The last part is key. "In return for a veteran or a rental." Not that I think LB was hinting at anything, but I think it's possible that they could move a kid if it meant getting an impact player back who can grow with the team. Especially if they can get one on an ELC or 2nd contract.
-
Xenforo Cloud will be upgrading us to version 2.3.5 on March 3rd at 12 AM GMT. This version has increased stability and fixes several bugs. We expect downtime for the duration of the update. The admin team will continue to work on existing issues, templates and upgrade all necessary available addons to minimize impact of this new version. Click Here for Updates
- Status
The last part is key. "In return for a veteran or a rental." Not that I think LB was hinting at anything, but I think it's possible that they could move a kid if it meant getting an impact player back who can grow with the team. Especially if they can get one on an ELC or 2nd contract.
i wouldnt want Heatley if all that Rangers had to offer was Taylor Pyatt.. he is slow, old and being paid based on his skill from the past that is declining.. no thanks
This post is largely in support of the above, with an important caveat.
I agree we MUST get a quality piece for whatever give up.
We need to make some acquisitions, and we need to give up quality to get quality.
And depending upon the variables, we may need to even overpay in quality to get the guy(s) we want.
We have to be careful with moving most of our prospects, who are good, but not established. That will have us overpay, which we can't afford when our own currency is discounted by such decision we ourselves make.
The other thing is to try and pick up not high 1sts like Pouilott (ok as a cheap signing filler, but not to trade assets for); but instead try to get guys who, ok it's not 100%, there is some risk in almost everything, but who show strong upside likely for success.
So for example, IF we were to do a deal with Col AVs, who are desperate for (especially L) D, and we were to offer
something around
McDonagh + for MacKinnon + [and only for MacK.]
or Staal + for X+
or MDZ + for Y+
in each instance, we should try and get a guy like Duncan Siemens, whether he is more of a required throw in in the first deal as a condition for moving McD, or he is not a throw in and part of payment going back and forth. The point is to get real quality value on our return.
That brings me to my next point.
We don't KNOW Brassard will duplicate his solid fill in for Stepan which he did end of last season, but it is a reasonable bet.
I am not for moving Stepan just to dump him.
I am saying if we are going to take your let's get quality route, the guy we want route, we need to think about reasonable risk.
We can possibly get EKane + for something around Staal + MDZ+. The +s aside, whether or not we want to go there is another question. That however, is a significant add w/out Stepan because we had a complementary fit w/Jets. However, my point is we have one surplus in Stepan, we have to make it count. Go big. A top RD w/excellent can't miss likelihood.
Stepan + for Seth Jones + (difficult but not impossible, IMO)
or
Stepan + for Ristolainen +, maybe also buf 1st if Rangers do a heavy add, (more feasible)
these are the kinds of deals we have to seriously consider making.
All my detractors who want to constantly be-atch and moan about my proposals which are in a similar vein, THIS is part of the approach we need to take, even if it is a gamble, if we want to get to the next level vs the Kings and Black Hawks. (Also we are dominating play and shots vs. others, but we are not ringing up huge scores, so we have to be careful with how well we grade and place the team.)
Would love adding significantly and getting a guy we want, either Trouba or Faulk from Carolina. Don't see that happening.
Setting aside its lefty for lefty, don't see MDZ and significant upgrade to get either Hedman or Doug Hamilton from Boston happening. Would want too much going the other way.
What approach? Making wild and silly trade proposals involving players that neither team would want to trade?
The alternative is to make a couple moves. Deal MDZ for a piece you want and a piece another team wants, then flip that 2nd piece for something you could use. You don't have to do it all in one shot.
I'd love to target Adam Clendening somehow. Loved him in his draft year. Shades of Kevin Shattenkirk. Really dynamic presence on the PP.
I'd love to target Adam Clendening somehow. Loved him in his draft year. Shades of Kevin Shattenkirk. Really dynamic presence on the PP.
Shadowtron
Registered User
howztheglass
Registered User
- Jan 27, 2009
- 2,454
- 645
How about something like this:
Buffalo is about to have a firesale so,
M.Moulson--3.1 UFA at the end of the year
J Mcbain--1.8 RFA at the end of the year
For
DZ--2.5 RFA at the end of the end
Pouliot--1.3 UFA at the end of the year
Will most likely have to add a draft pick--say last of our 2nd picks
Moulson is a top 6 forward
McBain is a RD that were looking for whom we can control and just about everyone wanted him from Carolina.
We take on only 800,000 in salary--which we can send down Miller if needed(not a big fan of doing this--I would rather get rid of Pyatt).
I know everyone is shooting for the stars hoping for Zibby/Coyle/Yak/the kid from Tampa--but this deal could solve 2 of our biggest needs.
We also know that there's a good chance Moulson will want to stay after playing on the island and performing very well.
Alright flame on.
Buffalo is about to have a firesale so,
M.Moulson--3.1 UFA at the end of the year
J Mcbain--1.8 RFA at the end of the year
For
DZ--2.5 RFA at the end of the end
Pouliot--1.3 UFA at the end of the year
Will most likely have to add a draft pick--say last of our 2nd picks
Moulson is a top 6 forward
McBain is a RD that were looking for whom we can control and just about everyone wanted him from Carolina.
We take on only 800,000 in salary--which we can send down Miller if needed(not a big fan of doing this--I would rather get rid of Pyatt).
I know everyone is shooting for the stars hoping for Zibby/Coyle/Yak/the kid from Tampa--but this deal could solve 2 of our biggest needs.
We also know that there's a good chance Moulson will want to stay after playing on the island and performing very well.
Alright flame on.
SKjEi o2
Registered User
- Nov 13, 2013
- 187
- 0
Trouba and Faulk are at the top of my wish list. I would give up anyone short of McDonagh and Stepan for them ( and B Richards because of recapture).
Probably. But with Torts, players that end up on his **** list usually have their values plummet on the trade market. We all thought Gaborik would net us some blue chip players... didn't happen. The argument that Kess is injury prone can be made by an opposing GM and if he does in fact end up on Torts **** list he'll have to go.
Vanc needs D. Kess plays 2c. To get DZ and improve his defense Torts may be willing to give up Kess, especially if that mean getting back Brassard (who in that high intensity and low offensive creativity system should thrive) who would become his 2c.
The ELC is less than DZ's $2.55M. That wouldn't be a money deal. Two ELCs can be traded for $2.55M. Use the bonus cushion. The bonuses only come into play if they hit. The Rangers might have to take back a small contract to make the money work depending upon the return and how much space the other team has.
Moulson will probably test the market, and we don't have the cap space to give him the $5.5M+ he's going to demand. We'd basically be trading for 3/4's of a season of Moulson, and praying that McBain can turn himself back into a offensively-minded top-4 guy.
It might solve two needs, but it wouldn't solve them for long. Moulson is also a complimentary player. He makes a living from banging in the garbage that better players generate. I think we need another dynamic presence in the top-six. Someone who can create their own chances and finish them.
Right. Just saying it's plausible, and that I think it's the better way to go. This team needs to take a shot on a kid who is ready to breakout, not try and poach someone who has already established themselves. They might get lucky and patch more than one hole in the organization.
Gardner McKay
RIP, Jimmy.
Not in a million ******* years do we consider these. You don't get it do you? You want our GM to operate just like the NHL game series does. Well guess what, some times prospects bust. Unlike the NHL series, they fail. Trading established NHL players for ones that have a chance at failing is a formula for... FAILURE.
You have been after Hertl for a while so I will use him as an example.
Hertl has an unsustainable shooting % right now of 21.4%. He will still be a good player but when his shooting % comes back to earth at around 10.5-12%, his goal total will be roughly cut in half meaning he is not truly a 50 goal scorer (at this time).
IIRC you were willing to trade Stepan + Staal +? for Hertl. You will trade a sure fire 20 goal/60 point C and an All star defenseman for a kid who may top out as a 30G scorer (if you are lucky)? Ridiculous. Asinine. Flat out crazy.
BBKers
Registered User
I would look at acquiring P Berglund for Brassard straight up
Similar salaries/cap hits
Both RFAS
3rd/2nd line center tweeners
Both need a jump start
A new environment might provide that
Similar salaries/cap hits
Both RFAS
3rd/2nd line center tweeners
Both need a jump start
A new environment might provide that
howztheglass
Registered User
- Jan 27, 2009
- 2,454
- 645
I do agree with almost everything you wrote--but take into account that:
A--We will most likely buyout Richards
B--Moulson will most likely want to stay close to home(hometown discount).
C--While you are correct he doesn't make plays by himself(aka Nash) he's willing to go in front of the net and scores plenty of PP goals which is something only Cally does on this team.
So he could help in multiple areas.
McBain could play D on the second PP unit--instead of Staal and would most likely be playing on the 3rd defense pair where any offense that he generates is more than we've been getting.
Again I'm not disagreeing with some of the things you wrote--but something along the lines of this trade would be a definite help.
The approach of trading established top talent for a premium rookie or prospect +. Specifically something like Stepan for Risto or Jones.
Don't you read?
Your premise is wrong.
The Preds/Sabes should, making a profit, be willing to trade a choice block for Stepan + if the + is significant.
The Rangers should, filling a major need, be willing to trade Stepan +.
You may have an issue with any individual one of props that are being thought out loud on the fly. Some are solid, some are not. But all are worthy of discussion to ascertain pros and cons, try to come to realization, progress, get to the next level.
Have an open mind.
Even though he is like 5'10ish, I think, not great for D pushing out the crease, he is a solid investment for QB-D.
Asked in another thread about
MDZ
for
Morin + Clendenning + either a 2nd or McNeil
Discussion of value was moot, cause, to effect that Hawks need RD down the road, and MDZ is strictly lefty.
Ail
Based and Rangerspilled.
Trading the teams best center for question marks creates a bigger hole all for what, a gamble?
I would have an open mind but I'm afraid all the stupid from these cosmically bad trade proposals might seep in and cause permanent damage.
Does not hurt to have an open mind and ask the question.
However, I expect even with adjustment for injury prone-ness, Kesler commands more if he hits the market.
Don't get me wrong, it's not a horrible idea by any means. I just don't think it's the right deal. Even when we buy out Richards, you have to remember that Callahan, Lundqvist and Girardi will all be due for raises. That will eat up a considerable portion of the Richards buyout money.
He plays a spot on the PP that both Callahan and Kreider play. I think it's more important to the team to let Kreider grow into that net-front presence than it is to bring in a specialist like Moulson. What we really need is a guy who can play the off-wing and give us a shooting threat from the circle.
I've advocated McBain for a while, but that was primarily as a depth player swap. I.e., Pyatt for McBain in the hopes that both players can rekindle their game in a new environment. With Richards getting bought out, we're going to need another point presence. I like McDonagh there, but can Moore be that 2nd guy? Can McDonagh run the show?
I think the deal you proposed would certainly help in the short term, but I worry about the long term benefit. Do we want to give Moulson a retirement contract? Can we even fit it in? I'm not sure I want to, and I don't think we could fit him in without sacrificing someone else.
Are the Rangers rebuilding?
Your consistently put forth trades for top 3 draft picks - mostly teenagers - and frame it as filling a need. You want to acquire these players by trading current Rangers that already fill a need. Its nonsense.
- Status
