Speculation: Roster Building Thread: Part LXII

[Gardner McKay]

Start somewhere else. Don't continue from last thread

Click to read more...

 

[YoSoyLalo]

Definitely don’t continue from the last thread

 

[Richard Banger]

Definitely don’t continue from the last thread

Are you sure about that?

At least what we all can agree on is that management is dead set on not building from the net out.

unlike our previous rebuild

 

[GeorgeKaplan]

So how bout all this weather?

 

[DanielBrassard]

Sharks going for the worst goaltending tandem in the history of the NHL. Can't wait to see it.

 

[Edge]

Even if he is slightly better overall than Strome with the cost it will likely take to acquire him, IMO not worth the potential slight upgrade.

And there where we disagree. I personally don’t think the overall package is a slight upgrade or that the results would be a minimal difference.

I’m far more comfortable putting my money on Monahan betting 30/45/75 on this roster for the next 3 years than I am betting on Strome posting 20/50/70 over that same stretch. And that’s if I was only going off of offensive stat lines. When I start factoring in other considerations, that gap grows for me.

I’m also more comfortable with a lineup a year from now that features Monahan. Lundkvist and whatever resources we utilize from trading Strome than I am with Strome and ADA.

 

[Gospel of Prospal]

And there where we disagree. I personally don’t think the overall package is a slight upgrade or that the results would be a minimal difference.

I’m far more comfortable putting my money on Monahan betting 30/45/75 on this roster for the next 3 years than I am betting on Strome posting 20/50/70 over that same stretch. And that’s if I was only going off of offensive stat lines. When I start factoring in other considerations, that gap grows for me.

I’m also more comfortable with a lineup a year from now that features Monahan. Lundkvist and whatever resources we utilize from trading Strome than I am with Strome and ADA.

Edge, is it fair to say that if we keep 22 overall, we're likely to go with a guy we really like instead of picking the best player available? I know you mentioned Lapierre and Grieg, but could you see those guys being the pick even if someone, who is expected to go earlier, slips?

 

[YoSoyLalo]

So how bout all this weather?

Yea... the weather

 

[DanielBrassard]

And there where we disagree. I personally don’t think the overall package is a slight upgrade or that the results would be a minimal difference.

I’m far more comfortable putting my money on Monahan betting 30/45/75 on this roster for the next 3 years than I am betting on Strome posting 20/50/70 over that same stretch. And that’s if I was only going off of offensive stat lines. When I start factoring in other considerations, that gap grows for me.

I’m also more comfortable with a lineup a year from now that features Monahan. Lundkvist and whatever resources we utilize from trading Strome than I am with Strome and ADA.

That's fine. I just don't see Monahan as being much different. He has been awful defensively, he doesn't kill penalties, he's not a physical player, and he's not a good skater. Amd when he's not on PP1, which he likely wouldn't be on the Rangers, he's going to have a tough time living up to the stat line you have set out for him. Strome would as well most likely but he is going to have a cheaper cap hit and won't cost us assets. If we are going to trade ADA, Buch or whatever, I'd like to see a definitive upgrade.

 

[aufheben]

Start somewhere else. Don't continue from last thread

Ok, dad.

 

[Matt4776]

I'd feel way more comfortable trading for Monahan if Buchnevich is the main piece going back (even if there has to be a + there) than if it's Tony.

 

[Edge]

Edge, is it fair to say that if we keep 22 overall, we're likely to go with a guy we really like instead of picking the best player available? I know you mentioned Lapierre and Grieg, but could you see those guys being the pick even if someone, who is expected to go earlier, slips?

I think it's always important to remember that the guy we really like is almost always the guy we think is the best player available.

I think that's where the disagreements come in --- some people don't agree that their pick was the best player available. But the Rangers do.

And it's also important to note that best player available doesn't always mean most talented, or highest offensive potential, or sometimes even the best player at the time of the draft.

It's typically more nuanced than that. But the Rangers won't skip a guy they have ranked 10th for a guy they have ranked 17th. The guy they take will be the highest on their list, it just might not be the highest on this board's list.

 

[Gospel of Prospal]

I think it's always important to remember that the guy we really like is almost always the guy we think is the best player available.

I think that's where the disagreements come in --- some people don't agree that their pick was the best player available. But the Rangers do.

And it's also important to note that best player available doesn't always mean most talented, or highest offensive potential, or sometimes even the best player at the time of the draft.

It's typically more nuanced than that. But the Rangers won't skip a guy they have ranked 10th for a guy they have ranked 17th. The guy they take will be the highest on their list, it just might not be the highest on this board's list.

As we've seen in the past (like Lias Andersson). But I mean you seem pretty adamant on Grieg or Lapierre. Do you think it's Grieg or Lapierre come hell or high water?

 

[Oscar Lindberg]

Serious question, do the Rangers think DeAngelos value is at its absolute highest right now?

Because I’ll be honest I’d much rather ride out another year with Tony on the team than trade him for Monahan.

I mean I get it, I’ve been saying for a while I think his value is inflated by fans. But do they think he’s never going to be more valuable to them than he is right now?

 

[GoAwayPanarin]

I think we see a relatively heavy news filled weekend.

Things may not end up being finalized until draft day, but it just feels like the storm is brewing.

 

[RangersFan1994]

Laine could be traded by Jets, GM says

 

[rangers1314]

Laine could be traded by Jets, GM says

Elliotte specifically mentioned the Flyers on today’s 31T.

 

[Brooklyn Rangers Fan]

Yea... the weather

Tonight of all nights... maybe it would be best.

 

[Off Sides]

3 years until Monahan hits UFA, Rangers should get him and give up the 3 same years they could keep ADA for ?

Or they could plan for when Kakko would be 22 in three years and Laf 21 and on the last year of his entry level. Maybe they could even trade ADA within those 3 year for something they would know they'd need at that time instead of making trades now for something they think they may need, but do not know if they will really need once that time comes into play.

 

[RangersFan1994]

Elliotte specifically mentioned the Flyers on today’s 31T.

For Ghost????

 

[Edge]

That's fine. I just don't see Monahan as being much different. He has been awful defensively, he doesn't kill penalties, he's not a physical player, and he's not a good skater. Amd when he's not on PP1, which he likely wouldn't be on the Rangers, he's going to have a tough time living up to the stat line you have set out for him. Strome would as well most likely but he is going to have a cheaper cap hit and won't cost us assets. If we are going to trade ADA, Buch or whatever, I'd like to see a definitive upgrade.

Part of me wonders though how much of the pushback is because of the fondness for ADA, and not because of glaring flaws with Monahan.

If I took ADA out of the conversation, and asked people if they'd rather keep Strome over Monahan, I don't think we see a lot of the comments about them being even remotely close. Most people would be talking about how much of an upgrade Monahan is over Strome for the roster.

But the concept of trading ADA I think makes us downgrade Monahan's ability and instinctively want to push his perceived contributions closer to the Strome level. We don't like the value for ADA, so we kind of dock points off the grade we'd normally assign Monahan.

In other words, just as we can talk ourselves into accepting a move by being overly optimistic, we can talk ourselves out of accepting moves by being overly pessimistic. We see this quite a bit with guys we draft. About two days after they're selected, we often talk ourselves into being okay with the pick. Whereas before the draft, we had entire lists ready for why a certain player shouldn't be the pick.

I think moving ADA isn't just about the turn, it's about the overall roster balance. If you think you can get a center back who compliments the wings you have, there's added value there. Then you factor in the assets you get from moving Strome, and the overall savings you get from having Lundkvist in the lineup as soon as next year.

So it's not just that you're looking at ADA for Monahan. Instead you're looking at one possible scenario such as:

ADA at $5 million (15 goals, 65 points)
Strome at $5 million (20 goals, 70 points high end)

$10 million, two players, 135 points

vs.

Monahan at $6 million (30 goals, 65 points low end)
Lundkvist at $1 million ( 5 goals, 30 points rookie season, likely up from there)
Assets acquired for Strome (be it prospects, picks, or even a LD with equivalent value of 5 goals and 30 points at $3 million)

$10 million, three players, 125 points

So maybe you sacraficed 10 points, but the overall net gain was finding your second line center, bringing in a top RD prospect, and then getting the veteran LD you wanted --- for the same price point. Yeah you lost 10 points overall, but maybe the roster balance is better.

Obviously that's a very, very crude example, but it's designed to illustrate more of a concept than anything else.

 

[aufheben]

Part of me wonders though how much of the pushback is because of the fondness for ADA, and not because of glaring flaws with Monahan.

If I took ADA out of the conversation, and asked people if they'd rather keep Strome over Monahan, I don't think we see a lot of the comments about them being even remotely close. Most people would be talking about how much of an upgrade Monahan is over Strome for the roster.

But the concept of trading ADA I think makes us downgrade Monahan's ability and instinctively want to push his perceived contributions closer to the Strome level. We don't like the value for ADA, so we kind of dock points off the grade we'd normally assign Monahahan.

In other words, just as we can talk ourselves into accepting a move by being overly optimistic, we can talk ourselves out of accepting moves by being overly pessimistic. We see this quite a bit with guys we draft. About two days after they're selected, we often talk ourselves into being okay with the pick. Whereas before the draft, we had entire lists ready for why a certain player shouldn't be the pick.

I think moving ADA isn't just about the turn, it's about the overall roster balance. If you think you can get a center back who compliments the wings you have, there's added value there. Then you factor in the assets you get from moving Strome, and the overall savings you get from having Lundkvist in the lineup as soon as next year.

So it's not just that you're looking at ADA for Monahan. Instead you're looking at one possible scenario such as:

ADA at $5 million (15 goals, 65 points)
Strome at $5 million (20 goals, 70 points high end)

$10 million, two players, 135 points

vs.

Monahan at $6 million (30 goals, 65 points low end)
Lundkvist at $1 million ( 5 goals, 30 points rookie season, likely up from there)
Assets acquired for Strome (be it prospects, picks, or even a LD with equivalent value of 5 goals and 30 points at $3 million)

$10 million, three players, 125 points

So maybe you sacraficed 10 points, but the overall net gain was finding your second line center, bringing in a top RD prospect, and then getting the veteran LD you wanted --- for the same price point. Yeah you lost 10 points overall, but maybe the roster balance is better.

Obviously that's very, very crude example, but it's designed to illustrate more of a concept than anything else.

Is it DeAngelo for Monahan, or are you also hearing speculation over several other players between NYR/CGY?

 

[Edge]

As we've seen in the past (like Lias Andersson). But I mean you seem pretty adamant on Grieg or Lapierre. Do you think it's Grieg or Lapierre come hell or high water?

I think they're in serious consideration. I feel confident they're in the Rangers top 20. But I don't know where they are in that top 20.

So they could have Guhle at 13, Lapierre at 14, and Greig at 15. But they could also have Grans at 12 as one of the mystery players I don't know about. And in that case, Grans is the pick, regardless of how much they like Guhle, Lapierre and Greig.

 

[mas0764]

I like the Krebs or Glass deal better I think.

 

[Edge]

Is it DeAngelo for Monahan, or are you also hearing speculation over several other players between NYR/CGY?

In talks to this point, spread over many months, Buch has come up, ADA has come up, Andersson has come up, and Hajek has come as being of interest to the Flames.

For the Rangers, Lindholm has come up, Hanifin has come up and Monahan has come up --- though they supposedly like Lindholm more.