Speculation: Trade Rumors/Speculation Part IX: Dubinsky, Rozsival and a 2nd

[eco's bones]

I don't think it's so much the height/weight aspect.

I think it's a matter of being more willing to engage, more specifically, initiate the physical battles.

get teams on their heels physically early and it pays dividends later.

just like in boxing, kill the body early, the head will die later.

size in and of itself becomse a very overrated item to possess if you do not have the speed and skill to take advantage of it, see Boyle, Brian for example A.

If you have a passive mindset, your size will be completely negated. Nash is a good example of that.

What I have been noticing more and more is that Kreider has been the catalyst for a lot of post whistle scrums which comes from him starting to push the envelope and opposing teams taking exception to it.

He's putting up points, he's using his speed and he'd getting involved in all sorts of aspects of the game. I would love to see Pouliot do that as well, but he's another cream puff.

Cream puffs on the Rangers:

Stepan
Richards
Nash
Pouliot
Pyatt
Hagelin
Brassard

that's to many guys not willing to initiate the physical aspect of the game. They seem to prefer to dig for pucks with their sticks than use their physicality to seperate man from puck.

We need more guys willing to initiate contact and less guys that wait to absorb that contact.

That sums things up pretty good. Rangers have too many passenger types and Nash and Richards are among them. If the Rangers were a grittier team I'd give Stepan and Hagelin a pass--both are more than competent PK types so I don't see them as really soft and Hagelin's speed can hurt other teams. Size can matter though. I think Dom Moore or Dorsett for instance aren't shy types but they're not really strong enough to handle determined 6'3 215 lb. guys.

 

[eco's bones]

maybe this is why Beach and Aliu (might be signed) are in the future plans, but seriously this is a problem that Sather made for himself and it is a shame that the old man did not realize this at all.. when a guy like Rinaldo runs Nash, maybe it will make the old man think.

Beach and Aliu struggle at the AHL level. I don't see them as serious NHL players in the near future.

Take a look across the river at the team that beat us in the semi-finals a couple years ago. Zubrus is a horse--a good player--not a great one. They had Ponikarovsky, Bernier, Carter--gritty guys with size and strength who could win board battles. They were instrumental in knocking us out. It's all about finding guys good at these war of attrition battles. Doesn't have to be a lot of penalties or fights doing it--it's about shift after shift winning pucks.

Last year Campbell, Thornton, Paille and then there was Lucic--more physicality than we could handle. The Bruins got some big, mean guys on their D--doesn't mean they have to take lots of pm's but they clean out the crease real well--ours not so much--we couldn't move Lucic for one which caused our defense to collapse even more than the usual--recipe for disaster that was.

 

[Ghost of jas]

I'm coming around to the idea that Zucc could very well be an important piece of this team moving forward. It will depend upon what he asks for, but, I really like how Zucc and Brassard work together. But, they ideally need a big winger on the LW to complete that line. I know the MaxPac were unfounded, but, he's exactly the type of player that would fit with those two.

 

[Beer League Sniper]

Zuccarello had no leverage. He will have leverage this time. Everyone wants to get paid including Zuccarello.

I don't expect Zuccarello to be a difficult signing. Does he have leverage? Of course. That being said, I still expect a bargain contract for him. He wants to play for this organization. He wants years. Don't jerk him around with these 1 year contracts. Give him a 2-4 year contract and the AAV should be a bargain for what he brings.

 

[RangerBoy]

Zucc wins more board battles than Boyle. He plays well enough defensively that AV trusts him on the PK. Sure, we'd all love it if he were 6'3" 220 lbs, but good luck finding a player that size with his skill and vision.

There is room on this team for a player of his size. We need to stop obsessing about players' deficiencies and focus on their strengths. We need to stop expecting every player to be perfect.

I didn't realize Zuccarello was on your touchables/keepers list. Maximizing value of the asset. The Rangers usually wait until the player value has dropped before trading that player.

 

[RangerBoy]

I don't expect Zuccarello to be a difficult signing. Does he have leverage? Of course. That being said, I still expect a bargain contract for him. He wants to play for this organization. He wants years. Don't jerk him around with these 1 year contracts. Give him a 2-4 year contract and the AAV should be a bargain for what he brings.

Really? Which re-signing is an easy re-signing? Even the no brainers become difficult. Look at Lundqvist. What's the number for Zuccarello?

 

[BarbaraAlphanse]

BBkers said on another thread that Nash and Richards are the latest high paid athletes to come to NYC and never live up to their contract.

What led to our success a few years ago? Homegrown young talent. Humble veterans that had their head in the right place. Players that could have fun but respected the game enough to focus on that first then the city second.

Torts big thing was focus on the team and game first, city comes second. I wonder if AV fell in that trap.

Wonder if the only successful players that can come in here and not fall into complacency and entitlement are our own rookies (i.e guys that want to prove that they belong), heart guys that put the team first, and veterans that are looking to stay in the league and work their ass off in achieving that. Maybe big names are a luxury that we want and can afford but set the team back?

Just musing.

 

[Trxjw]

Zucc is small, but he plays hard every shift. I'm on the fence about whether or not his long-term offensive upside justifies keeping him, but I think his chippy attitude on the ice goes a long way. If he was 5'10, would people really be questioning whether or not to keep him? Really comes down to what kind of contract he wants, but he seems like he legitimately enjoys playing for this team.

I think size is a great thing to have, but you can't simply build a team around size. You need balance to build a winner. One dimensional teams will eventually lose out to the multi-faceted ones, especially in a 7 game series. You need gritty players, skilled players, fast players, responsible players, etc. If you get guys that cover multiple areas of need, that's even better. Zucc is skilled, gritty, and has emerged as a pretty effective penalty killer. I'd say that's a guy worth keeping as a building block.

 

[Ola]

The problem with big players are that they cost a ton and so often brings nothing.

It's always something wrong with the big players. It doesn't matter if it's Clowe or Wolski or Boyle or Pyatt or Adam Hall or whomever. You want size but the big players are never "it". When they play for a great team they get to focus on what they do best and then they become valuble. Big players for struggling teams often become irrelevant. Ryan Malone and Dustin Penner are great examples of that.

I definitely also think we have a size issue. But I don't believe in building a team with only 6'2-3 players. Boston has had a ton of small players over the years. Core players. Chicago Natrually has so many smaller players. It's the same with the other better players.

Look at LA with Nolan and Clifford and co. Chicago with Bickell and so forth. I believe in that approach more. You must have size. But the size should compliment a great team. You don't build a team with size. The big players just don't skate well enough to carry teams in the league today.

 

[BarbaraAlphanse]

I didn't realize Zuccarello was on your touchables/keepers list. Maximizing value of the asset. The Rangers usually wait until the player value has dropped before trading that player.

Just wondering. Which player on the Rangers are you not in favor of trading?

 

[Ola]

Chris Kreider and John Moore?

 

[GAGLine]

I didn't realize Zuccarello was on your touchables/keepers list. Maximizing value of the asset. The Rangers usually wait until the player value has dropped before trading that player.

Who said he was untouchable? Are we playing the stock market or trying to win hockey games? You assume his value is going to drop. What is that assumption based on? His size? He isn't going to get any smaller.

Yeah, let's develop players and wait until they are finally contributing at a high level and then trade them, because it's more important what we can get for them than what they can do for us.

 

[RangerBoy]

I'm coming around to the idea that Zucc could very well be an important piece of this team moving forward. It will depend upon what he asks for, but, I really like how Zucc and Brassard work together. But, they ideally need a big winger on the LW to complete that line. I know the MaxPac were unfounded, but, he's exactly the type of player that would fit with those two.

Brass is in the same boat as Zuccarello. Both of them will be group II with arb rights this summer. They can become group IIIs in 2015 with a one year SPC/arb award/Brass signing his $3.7M QO. Would you pay both of them? They are close to becoming group IIIs in the near future. If you pay them,its two small forwards.

 

[Ola]

I think we should look for one bigger forward. CK, Nash and then like a PF type like a healthy Clowe. It's hard to carry more PFs than that and still be fast and skilled enough...

If we can get a PMD we would be able to carry the three mentioned above a lot better.

 

[BarbaraAlphanse]

Zucc is small, but he plays hard every shift. I'm on the fence about whether or not his long-term offensive upside justifies keeping him, but I think his chippy attitude on the ice goes a long way. If he was 5'10, would people really be questioning whether or not to keep him? Really comes down to what kind of contract he wants, but he seems like he legitimately enjoys playing for this team.

I think size is a great thing to have, but you can't simply build a team around size. You need balance to build a winner. One dimensional teams will eventually lose out to the multi-faceted ones, especially in a 7 game series. You need gritty players, skilled players, fast players, responsible players, etc. If you get guys that cover multiple areas of need, that's even better. Zucc is skilled, gritty, and has emerged as a pretty effective penalty killer. I'd say that's a guy worth keeping as a building block.

His strength isn't in speed or physicality. These type of players don't tend to regress quickly at all. He's a key component to the locker room. He's turning out to be the winger with the best vision and passing ability on the team. We need more guys like him. He should be in the fold for the next 3-4 years. After his scratch, any line he's been on has been dynamic.

I don't see how you can be on the fence about that. He lacks size. Seems like his only real deficiency. As you said, a successful team needs diversity.

 

[Ola]

Brass is in the same boat as Zuccarello. Both of them will be group II with arb rights this summer. They can become group IIIs in 2015 with a one year SPC/arb award/Brass signing his $3.7M QO. Would you pay both of them? They are close to becoming group IIIs in the near future. If you pay them,its two small forwards.

But OTOH, but it's guys like this that are having success for us and other teams around the league.

I don't worry paying big for Brass and Zucc. If you can get them to take a decent 3-4 y deal you do it IMO.

 

[RangerBoy]

Who said he was untouchable? Are we playing the stock market or trying to win hockey games? You assume his value is going to drop. What is that assumption based on? His size? He isn't going to get any smaller.

Yeah, let's develop players and wait until they are finally contributing at a high level and then trade them, because it's more important what we can get for them than what they can do for us.

If he signs a big contract and doesn't produce,good luck moving him then. Will his production match the contract he receives? The Rangers have guys who aren't worth their contracts. Its like a house. What the home owner owes on his mortgage is more than the current value of the house. That's a bad situation. Have you seen enough to commit long-term to him. Don't be naïve. All of these guys want to get paid. Good for them. Part of running a sports team is managing assets. We sit here all day discussing trading players for top value. All I said was can the Rangers maximize the value of a player at least once in their pathetic existence and not wait until they are forced to make a decision.

 

[BarbaraAlphanse]

If he signs a big contract and doesn't produce,good luck moving him then. Will his production match the contract he receives? The Rangers have guys who aren't worth their contracts. Its like a house. What the home owner owes on his mortgage is more than the current value of the house. That's a bad situation. Have you seen enough to commit long-term to him. Don't be naïve. All of these guys want to get paid. Good for them. Part of running a sports team is managing assets. We sit here all day discussing trading players for top value. All I said was can the Rangers maximize the value of a player at least once in their pathetic existence and not wait until they are forced to make a decision.

Why does it have to be Zucc? Why not maximize value on Del Zotto? Brassard? Girardi? Staal?

Del Zotto has always shown massive inconsistency. Brassard the same. Girardi is getting older and doesn't fit this system. Staal can't stay healthy.

Why Zucc? Trading players just to prove a point that hasn't been proven by the franchise in years? Yea RB you've got it.

 

[Fitzy]

Oh for.... the bias here. Some of you have personal bias about players that lends to completely inconsistent logic when dealing with acquisitions and signings.

Zuccarello came back and signed for less than he could have made in Russia, is finally playing well. Now we're worried about contracts.

I guess with his progress we should be looking to trade Kreider before he gets that big contract that's inevitably coming his way. Have players age out at 25, keep a team full of ELC's on the roster.

I've been wrong about players but at least I look at guys based on what they bring to the team rather than whether or not the attention surrounding a given player annoys me or not.

 

[BarbaraAlphanse]

But OTOH, but it's guys like this that are having success for us and other teams around the league.

I don't worry paying big for Brass and Zucc. If you can get them to take a decent 3-4 y deal you do it IMO.

I worry about paying players big $$ that show gross inconsistency. Brassard fits that mold. Del Zotto fits that mold.

 

[Trxjw]

His strength isn't in speed or physicality. These type of players don't tend to regress quickly at all. He's a key component to the locker room. He's turning out to be the winger with the best vision and passing ability on the team. We need more guys like him. He should be in the fold for the next 3-4 years. After his scratch, any line he's been on has been dynamic.

I don't see how you can be on the fence about that. He lacks size. Seems like his only real deficiency. As you said, a successful team needs diversity.

Because he's had one third of a season of high end offensive production. Until now, he's basically been a .5 PPG player who really didn't bring much to the table other than the points, and great ability in the shootout. If he continues this level of play through the end of the year, we're looking at a 60 point player who can kill penalties, and has some sand paper in his game. This one season will drastically alter his value and will thus drive up the money on a new deal.

Committing to a player after 3/4's of a good season is a very tricky proposition. Especially one who is a group II and will be eligible to be a UFA at the end of next season. It's easy for you as a fan to say "He's not going to regress" but much harder for a NHL team to make that assumption with millions of dollars at stake and a salary cap to worry about.

I'm not saying we should trade him. I want to keep him. However, I'm not naive enough to think that you can just keep him at any cost to the team. It's a risk no matter how you want to spin it.

 

[RangerBoy]

David Desharnais. Look at his numbers in the career. Had that big year. 60 points. Got four years and $14M. That guy is a good comparable to Zuccarello. Montreal would give him away for free if they could because of that contract. Zuccarello is on pace to have a very good year and Newport will want what the guy in MTL got.

 

[RangersHank*]

David Desharnais. Look at his numbers in the career. Had that big year. 60 points. Got four years and $14M. That guy is a good comparable to Zuccarello. Montreal would give him away for free if they could because of that contract. Zuccarello is on pace to have a very good year and Newport will want what the guy in MTL got.

How are they comparable?

 

[Trxjw]

David Desharnais. Look at his numbers in the career. Had that big year. 60 points. Got four years and $14M. That guy is a good comparable to Zuccarello. Montreal would give him away for free if they could because of that contract. Zuccarello is on pace to have a very good year and Newport will what the guy in MTL got.

I think Zucc is a more well rounded player than DD, but this is the kind of situation you have to worry about with ANY player who has a breakout season in a contract year. Not just the small ones.

 

[GAGLine]

If he signs a big contract and doesn't produce,good luck moving him then. Will his production match the contract he receives? The Rangers have guys who aren't worth their contracts. Its like a house. What the home owner owes on his mortgage is more than the current value of the house. That's a bad situation. Have you seen enough to commit long-term to him. Don't be naïve. All of these guys want to get paid. Good for them. Part of running a sports team is managing assets. We sit here all day discussing trading players for top value. All I said was can the Rangers maximize the value of a player at least once in their pathetic existence and not wait until they are forced to make a decision.

By that rationale, we should have traded McDonagh rather than pay him big bucks as an arb-eligible RFA. Why didn't you advocate that?

And you didn't answer my question. What leads you to believe that Zucc's value will drop? Sure, he'll be making more money and that will inherently make him less valuable unless he improves commensurate with the raise, but we obviously aren't going to trade everyone who's due for a new contract. What is it about Zucc that makes you think his value will fall so low? What kind of contract are you expecting him to get?