Re-Tool or full on Rebuild?

[Inferno]

Brian Compton mentioned that E.Staal felt very disenfranchised by the way he was used my the Rangers... as a wing, playing with Hayes. It's one thing to not like the trade, but misusing the acquisition only compounds the problem

im expecting the same BS next year with all our new players.

FFS we once had Dylan McIlrath play winger....

 

[NikC]

Agreed, which is why no matter what they do short of a true rebuild they will never have the potential to be as good as that team is.

They could maybe have better depth, better at one position here or there, but better overall than a team that has Crosby, Malkin, Kessel, Letang? Or the cores of several other teams?

It's right back to the anything can happen idea should they not be able to find a way to have elite talents and also have impact youth coming up all at the same time so they can fit all that under the cap all at the same time.

I don't believe the NYR were in a "anything can happen" mode during their SC and EC runs. They were a VG team, but not a Great team.

Rangers don't have All world players like Pittsburgh, but Boston did it without elite players, however they had some very good players at key positions throughout the team, PLUS some x-factor Vets...

Rangers should , and hoping Gorton can spearhead this here like he did for Boston. Boston had an identity. .. big, fast, and skilled and physical

Rangers, if keeping Hank, need to follow the Boston model in the moves they make. Tearing down the team in the hopes of drafting elite players like PItt, CHi, will take a long time. With lundqvist that will never happen

 

[Off Sides]

I don't believe the NYR were in a "anything can happen" mode during their SC and EC runs. They were a VG team, but not a Great team.

Rangers don't have All world players like Pittsburgh, but Boston did it without elite players, however they had some very good players at key positions throughout the team, PLUS some x-factor Vets...

Rangers should , and hoping Gorton can spearhead this here like he did for Boston. Boston had an identity. .. big, fast, and skilled and physical

Rangers, if keeping Hank, need to follow the Boston model in the moves they make. Tearing down the team in the hopes of drafting elite players like PItt, CHi, will take a long time. With lundqvist that will never happen

It's just different opinions, I think the Kings, Tampa, Pitt the last three that eliminated the Rangers were all better teams with the Kings and Pens being much better teams. I think they are just likely to run into those much better teams in the playoffs over and over again and it would take the anything to happen for them to advance (anything to happen mostly meaning a real underdog winning a 7 game series against a much better team)

As far as to what they will do, I highly doubt we will see a rebuild as well, not just Lundqvist either, I don't think their marketing and sales departments would recommend it.

 

[Raspewtin]

im expecting the same BS next year with all our new players.

FFS we once had Dylan McIlrath play winger....

If that doesn't sound off loud alarm bells re: AV's personnel management I don't know what will.

 

[NikC]

It's just different opinions, I think the Kings, Tampa, Pitt the last three that eliminated the Rangers were all better teams with the Kings and Pens being much better teams. I think they are just likely to run into those much better teams in the playoffs over and over again and it would take the anything to happen for them to advance (anything to happen mostly meaning a real underdog winning a 7 game series against a much better team)

As far as to what they will do, I highly doubt we will see a rebuild as well, not just Lundqvist either, I don't think their marketing and sales departments would recommend it.

The "Boston model" is much more attainable than the "blow it up model" In an effort to ice a SC contender during Lundqvists tenure in NY.

Kings were better but by how much? Same with Tampa. Seems like you're saying either you have a stacked team or it comes down to luck/anything can happen.

Regardless we both realize the Rangers need raw talent infused all over the lineup. I would much rather see them build an identity and bring in players that fit that identity, then to arbitrarily acquire younger, talented players...

 

[gorangers0525]

Boston model is relying on their goaltender to have arguably the best playoffs of all time.

 

[KreiderHouseRules*]

I agree with E Staal's sentiments.

Was he good on the 3rd line as a wing? Outside of 1 game with Hayes & Lindberg, no, he wasn't.

But late in the season and in the playoffs when we couldn't even generate a quality chance, did AV even once try EStaal in the top-6? Did he ever once play opposite Zucc or play with Kreider or Nash?

Nope.

Not even tinkered with.

We were severely outpaced and outplayed, but let's not pretend we weren't also severely outcoached.

 

[NYRFANMANI]

Any retool or rebuild would require that AV be gone.

 

[Leetch3]

to me asking 'retool vs rebuild' is simply another way of saying 'keep hank vs trade hank'

 

[Samuel Culper III]

I honestly think the reality is genuinely that rebuilding now would be the most advantageous. This is when we can still get top return for Lundqvist, Zucc, etc.

A failed retool just leaves us with a legendary netminder who never won the big prize and no longer has the value to bring anything substantial to his team in a trade. The odds of a Cup winning retool vs a failed retool make it pretty favorable to just commit to the rebuild.

The problem is, we went so long without homegrown talent in our system that now we are over committed to them. I'm not saying Stepan and McD and Hank aren't all awesome, but we waited so long to raise our own talent we can't bear to let it go, even if it's the right move. And obviously, with Hank, it runs even deeper as he is a hall of fame goaltender.

 

[Tawnos]

I honestly think the reality is genuinely that rebuilding now would be the most advantageous. This is when we can still get top return for Lundqvist, Zucc, etc.

A failed retool just leaves us with a legendary netminder who never won the big prize and no longer has the value to bring anything substantial to his team in a trade. The odds of a Cup winning retool vs a failed retool make it pretty favorable to just commit to the rebuild.

The problem is, we went so long without homegrown talent in our system that now we are over committed to them. I'm not saying Stepan and McD and Hank aren't all awesome, but we waited so long to raise our own talent we can't bear to let it go, even if it's the right move. And obviously, with Hank, it runs even deeper as he is a hall of fame goaltender.

The odds between a Cup winning retool vs a failed retool are the same as the odds between a Cup winning rebuild vs a failed rebuild.

 

[Brooklyn Rangers Fan]

The odds between a Cup winning retool vs a failed retool are the same as the odds between a Cup winning rebuild vs a failed rebuild.

Hahaha. Okay, Tawnos, just because you SAY that doesn't make it true. C'mon now.

You may happen to believe that this team is uniquely positioned to retool and win (fair enough – you and I disagree, but fair enough), but post-lockout history shows that true rebuilds work more often than retools.

 

[Samuel Culper III]

The odds between a Cup winning retool vs a failed retool are the same as the odds between a Cup winning rebuild vs a failed rebuild.

Sure, maybe. I'd argue it's easier to do a rebuild properly than it is to retool on the fly with a 35 year old goalie and limited "win now" time. But a winning retool is a pipe dream that almost assuredly falls short and leaves us with ashes that we get to sell for pennies on the dollar when we ultimately end up beginning a proper rebuild anyway. A successful rebuild, you could argue, is more directly impacted by knowing when the appropriate time to begin that rebuild is than anything else. Identifying the long odds on successfully retooling this specific roster while Hank is still competitive and selling high is the shrewd, but tough, decision that lays the foundation for a successful rebuild. Holding onto Hank out of sentimentality and trying to retool on the fly now, only to drain our assets of their value while accomplishing nought but a couple more 1st/2nd round exits ensures more mediocre draft picks in the future and lays the tracks for a very difficult rebuild and another very dark stretch for Rangers fans.

Honestly, retooling with this roster does not inspire me with hope. The defense - McDonagh, Klein, Skjei, McIlrath, Staal and Girardi - have the collective puck moving accumen of a low end college team and are about as dynamic as white rice. McDonagh hasn't been the McDonagh we all swooned over in some time now and after him not a single one of those defenders has the potential for 30+ points. Moreover, forget offense, beyond McDonagh and Skjei, maybe Klein to a lesser extent, they're not even a particularly mobile bunch. In front of a 35 year old goalie, legend or not, the backbone of this team is so flawed I don't see "retooling" as anything more than an illusory option; something we sell ourselves on out of the hope that we can still get a Cup out of Lundqvist.

Even ignoring the fact that he's getting older and our defense is an uninspiring mess, I'm not nearly as impressed by names like Kreider, Hayes, Lindberg, Stalberg or the amount of eggs we have in the rookie Buchnevich basket, as some fans seem to be. It's just my opinion, but I see the rebuild as an imminent reality that we're simply desperate to put off because it's been so long since we had a genuine contender, let alone a largely homegrown one, that we can't accept the fact that we came as close as we did only to see it all fall short and the window close. We can't accept that Hank won't get a Cup as a Ranger (or likely ever, sad as it is).

 

[HatTrick Swayze]

Sure, maybe. I'd argue it's easier to do a rebuild properly than it is to retool on the fly with a 35 year old goalie and limited "win now" time. But a winning retool is a pipe dream that almost assuredly falls short and leaves us with ashes that we get to sell for pennies on the dollar when we ultimately end up beginning a proper rebuild anyway. A successful rebuild, you could argue, is more directly impacted by knowing when the appropriate time to begin that rebuild is than anything else. Identifying the long odds on successfully retooling this specific roster while Hank is still competitive and selling high is the shrewd, but tough, decision that lays the foundation for a successful rebuild. Holding onto Hank out of sentimentality and trying to retool on the fly now, only to drain our assets of their value while accomplishing nought but a couple more 1st/2nd round exits ensures more mediocre draft picks in the future and lays the tracks for a very difficult rebuild and another very dark stretch for Rangers fans.

Honestly, retooling with this roster does not inspire me with hope. The defense - McDonagh, Klein, Skjei, McIlrath, Staal and Girardi - have the collective puck moving accumen of a low end college team and are about as dynamic as white rice. McDonagh hasn't been the McDonagh we all swooned over in some time now and after him not a single one of those defenders has the potential for 30+ points. Moreover, forget offense, beyond McDonagh and Skjei, maybe Klein to a lesser extent, they're not even a particularly mobile bunch. In front of a 35 year old goalie, legend or not, the backbone of this team is so flawed I don't see "retooling" as anything more than an illusory option; something we sell ourselves on out of the hope that we can still get a Cup out of Lundqvist.

Even ignoring the fact that he's getting older and our defense is an uninspiring mess, I'm not nearly as impressed by names like Kreider, Hayes, Lindberg, Stalberg or the amount of eggs we have in the rookie Buchnevich basket, as some fans seem to be. It's just my opinion, but I see the rebuild as an imminent reality that we're simply desperate to put off because it's been so long since we had a genuine contender, let alone a largely homegrown one, that we can't accept the fact that we came as close as we did only to see it all fall short and the window close. We can't accept that Hank won't get a Cup as a Ranger (or likely ever, sad as it is).

Just wanted to say, great post.

 

[Brooklyn Rangers Fan]

Just wanted to say, great post.

Yup.

And the sad thing is we have the perfect analog to hold up as an example in the aging Leetch, and the team's insistence on trying to get a cup during his "window" c. the year 2000. How much better would that have worked out if Slats didn't wait until '04 to sell off...?

 

[Edge]

Interesting tidbit.

Every team that has won a cup post lockout has featured at least one player they drafted in the top 3, with the exception of Detroit and Anaheim.

All but Detroit featured at least one player that was drafted by someone/anyone in the top 3.

Hitting rock bottom doesn't guarantee success, but I would say it certainly helps the odds.

 

[Brooklyn Rangers Fan]

Interesting tidbit.

Every team that has won a cup post lockout has featured at least one player they drafted in the top 3, with the exception of Detroit and Anaheim.

All but Detroit featured at least one player that was drafted by someone/anyone in the top 3.

Hitting rock bottom doesn't guarantee success, but I would say it certainly helps the odds.

And just to add to this:

1) Anaheim benefitted from getting both Perry and Getzlaf in the first round of the greatest draft of all time – both players that in ANY other year, could have gone in the top 3; and

2) at the time of their cup, Detroit was still benefitting from the pre-2000 drafting of Zetterberg and Datsyuk, who were then in their primes.

 

[Edge]

And just to add to this:

1) Anaheim benefitted from getting both Perry and Getzlaf in the first round of the greatest draft of all time – both players that in ANY other year, could have gone in the top 3; and

2) at the time of their cup, Detroit was still benefitting from the pre-2000 drafting of Zetterberg and Datsyuk, who were then in their primes.

If we expand to before the lockout, we find that a large number of championship teams featured at least one player taken in the top 3 (either by them or by another team with whom they traded).

I don't have time to go back and do the math, but it is the vast majority --- including Detroit, Colorado, NJ, Dallas and even the Rangers barely make the qualification.

In fact, in the last 25 years the 1994 NY Rangers might be the only team that didn't have a guy taken in the top 3 as a mainstay or key component (Olczyk was a Black Ace).

Again, it's not required that a team have the type of top end talent that usually comes with a top 2 or 3 pick, but the results say that you're exponentially more likely to have success.

 

[True Blue]

Again, it's not required that a team have the type of top end talent that usually comes with a top 2 or 3 pick, but the results say that you're exponentially more likely to have success.

It all points to management being able to look itself in the mirror and honestly assessing the team. Not sure that will happen while Sather is in control.

 

[mrhockey193195]

If we expand to before the lockout, we find that a large number of championship teams featured at least one player taken in the top 3 (either by them or by another team with whom they traded).

I don't have time to go back and do the math, but it is the vast majority --- including Detroit, Colorado, NJ, Dallas and even the Rangers barely make the qualification.

In fact, in the last 25 years the 1994 NY Rangers might be the only team that didn't have a guy taken in the top 3 as a mainstay or key component (Olczyk was a Black Ace).

Again, it's not required that a team have the type of top end talent that usually comes with a top 2 or 3 pick, but the results say that you're exponentially more likely to have success.

Not that this invalidates your argument, but by the time COL won the cup in 1996 all their 1st overall picks had been traded (Sundin, Nolan, Lindros). I don't think they had a top 3 pick on that roster (Forsberg was 6).

 

[Edge]

Not that this invalidates your argument, but by the time COL won the cup in 1996 all their 1st overall picks had been traded (Sundin, Nolan, Lindros). I don't think they had a top 3 pick on that roster (Forsberg was 6).

True, Nolan was traded at the start of the season and Ricci was taken 4th overall.

Though I would probably still argue that the assets they scored with the high end talent their top picks brought them falls into the realm of what we're discussing.

 

[mrhockey193195]

True, Nolan was traded at the start of the season and Ricci was taken 4th overall.

Though I would probably still argue that the assets they scored with the high end talent their top picks brought them falls into the realm of what we're discussing.

No question. Definitely an interesting point that you brought up.

 

[Lindberg Cheese]

I'm caught in between, a re-turd

 

[Riche16]

Is there a choice for keep doing the same thing & fail... Over and over and over and over and... Over... Again?

 

[True Blue]

Is there a choice for keep doing the same thing & fail... Over and over and over and over and... Over... Again?

Track record on this: Very poor
Track record of decision making of this franchise, historically speaking: Very poor
Success of this franchise, historically speaking: I would say it is poor

So when looking at that context, no. There is no other choice.