksson 61 10 27 37 14 2 0 2 6 115 8.70 16:31

Eriksson: Drafted by Dallas
Hamilton: Boston
Bartkowski: Florida
Thornton: Toronto
Paille: Buffalo
Soderberg: St. Louis
Boychuk: Colorado
Chara: Islanders
Iginla: Dallas
Krug: Boston
Lucic: Boston
Krejci: Boston
Bergeron: Boston
Smith: Dallas
Marchand: Boston
Campbell: Florida

So out of the 16 players who played at least 60 games for the team...only 6 of them were actually drafted by the Bruins.

Not even half.

37.5%.

If you include their 2 goalies, Rask and Johnson, that becomes 6 out of 18.

33%


I would call complete and utter shenanigans that the only way to build an elite team is through the draft.

Let's look at it even further.

the 6 guys who are actually draft picks of the Bruins...

Marchand:3rd rounder
Hamilton: 1st Rounder
Krug: Undrafted (i'm putting him as a draft pick because they signed him as an undrafted player...same thing to me)
Lucic: 2nd
Krejci: 2nd
Bergeron: 2nd

So the big bad unstoppable juggernaut presidents winning monster machine Boston Bruins have a grand total of 1 first round draft pick of theirs playing on their roster.

1.

Dougie Hamilton.



I'd like to take that shenanigans from my previous post and double down.

Thank you.

What a post. Thank you for finally putting an end to the fallacy of building through the draft is the only way to build a winner. Sure it can happen, but it is not the only way. Most posters on here act as if there is only one way to build a cup contender. We are a cup contender. If we can make it to the ECF and get Kreider back I would put this team against any one in the NHL.

 

[TheTakedown]

What a post. Thank you for finally putting an end to the fallacy of building through the draft is the only way to build a winner. Sure it can happen, but it is not the only way. Most posters on here act as if there is only one way to build a cup contender. We are a cup contender. If we can make it to the ECF and get Kreider back I would put this team against any one in the NHL.

I'd like to further fortify Inferno's post.

Edmonton Oilers draft history since 2007:

2007 Entry 6 1 Sam Gagner
2008 Entry 22 1 Jordan Eberle
2010 Entry 1 1 Taylor Hall
2011 Entry 1 1 Ryan Nugent-Hopkins
2012 Entry 1 1 Nail Yakupov
2006 Entry 45 2 Jeff Petry

That is 5, count them, 5 1st round draft picks, and 1 2nd round pick over the last 8 seasons

And how many times have the oilers made the playoffs?

ZERO TIMES since 2006's magical run.

But everyone seems to think Edmonton is the exception to the draft rule... so I'll point you to the panthers, who have made the playoffs ONCE in 13 seasons...

http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/draft/teams/dr00005763.html

There are about 4-6 1st and 2nd round picks that are still in the NHL...

Explain how the draft has been oh so great for them.

 

[HatTrick Swayze]

How about the Blackhawks, Kings, Sharks, Blues, Pens, Avs, Ducks? How much of their core is homegrown?

Edmonton and Florida couldn't land a UFA with a dump truck of cash and an army of hookers. You need young cost controlled talent that is supplemented with shrewd trade/FA acquisitions good coaching and a culture of development up an down the org.

Draft picks don't guarentee squat but the VAST majority of continuously successful teams of the last decade have hit big on their picks which provides the hardest to obtain component - young cost controlled talent.

 

[TheTakedown]

How about the Blackhawks, Kings, Sharks, Blues, Pens, Avs, Ducks? How much of their core is homegrown?

Edmonton and Florida couldn't land a UFA with a dump truck of cash and an army of hookers. You need young cost controlled talent that is supplemented with shrewd trade/FA acquisitions good coaching and a culture of development up an down the org.

Draft picks don't guarentee squat but the VAST majority of continuously successful teams of the last decade have hit big on their picks which provides the hardest to obtain component - young cost controlled talent.

by tanking for a 1st overall pick...

are you interested in watching the rangers become a bottom feeder for the next 8 years?

 

[HatTrick Swayze]

by tanking for a 1st overall pick...

are you interested in watching the rangers become a bottom feeder for the next 8 years?

First of all, since the city of NY + a willingness to spend to the cap will always make the Rangers a desirable location for players via trade/FA they would not be a bottom feeder for 8 years. At worst you are talking mediocrity.

Second of all, would I have watched them be a bottom feeder in the absolutely pointless 07-10 years with the reward of a Couture, Stamkos, Tavares, Johansen? You're damn right I would. Now clearly the counter is that the Rangers would have ****ed that up but I would take a legit chance to build a perennial contender over 4 seasons of hoping to back into the playoffs and win 2 games.

Team is at a different stage now there is no doubt. So I'm not sure how any of this is relevant to be honest.

 

[Tawnos]

How about the Blackhawks, Kings, Sharks, Blues, Pens, Avs, Ducks? How much of their core is homegrown?

Blackhawks: 17 players with 59+ GP. 11 Hawks picks
Kings: 18 players with 59+ GP. 10 Kings picks
Sharks: 17 players 59+ GP. 8 Sharks picks (9 if you include Stuart, but I don't)
Blues: 16 players 59+ GP. 9 Blues picks
Penguins: 12 players 59+ GP. 5 Penguins picks
Avalanche: 17 players 59+ GP. 6 Avs picks.

Of course, this doesn't address what you consider a team's core. Letang, for example, didn't meet the GP criteria, but is definitely part of the Pens core. The Avalanche might have only had 6 of their own picks play that much, but Duchene, Landeskog, MacKinnon, Stastny, Barrie, O'Reilly are the names you find.

 

[Mikos87]

Its not simply about having a ton of picks, but its about having them pan out.

The Rangers have done a tremendous job of hitting on their draft picks in recent years, except most have been traded away, and some lost to career ending circumstances. They aren't any good if they don't play for you.

Chicago's 2010 team was built through the draft, and so was their 2013... their 2013 team had a few home runs from the 2011 draft, which was due to the purging of their 2010 team, with a core from their previous draft years.

But LA, Boston, they are a mix of late rounders and trades, and some high end first rounders. I don't count too many top 5 picks of their own on those rosters any more. Its asset management, and cost control as much as talent and development in the cap era.

I don't care how a team is constructed, as long as they win. That is all that matters. The Bruins traded Seguin and extended their window further, they will compete as a contender this year, and next, and possibly even the year after since their window opened in 2011.

Chicago re-opened their window after the purge of 2010, but it took them 3 years to get there.

Vancouver had a window of 4 years. Pitsburgh doesn't have the depth it used to, but they have 2 of the best players in the game so you can't discount them.

San Jose had to get rid of a couple of aging core players to stay a contender.

The Blues built up for years before their window opened (it didn't open until Pietrangelo emerged in 2012, and a 6 year climb to get there).

Washington had a 4 year window that closed itself.

The Rangers closed their window after 1 year in 2012 because they couldn't manage their cap and made a blockbuster move which has yet to pay dividends.

Would draft picks help? Sure, but only if they were hits. All of the current contenders found role players that are good in their roles from late round picks, UDFA's, taking on other teams depth players and giving them a bigger role.

Most teams are lucky if they hit .200 at each draft, but the dividend is almost always 3 years away unless you are picking at the top of the draft board, and you aren't Edmonton.

 

[Mikos87]

Lastly - the absolute last thing I would hang my hat on is the Rangers ability to sign undrafted NCAA kids. No disrespect to Haggerty or Bodie but expecting either, let alone both, to fill the void of not having top 60 picks is extremely unrealistic at this point. Is it possible, sure. The fact is the Rangers best UDFA signing out of the NCAA in recent history is Matt Gilroy.

Cam Talbot says hello.

Girardi was a UDFA, and so was Zucc. CHL and Euro leagues. It's not like football where the NCAA is the sole feeder league. NCAA UFDA's are vastly overrated, I agree with you 100%. Out of this year's crop (not counting Hayes or Johns, both of whom were drafted), the only standout I see is Folin, and that's because he's a big body with superb skating ability.

The Rangers also have a player in Conor Allen, who I think will be a solid and reliable bottom pair DMan.

 

[Gardner McKay]

How about the Blackhawks, Kings, Sharks, Blues, Pens, Avs, Ducks? How much of their core is homegrown?

Edmonton and Florida couldn't land a UFA with a dump truck of cash and an army of hookers. You need young cost controlled talent that is supplemented with shrewd trade/FA acquisitions good coaching and a culture of development up an down the org.

Draft picks don't guarentee squat but the VAST majority of continuously successful teams of the last decade have hit big on their picks which provides the hardest to obtain component - young cost controlled talent.

Black Hawks? Two #1 picks? Avs? 3 Top 3 Picks? Those are not a model that the Rangers can emulate. Further more you still advocate a point that most of us recognize. You can be successful by building through the draft but you conveniently ignore the fact that there are other teams who have not built their team through the draft.

 

[HatTrick Swayze]

Black Hawks? Two #1 picks? Avs? 3 Top 3 Picks? Those are not a model that the Rangers can emulate. Further more you still advocate a point that most of us recognize. You can be successful by building through the draft but you conveniently ignore the fact that there are other teams who have not built their team through the draft.

Such as? I'm not trying to be a dick I'm curious who you're thinking of. Because from my point of view the vast majority of teams that have had windows of more than a year or two and who have consistently been near the top of their conferences acquired most of their core via the draft.