Who do you take at 9th Overall

[Larrybiv]

Eh, for me Wahlstrom and Tkachuk are right there with him – and that second concussion has me rattled...

And if it rattled you, what about him?

 

[Machinehead]

I think it was more a joke on your posting tendencies rather than your player assessment abilities

Then I disagree.

I'm flawed, but one thing I'm not is inconsistent. I'm prepared to grind it out on Bouchard for four years.

 

[Larrybiv]

I don't think we should be trading up. How many years have we gone with no first? Too many. We can't lump them all together and put all eggs in one basket. This is too important. If a team wants to give us a pick for a player, fine. But I'm a no go on packaging the draft picks for higher draft picks. Stock the system with the depth to have young ELC players in bunches. It's essential for competing teams to have that pipeline running.

Agreed. This is our one chance at "catching up" to the rest of the league. Blowing all those picks had set us very far into the distance. We need "multiplicious picks/players" for a far better chance that more of them will be NHLers. Trading 2 players for 1 is a losing proposition from where we stand. Unless that kid is generational. Oh how I hate that word.

 

[haveandare]

Agreed. This is our one chance at "catching up" to the rest of the league. Blowing all those picks had set us very far into the distance. We need "multiplicious picks/players" for a far better chance that more of them will be NHLers. Trading 2 players for 1 is a losing proposition from where we stand. Unless that kid is generational. Oh how I hate that word.

Imo if we can pacakage one first and something else to get one more top 12 pick in that tier of players it’s be very good. Don’t think we should trade up to 3 or anything crazy like that

 

[eco's bones]

I think We Should:

• Trade Zucc for a mid 1st. A 2019 one if necessary - but then we should get something more
• Use Spooner and/or a 2nd or 3rd rounder to move up if the right opportunity presents itself
• Use one of our late 1st rounders plus to acquire a more developed 20-22 y.o. player that is already drafted that has high potential but has maybe not progressed as thought yet.
• Look seriously at a UFA defensemen in Europe. There has to be some serviceavable gem there.
• Sign Jenssen on a cheap one or Two year deal
• Trade B Smith for Matt Martin retaining a bit
• Sign Kovy, JVR (If price/term is reasonable) and Roussel.
• Let Georgiv get the backup role. Resign the vet Czech goalie in Maine that played well.

This will balance out the rebuild a bit. We cannot only have a bunch of 19 or 20 year olds in the pipeline or on the ice like Gorton said. They will have to earn their spots in camp. If so, more trades can be made freeing roster space

I don't think Zucc on his own gets us a mid 1st at least not in 2018 and since we don't know how a trading partner might finish next season there's no way of saying we'd have a mid 1st in 2019.

I would like to move up into the teens using one of our other firsts--I don't think the 11,12 (Islanders) 14 (Philadelphia) or 17 (New Jersey) are going to be available to us.

I don't mind the idea of the Smith for Martin deal and I'd target Kovalchuk and Roussel too. Not sure about JVR.

The issue I have with Georgiev is getting him enough games. If he's backing up Henrik he needs at least 30 or a stint or two in Hartford. Mazanec played very well down there and we have his RFA rights for one more year but IMO he's probably not the greatest callup in an emergency and we still have Nell and Halverson neither of whom have impressed much. Beyond that Shesterkin and Huska but if the Rangers sign a guy to backup Henrik there's no point in re-signing Mazanec unless you can dump one of Nell/Halverson. I don't want 6 signed goalies and only two of them really capable of playing in the NHL.

 

[Machinehead]

If any of the defensemen are there, I think one will definitely be Hughes.

He's 5'9". You'd be better off slapping every GM's mother.

 

[kovazub94]

I don't think Zucc on his own gets us a mid 1st at least not in 2018 and since we don't know how a trading partner might finish next season there's no way of saying we'd have a mid 1st in 2019.

I would like to move up into the teens using one of our other firsts--I don't think the 11,12 (Islanders) 14 (Philadelphia) or 17 (New Jersey) are going to be available to us.

I don't mind the idea of the Smith for Martin deal and I'd target Kovalchuk and Roussel too. Not sure about JVR.

The issue I have with Georgiev is getting him enough games. If he's backing up Henrik he needs at least 30 or a stint or two in Hartford. Mazanec played very well down there and we have his RFA rights for one more year but IMO he's probably not the greatest callup in an emergency and we still have Nell and Halverson neither of whom have impressed much. Beyond that Shesterkin and Huska but if the Rangers sign a guy to backup Henrik there's no point in re-signing Mazanec unless you can dump one of Nell/Halverson. I don't want 6 signed goalies and only two of them really capable of playing in the NHL.

I think if a team has two first round picks and needs a top 6 vet then Zuke should be worth one of these picks (mid teens - 20).

Also shouldn't be difficult to get Georgiev to play some 30+ game in Hank's backup capacity plus some odd games in Hartford (like one of three weekend game they often play).

 

[CasusBelli]

And if it rattled you, what about him?

At such a young age? Maybe it's time, for the sake of his future wellbeing, to reconsider a career in hockey.

 

[Vinny DeAngelo]

I think if a team has two first round picks and needs a top 6 vet then Zuke should be worth one of these picks (mid teens - 20).

Also shouldn't be difficult to get Georgiev to play some 30+ game in Hank's backup capacity plus some odd games in Hartford (like one of three weekend game they often play).

Could we turn zucc and one of our later picks into moving up into the top 5?

 

[Nopuckluck]

Could we turn zucc and one of our later picks into moving up into the top 5?

Not Zucc. To get top 5 you’d need Kreider or Zibby plus a late 1st

 

[Edge]

Could we turn zucc and one of our later picks into moving up into the top 5?

I'd put the percentage at close to zero.

 

[Ghost of jas]

Could we turn zucc and one of our later picks into moving up into the top 5?

The one team that might consider such a move would be Arizona. But, it would likely be Zucc and the 9th for the 5th and maybe Domi (if he’s worn out his welcome in Arizona) or Perlini. And the Rangers might have to add a pick.

 

[Edge]

The one team that might consider such a move would be Arizona. But, it would likely be Zucc and the 9th for the 5th and maybe Domi (if he’s worn out his welcome in Arizona) or Perlini. And the Rangers might have to add a pick.

I think the challenge with Zucc is that a team has to believe they can resign him. They have to be able to offer him some value --- the ability to compete, a strong emerging team, a location that interests him, financial incentives (no state income tax, etc.).

When we start throwing destinations like Arizona or Edmonton out there, I'm not really seeing those as destinations that Zucc would look to sign on for after this contract. It's why I've never really seen him as a fit for those teams.

 

[Ghost of jas]

I think the challenge with Zucc is that a team has to believe they can resign him. They have to be able to offer him some value --- the ability to compete, a strong emerging team, a location that interests him, financial incentives (no state income tax, etc.).

When we start throwing destinations like Arizona or Edmonton out there, I'm not really seeing those as destinations that Zucc would look to sign on for after this contract. It's why I've never really seen him as a fit for those teams.

The reason I could see it is that yes, Arizona might be a hard sell for Zuccarello to re-sign, but, he goes there on an inexpensive contract, they’re a team that likely believes they for a playoff spot, and Arizona is not Edmonton. I have a harder time seeing Zuccarello re-signing in Edmonton than I do Arizona.

 

[Edge]

The reason I could see it is that yes, Arizona might be a hard sell for Zuccarello to re-sign, but, he goes there on an inexpensive contract, they’re a team that likely believes they for a playoff spot, and Arizona is not Edmonton. I have a harder time seeing Zuccarello re-signing in Edmonton than I do Arizona.

Yeah, but Arizona is such as a mess and has been for a while.

It's not like trying to sell him on Vegas or LA, or a franchise like Dallas.

Not sure he's the difference between them taking the next step.

 

[Ghost of jas]

Yeah, but Arizona is such as a mess and has been for a while.

It's not like trying to sell him on Vegas or LA, or a franchise like Dallas.

Not sure he's the difference between them taking the next step.

But they are a team with the arrow pointed up.

 

[Brooklyn Rangers Fan]

Yeah, but Arizona is such as a mess and has been for a while.

It's not like trying to sell him on Vegas or LA, or a franchise like Dallas.

Not sure he's the difference between them taking the next step.

Florida and Dallas seem by far the most natural fit. Excellent teams, ready to compete, just missed the dance this year, attractive financially, with picks that are at just about the right value for a player of Zucc's stature with a year left.

Of course, this all assumes Gorts would flip him straight-up for a 2018 pick, and he may well prefer pick(s) in 2019 and/or prospects.

 

[Edge]

But they are a team with the arrow pointed up.

Pointed up, yes. On the brink of having that arrow pierce through? Probably not.

I think if we're looking for those kind of teams, we're talking Dallas, Florida, Anaheim, etc.

 

[Kovalev27]

get me a first rounder in the 10 to 15 range for zucc and a third and I'd be thrilled. take kupari another dangerous great skater that to me projects more as a winger than a center. (kotkaniemi will be gone by then I'm certain of it)

 

[Amazing Kreiderman]

get me a first rounder in the 10 to 15 range for zucc and a third and I'd be thrilled. take kupari another dangerous great skater that to me projects more as a winger than a center. (kotkaniemi will be gone by then I'm certain of it)

Not really sold on Kupari that high. Kravtsov is the better option if available. Kupari started off great but his performance later on in the season raised some doubts with me.

 

[CasusBelli]

I think We Should:

• Trade Zucc for a mid 1st. A 2019 one if necessary - but then we should get something more
• Use Spooner and/or a 2nd or 3rd rounder to move up if the right opportunity presents itself
• Use one of our late 1st rounders plus to acquire a more developed 20-22 y.o. player that is already drafted that has high potential but has maybe not progressed as thought yet.
• Look seriously at a UFA defensemen in Europe. There has to be some serviceavable gem there.
• Sign Jenssen on a cheap one or Two year deal
• Trade B Smith for Matt Martin retaining a bit
• Sign Kovy, JVR (If price/term is reasonable) and Roussel.
• Let Georgiv get the backup role. Resign the vet Czech goalie in Maine that played well.

This will balance out the rebuild a bit. We cannot only have a bunch of 19 or 20 year olds in the pipeline or on the ice like Gorton said. They will have to earn their spots in camp. If so, more trades can be made freeing roster space

• It's now or never; his value will only decline. Still, though, I wonder if that return is too ambitious.
• Could Namestnikov realistically fetch a similar return? I'd keep Spooner over him.
• I don't quite agree with this. Why settle for an underdeveloped prospect? Maybe we were unlucky, but do we want to risk getting another Etem, when we could get a player with a higher ceiling? I get that the ceiling for such a prospect is respectable and the floor is higher than it would be for a recent draftee, but I don't know if this strategy suits us right now, or--more precisely--whether a pick is the right asset to give up for such an asset.
• Absolutely; I'm sure we could find a serviceable defenseman in the SEL (not to sound like a nativist, but communication is important, so, at this point, I think fluency in English is valuable).
• Why him specifically? I'm just curious -- not doubting your reasoning
• I'll pass, but that's only because I loathe Martin
• Definitely on board with this one
• Agreed

 

[Hi ImHFNYR]

Agreed. This is our one chance at "catching up" to the rest of the league. Blowing all those picks had set us very far into the distance. We need "multiplicious picks/players" for a far better chance that more of them will be NHLers. Trading 2 players for 1 is a losing proposition from where we stand. Unless that kid is generational. Oh how I hate that word.

You wouldn't have traded JT Miller, Kevin hayes and Dylan mcilrath for pat laine?

There are 2 massive flaws in what you're saying.
1) You're assuming more chances means more pros. It doesn't. All 3 could bust.
2) It also misses the MUCH more important thing to consider. Chances at game changing talent and the value of that talent.

Assuming all three of our picks become 2nd liners or 3rd liners. Let's also assume we could have traded for a player who will be scoring 35-40 G per year, 80+ points while playing solid D.

It's not even remotely a question you trade those middle 6 players for the game changer every single time.

You could have 2 of the 3 bust completely with only one of them making the NHL (being a 3rd line, 30 point Defensive forward)

I'm not even saying you're totally wrong for wanting to keep the picks. The top pick we could trade up for could bust too.

What i am saying is that I disagree completely with your reason for saying that.

We don't JUST need warm bodies. We also need game changers, top line players, players who can take over. Deciding whether that talent is available at the top of the draft (Or later in the draft) or whether the talent at the top is too risky to trade up for? Well that's certainly fair to debate. But simply "We need more players so we need to keep more picks."? No way.

 

[Ghost of jas]

Pointed up, yes. On the brink of having that arrow pierce through? Probably not.

I think if we're looking for those kind of teams, we're talking Dallas, Florida, Anaheim, etc.

You are talking about a team that traded for Stepan and Hjalmarsson.

 

[eco's bones]

I think the challenge with Zucc is that a team has to believe they can resign him. They have to be able to offer him some value --- the ability to compete, a strong emerging team, a location that interests him, financial incentives (no state income tax, etc.).

When we start throwing destinations like Arizona or Edmonton out there, I'm not really seeing those as destinations that Zucc would look to sign on for after this contract. It's why I've never really seen him as a fit for those teams.

Exactly how I look at this. I love Zucc as a player and I think he has a few good years left but he's already hit 30 years old and talking about sending even the 15OA in what looks like it might be a great draft year to the Rangers for a 31 year old guy with maybe 5-6 good years left who is only signed for one more year before he becomes a UFA I wouldn't do it straight up. At the very least I would want some guarantee that he would re-sign but even then I'd want a bit more. For Arizona Zucc's signature for 4 years and the earliest of the Rangers Tampa/Boston 1st rounders anyway + maybe even a sweetener so for John Chayka Zuccarello could block that deal simply by refusing to extend.

 

[Edge]

You are talking about a team that traded for Stepan and Hjalmarsson.

Stepan was several years younger and had term on his contract.

If Stepan had 12 months left on his contract;

and the 7th pick was the 4th pick;

and the 2017 draft was the 2018 draft;

Arizona is not making that trade.

We simply cannot keep comparing the Stepan trade to a potential Zucc trade. That is a recipe for disappointment.

The Stepan trade is not, nor will it be the barometer for a Zucc trade.