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

[Thirty One]

Also yes I am fully aware I was saying almost the opposite about this team in the first three months before they started playing like one. I have no shame admitting I jumped the gun and didn't give them a chance.

"When my information changes, I alter my conclusions. What do you do, sir?" - John Maynard Keynes

 

[Tawnos]

I think the point, above all else, is that Boston traded these young assets for OTHER young assets. They've been incredible at making moves that benefit right now and into the future.

The Rangers selling off picks for a 39 year old isn't quite the same thing.

It takes real research and legwork to do what Boston did; something Glen Sather seemingly has little patience and energy for

I'm confused. Did or did not Chiarelli trade a former 1st rd pick, a 1st rd and a 2nd rd pick for Tomas Kaberle? They also traded young players in Karsums and Lashoff for a 41-year old Recchi.

The point is, for all the Bruins vaunted practices here, they do the same things.

 

[NYR Viper]

I'm confused. Did or did not Chiarelli trade a former 1st rd pick, a 1st rd and a 2nd rd pick for Tomas Kaberle?

The point is, for all the Bruins vaunted practices here, they do the same things.

I mean what would people call Kristo, Lindberg and Fast?

Thomas for Fast

Werek for Lindberg

Sanguinetti for 2nd + 6th (Fast)

Does Sather not do the same things?

 

[Thirty One]

As they say in tennis Game. Set. Match.

People need to stop looking at draft picks as question marks that might not work out, and look at them more as organizational assets.

Now, whether the Rangers organization has the knowledge and foresight to pull off solid trades like that is another story altogether, but one can dream

Now if only the Rangers could get the #5 pick and then they can make all that happen like the Bruins...

One of the few smart things, in my opinion, that Brian Burke has said is that teams should either be aggressively climbing or falling in the Standings. That means adding when you're close. We can (and have) debate about whether this team is close or not, but that's the idea.

 

[Thirty One]

One of the few smart things, in my opinion, that Brian Burke has said is that teams should either be aggressively climbing or falling in the Standings.

I'm confused. Did or did not Chiarelli trade a former 1st rd pick, a 1st rd and a 2nd rd pick for Tomas Kaberle? They also traded young players in Karsums and Lashoff for a 41-year old Recchi.

The point is, for all the Bruins vaunted practices here, they do the same things.

Exactly.

I mean what would people call Kristo, Lindberg and Fast?

Thomas for Fast

Werek for Lindberg

Sanguinetti for 2nd + 6th (Fast)

Does Sather not do the same things?

The Sanguinetti trade was the first thing that came to mind when the Toivonen trade was brought up.

 

[Tawnos]

Exactly..

The main difference here is that Chiarelli doesn't have the following:

1.) A 4-year history of completely bankrupting the system with zero success of any kind
2.) A history of signing UFAs that didn't pan out
3.) The ownership having essentially stated the job is his for life

He does have a lot more success since he took over, as somewhat of an understatement. Two finals appearances, including a Cup win, and 4 seasons of the best regular season record in their division.

Chiarelli has definitely been more successful, but the approach is pretty similar.

 

[Thirty One]

The main difference here is that Chiarelli doesn't have the following:

1.) A 4-year history of completely bankrupting the system with zero success of any kind
2.) A history of signing UFAs that didn't pan out
3.) The ownership having essentially stated the job is his for life

He does have a lot more success since he took over, as somewhat of an understatement. Two finals appearances, including a Cup win, and 4 seasons of the best regular season record in their division.

Chiarelli has definitely been more successful, but the approach is pretty similar.

Yeah, Chiarelli's been better, no doubt about that. But the methods are as different as the crowd is claiming.

I did want Sather to embrace the suck in 2008-09 instead of signing Gaborik. I'm sure they would have picked McIlrath if they had the third pick anyways...

 

[Trxjw]

Jagr is still pretty effective at 42, no?

So why is acquiring MSL a move that doesn't "see beyond the next 12 months"?

I don't agree either with how much Sather gave up, but can anyone truthfully say MSL won't be the best offensive player on this team for the next 3 seasons (barring another trade obv)? Not to mention his lower than actual value contract, which I'd imagine he'd extend at a similar cost.

How many first round picks did New Jersey, Dallas or Philly give up for Jagr? Boston is the only team that dealt a pick to have him on their roster in this century. Not to mention advocating for MSL "cuz Jagr did it" isn't exactly what I would call foresight.

"There's no way Richards will regress. He's a fitness fanatic."
- HFBoards NYR c. 2011

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

Yeah, Chiarelli's been better, no doubt about that. But the methods are as different as the crowd is claiming.

I did want Sather to embrace the suck in 2008-09 instead of signing Gaborik. I'm sure they would have picked McIlrath if they had the third pick anyways...

That 2008-2009 team was just an awful team to watch.

 

[Thirty One]

How many first round picks did New Jersey, Dallas or Philly give up for Jagr? Boston is the only team that dealt a pick to have him on their roster in this century. Not to mention advocating for MSL "cuz Jagr did it" isn't exactly what I would call foresight.

"There's no way Richards will regress. He's a fitness fanatic."
- HFBoards NYR c. 2011

Can't find that quote.

 

[Jabroni]

Can't find that quote.

I clearly remember many posters claiming this.

 

[Thirty One]

I clearly remember many posters claiming this.

That there's no way a 31 year old would regress over the course of a 9 year contract?

Go HFBoards.

 

[GAGLine]

I'm confused. Did or did not Chiarelli trade a former 1st rd pick, a 1st rd and a 2nd rd pick for Tomas Kaberle? They also traded young players in Karsums and Lashoff for a 41-year old Recchi.

The point is, for all the Bruins vaunted practices here, they do the same things.

I don't think you'll find many people who think that the Kaberle trade was a good deal for the bruins. And what have Karsums and Lashoff accomplished in the NHL? Very little.

Regardless, both of those deals can be justified by the fact that the bruins won the cup. If we win the cup with MSL here, I'll be the first in line to apologize to Sather. Until then, it's a stupid trade that will hurt us in the future.

 

[Tawnos]

I don't think you'll find many people who think that the Kaberle trade was a good deal for the bruins. And what have Karsums and Lashoff accomplished in the NHL? Very little.

Regardless, both of those deals can be justified by the fact that the bruins won the cup. If we win the cup with MSL here, I'll be the first in line to apologize to Sather. Until then, it's a stupid trade that will hurt us in the future.

I find that stance to be a little weird. Why be preemptively pissed at the deal and decide to forgive later? Why not just wait to see how it unfolds, hoping that it works out? Skepticism is one thing, and is something I totally understand. I was very skeptical of giving up two forwards in the Nash deal. But to prejudge something before it has a chance to play out is just strange to me.

This might seem like a contradiction, but the way the Kaberle deal turned out and Karsums/Lashoff not being NHL players really misses the point of why I brought them up.

 

[Ian]

How many first round picks did New Jersey, Dallas or Philly give up for Jagr? Boston is the only team that dealt a pick to have him on their roster in this century. Not to mention advocating for MSL "cuz Jagr did it" isn't exactly what I would call foresight.

"There's no way Richards will regress. He's a fitness fanatic."
- HFBoards NYR c. 2011

Richards should/will get bought out because the recapture penalties would be stupid, not because he's horrendous or vastly overpaid (although he's been underwhelming).

My point is that while Jagr's play has slightly slipped as well, he's still a valuable player to teams because of his below-average cap hit for his role on the team, and abilities that persist through declining speed/strength/etc - two factors that set MSL way apart from guys like Richards.

 

[Jabroni]

That there's no way a 31 year old would regress over the course of a 9 year contract?

Go HFBoards.

I believe that was the justification, yes.

Maybe "no way" is too strong a position, but it was the mindset of many here from what I recall.

 

[GAGLine]

I find that stance to be a little weird. Why be preemptively pissed at the deal and decide to forgive later? Why not just wait to see how it unfolds, hoping that it works out? Skepticism is one thing, and is something I totally understand. I was very skeptical of giving up two forwards in the Nash deal. But to prejudge something before it has a chance to play out is just strange to me.

This might seem like a contradiction, but the way the Kaberle deal turned out and Karsums/Lashoff not being NHL players really misses the point of why I brought them up.

Because I don't think this team is good enough to win the cup, with or without MSL, and whether we win the cup or not, we ARE going to suffer for not having those picks.

I'm not sure why you find that stance weird. Don't we all prejudge every move the team makes before we see it play out? Ultimately, it's the results that matter. I can disagree with every move Sather makes, but if it results in a cup, it doesn't matter what anyone thought of the moves. After 14 years, I'm far less inclined to give Sather the benefit of the doubt.

Regarding the boston trades, you brought them up because they are the same kind of moves that Sather made. I get that. But if boston didn't win the cup that year, the Karberle trade would have been viewed in a much more negative light. The prospects they traded for Recchi were depreciated assets. Boston knew they weren't very good, regardless of where they were drafted.

 

[Rangerfan4life90]

Because I don't think this team is good enough to win the cup, with or without MSL, and whether we win the cup or not, we ARE going to suffer for not having those picks.

I'm not sure why you find that stance weird. Don't we all prejudge every move the team makes before we see it play out? Ultimately, it's the results that matter. I can disagree with every move Sather makes, but if it results in a cup, it doesn't matter what anyone thought of the moves. After 14 years, I'm far less inclined to give Sather the benefit of the doubt.

Regarding the boston trades, you brought them up because they are the same kind of moves that Sather made. I get that. But if boston didn't win the cup that year, the Karberle trade would have been viewed in a much more negative light. The prospects they traded for Recchi were depreciated assets. Boston knew they weren't very good, regardless of where they were drafted.

I could care less about those draft picks if MSL helps us win the cup.

 

[dmjt4160]

We have much bigger problems if not having a couple late round draft picks causes us to "suffer".

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

I find that stance to be a little weird. Why be preemptively pissed at the deal and decide to forgive later? Why not just wait to see how it unfolds, hoping that it works out? Skepticism is one thing, and is something I totally understand. I was very skeptical of giving up two forwards in the Nash deal. But to prejudge something before it has a chance to play out is just strange to me.

This might seem like a contradiction, but the way the Kaberle deal turned out and Karsums/Lashoff not being NHL players really misses the point of why I brought them up.

Because this is the internet, where finalizing an opinion right away is paramount.

If you're right, you could always access it later for an "I told ya so" moment. If you're wrong, theres likely been a million topics discussed since then and people will forget. Its a beautiful system, really.

 

[CJCNYR]

It seems very easy for the bruins to make these moves when you mention they move players drafted in the top 5. When was the last time the rangers drafted in the top 5 or even had a chance at a top prospect like the Bruins have had to build their team with. I have no problem with trading 2 late 1st rd picks for MSL. Picking in the 20s rarely generates core roster players (sure there are exceptions but it is very rare)

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

It seems very easy for the bruins to make these moves when you mention they move players drafted in the top 5. When was the last time the rangers drafted in the top 5 or even had a chance at a top prospect like the Bruins have had to build their team with. I have no problem with trading 2 late 1st rd picks for MSL. Picking in the 20s rarely generates core roster players (sure there are exceptions but it is very rare)

They drafted at #6 in 2004 - traded Montoya for Freddie Sjostrom.

Boston has done a really good job at evaluating their young players and selling high. That, above all else, is something the Rangers seem to lack.

 

[Thirty One]

They drafted at #6 in 2004 - traded Montoya for Freddie Sjostrom.

Boston has done a really good job at evaluating their young players and selling high. That, above all else, is something the Rangers seem to lack.

And David Leneveu who is with the organization to this day.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

And David Leneveu who is with the organization to this day.

Wow, just looked at his history - looks like he took quite a tour only to wind up back in Hartford - interesting.

When I say sell high, I say it with McIlrath in mind. Some love him around here and Im not quite sure why? Only because hes currently Rangers property? Might it be a better route to sell him off to some team, still trumpeting him as a top 10 draft pick with big upside?

 

[Thirty One]

Wow, just looked at his history - looks like he took quite a tour only to wind up back in Hartford - interesting.

When you get the chance to pick up a long-term asset like that, you don't pass it up.