Why We Can't Rebuild Fully Until 2021

[Machinehead]

Presumably the Brass/Step for Mika/Lias trades signaled that the team is more concerned with the future than the present. Either way, what the GM decides is almost irrelevant. The team is going down. All the bad contracts will get worse as Hank, Staal, Smith, etc age. Some good contracts may become bad if Shatty or whoever lose a step. McDonagh and MZA will leave or get much more, even as they get older.

The Rangers can either rebuild or get worse without acquiring the youth needed to rebuild, but either way we will get progressively worse.

Ah the recommended daily dose of HF doom and gloom.

I hope the rebuild never happens and you all wait the rest of your lives in vain.

I hope Zuccarello is still on the roster at age 93 and we roll him out on his death bed to play goal.

 

[DanielBrassard]

Presumably the Brass/Step for Mika/Lias trades signaled that the team is more concerned with the future than the present. Either way, what the GM decides is almost irrelevant. The team is going down. All the bad contracts will get worse as Hank, Staal, Smith, etc age. Some good contracts may become bad if Shatty or whoever lose a step. McDonagh and MZA will leave or get much more, even as they get older.

The Rangers can either rebuild or get worse without acquiring the youth needed to rebuild, but either way we will get progressively worse.

A rebuilding team was in on Duchene and wanted him badly, according to Bob Mckenzie? Doesn't add up. We were also close to signing 38 year old Marleau to replace Stepan.

 

[Matz03]

A rebuilding team was in on Duchene and wanted him badly, according to Bob Mckenzie? Doesn't add up. We were also close to signing 38 year old Marleau to replace Stepan.

I don't believe any of that, actually regarding Marleau when the terms were mention the call ended. NY never had interest at that term and those dollars. Bob is on TV now, he needs material.

 

[DanielBrassard]

I don't believe any of that, actually regarding Marleau when the terms were mention the call ended. NY never had interest at that term and those dollars. Bob is on TV now, he needs material.

No kidding, but there was interest in him for sure. Why sign him at all if you are rebuilding team?

 

[Synergy27]

Can you post the TL|DR version now?

People do come here to kill time, read people's opinions, and respond right? What's the point of this?

 

[Beacon]

A rebuilding team was in on Duchene and wanted him badly, according to Bob Mckenzie? Doesn't add up. We were also close to signing 38 year old Marleau to replace Stepan.

Duchene is the same age as Kreider and only 3 years older than Skjei. Depending on what the team gave up, it could be part of rebuilding. Say they offered Zuccarello for Duchene as main pieces (forget if it's fair value, maybe the Rangers add something, but just focus on who are the main pieces). That certainly shows a move to get younger. On the other hand, if the deal was Lias+Chytil for Duchene, then it's a move in the other direction.

Not sure they wanted Marleau. If they did, it could still be part of rebuilding since it would be a short-term, fill the gap contract. The Rangers signed Rucinsky at the age of 34 shortly after they had a firesale that had them trade everyone old except Jagr at the 2004 deadline. Incidentally, Rucinsky himself was traded at the 2004 TDL only to be immediately brought back. They also signed Straka and Nylander, both 32, and Rucchin, 34. On defense, they added Malik and Strudwick, both 30. Right before the Rangers had the 2004 TDL firesale, they acquired Jagr. Therefore, signing a single old plug could be consistent with rebuilding.

 

[Savant]

The interesting (?) thing to me is that the Rangers definitely had a window to rebuild in this manner this summer. Of course this would have included not signing Shattenkirk and Smith, and probably trading McDonagh; and possibly Zuccarello. This would have always been unlikely, but after trading Stepan for futures, it was certainly a legitimate option

 

[TheTakedown]

The interesting (?) thing to me is that the Rangers definitely had a window to rebuild in this manner this summer. Of course this would have included not signing Shattenkirk and Smith, and probably trading McDonagh; and possibly Zuccarello. This would have always been unlikely, but after trading Stepan for futures, it was certainly a legitimate option

That's where the "remain competitive" part comes in. This is NY, you can't suck, or nobody will come and watch you--just look at the Giants right now. Lots of empty seats, and an unhappy owner.

Trading McDonagh can still happen if the right pieces are coming back.

I think what was more likely was that the Rangers knew their NHL depth in the RD position was very weak, so they went out and bought Shattenkirk and Smith, and then traded for DeAngelo who is basically Shattenkirk but 6 years younger so, again, rebuilding while still staying competitive.

Personally I like this approach better. If the bottoming out approach doesn't get you a generational player, you end up like Buffalo or Florida--constant rebuilding and bad/no results. The Rangers are taking guys that are developed and on good contracts, selling them for pieces, and then signing replacements out of free agency. While some might say this is "kicking the can down the road", I think it's basically how you have to operate a team. You can only look so far into the future, otherwise you're so hellbent on being good "in 5 years" and you forget about the teams current state

 

[Savant]

That's where the "remain competitive" part comes in. This is NY, you can't suck, or nobody will come and watch you--just look at the Giants right now. Lots of empty seats, and an unhappy owner.

Trading McDonagh can still happen if the right pieces are coming back.

I think what was more likely was that the Rangers knew their NHL depth in the RD position was very weak, so they went out and bought Shattenkirk and Smith, and then traded for DeAngelo who is basically Shattenkirk but 6 years younger so, again, rebuilding while still staying competitive.

Personally I like this approach better. If the bottoming out approach doesn't get you a generational player, you end up like Buffalo or Florida--constant rebuilding and bad/no results. The Rangers are taking guys that are developed and on good contracts, selling them for pieces, and then signing replacements out of free agency. While some might say this is "kicking the can down the road", I think it's basically how you have to operate a team. You can only look so far into the future, otherwise you're so hellbent on being good "in 5 years" and you forget about the teams current state

You can rebuild in New York. That’s a false narrative. You just have to be open with your fan base about it and go all the way for it. The Yankees went for a full rebuild and it worked out great. Sure they are ahead of schedule, but all of their recent moves have been for the future, or because they had assets to spare from their rebuilding efforts. They are also trying to cut payroll. The fans accept this because it’s a of of the Plan and it’s clear.

 

[Beacon]

The earlier you rebuild, the faster it takes. If you rebuild when the team is empty, a few early picks won't help. But if you trade McDonagh for Trouba and a pick; do another Brass for Mika trade, but this time with MZA; acquire quantity of lower picks for Nash, Grabs, Holden. Then you already have Shesterkin, Lias, Chytil, etc. and Mika, Miller, Kreider, Butcher, etc. Throw in the fact that all these trades mean you get a top-5 pick in 2018, and suddenly rebuilding goes much faster. By the time kids mature, the Staal/Smith/Hank cap problem is over, and we can compete.

 

[SA16]

Does trading McDonagh who is under contract for one more year for a comparable player who is five years younger and not an upcoming UFA seem at all reasonable from the other teams perspective?

 

[Savant]

Does trading McDonagh who is under contract for one more year for a comparable player who is five years younger and not an upcoming UFA seem at all reasonable from the other teams perspective?

Of course not, but it depends on the definition of the word comparable. You can make that move for a prospect with upside at that position in a team trying to win now (Liljegren at Toronto probably makes the most sense; McDonagh takes the first pair role they are projecting Liljegren for and they bet on Dermott being able to hold down a spot on second pair) but you aren’t going to be able to move him for the player you are describing.

 

[True Blue]

You can rebuild in New York. That’s a false narrative. You just have to be open with your fan base about it and go all the way for it. The Yankees went for a full rebuild and it worked out great. Sure they are ahead of schedule, but all of their recent moves have been for the future, or because they had assets to spare from their rebuilding efforts. They are also trying to cut payroll. The fans accept this because it’s a of of the Plan and it’s clear.

Agreed 100%. There was no screaming. The fans were tired of seeing the same ole, same ole. The Yankees laid out a clear plan and the fan base accepted it. There was no beating around the bushes. And if this year would have resulted in a much worse year than what occurred, then the fans would have still accepted it because the organization was on a clear path.

 

[haveandare]

Do people think teams like Buffalo, Florida, etc didn't have these same rebuild fantasies? Keep this guy, move this guy for a younger, better version of himself, get a ton of firsts and we're winning the cup in 5 years!

Look at the teams where rebuilds have worked fantastically and find the ones where top, top players being picked in the first 3 or so picks of deep drafts didn't play a huge role. Pitt, Washington, Chicago, Toronto, Edmonton (sort of)... If you don't get Crosby (1OA and generational), Malkin (2OA), OV (1OA and generational), Toews (3OA), Kane (1OA), Matthews (1OA), McDavid (1OA), etc, tearing it down with plans to be actually competing for the cup again in the near future is nothing more than a daydream. And even then, you can end up getting the Yak type players who are highly touted but turn to crap when all is said and done. Even Edmonton, with McDavid, the best prospect of our time, and so, so many other 1OA picks still doesn't look ready to compete anytime soon.

I'm not saying don't get younger, but these talks of committing wholesale to a rebuild, moving everyone who is slightly older for picks and throwing caution to the wind only to end up even better in a few years are optimistic at best. I'd way rather do what they're doing now. Make moves for the future when they're there to make, but don't go overboard trying to tear down todays' team for a fantasy version of tomorrow's.

Edit: look at league standings right now, the bottom 4 teams have all been rebuilding by this wholesale logic for a number of years and have little to show for it. Edmonton was a playoff team last year, but they got McDavid, a prospect without an equal even on the horizon.

 

[Beacon]

Does trading McDonagh who is under contract for one more year for a comparable player who is five years younger and not an upcoming UFA seem at all reasonable from the other teams perspective?

Yes, if we get a player who is worse (e.g., young 3D) or riskier (e.g., prospect).

 

[WesMcCauley]

The best time to start rebuilding is when the old declining players on big contracts have a 2-3 years left on their contracts. Play the old guys, get top picks and let the young guys develop in Europe, Junior, AHL etc and call them up when they are ready. When all of the old declining players are done, hopefully most of the young guys are ready.

 

[KirkAlbuquerque]

Our top-13 picks in the last 30 years are: Jay More (10 overall), Michael Stewart (13), Sundstrom (8), Malhotra (7), Brendl (4), Lundmark (9), Blackburn (10), Jessiman (12), Montoya (6), Staal (12) and McIlrath (10). Staal is the only one who could be said to have been an above average NHLer, at least for a few seasons, but even he's nowhere near star level.

God thats depressing.