Why Rebuilding Doesn't Work and How It Can

[apoptygma]

Agree with Beacon. To do a rebuildt in a decent time you need ti have a quantity of picks, just not a small number in the top 5. And to further expand the window having a number of atleast decent RFA's that if you are not able to keep them, you can trade them for more picks/ELC okayers. EDM & ATL was terrible of drafting beyond their top picks, and it made their rebuild taking so much longer. Hitting decent players (like Dubinsky, Callahan, Sauer, Fast) in round 3 and onwards is the difference between EDM unntil McDavid and CHI with 3 cups.

 

[Mac n Gs]

I still don't think a full blown rebuild is necessary. There are good young pieces on this hockey team mixed in with vets that are in the proper age range before they start to deteriorate. They’re in line for a lottery pick this season, so if they keep it up they should add another talent in a deeper draft. After that it should be a relatively quick turnaround with Chytil, Shesty, and Andersson waiting in the wings. If Buch and Mika keep this trajectory, that’s a bonafide top-line duo to carry the offense.

Long story short, I think we’re in line for a quick reset rather than a full rebuild. Get a new coach, instill a more modern system, and get ready for next year if we’re out of it by the end of this month. I don’t think we’re gonna get a Dahlin this year, but if they can draft a kid like Zadina, or hell even Svechnikov if he drops, they’ll be well on their way towards having a loaded nucleus hitting their prime once Shesty is wearing a Rangers sweater.

 

[Edge]

I think the one thing that NY will always have at its disposal during a rebuild is the ability to always supplement the youth with Free Agent Signings.

Assuming we make the hard choices now as you indicate in moving McD, MZA, Nash and Grabner, go through some rough years with high draft picks, as the Lias's and Chytil's mature and take over more prominent roles, the Rangers are and will always be an attractive draw where bringing in good supporting players will never be an issue.

There are teams that rebuild in perpetuity because they cannot get those key and desired UFA's to sign there. NY does not and will not ever have that issue.

I think that is such a significant aspect that fails a lot of thinking when guys talk about a rebuild.

Back in 99, the Rangers signed a slew of guys that were there for a simple bridging of a gap between what was, and what was going to be. That was the message from Neil Smith to Dolan. Neil Smith was on the path to properly rebuilding the franchise and got one year to do it.

I agree. Perpetual losing doesn't typically work because the teams that remain in the basement seldom surround the players they've drafted with the proper supports.

Another thing I notice is that those teams often struggle to find quality players beyond their high draft picks.

I've made my claims that almost all of the team's that have won or reached a cup did so with a guy who was a very high pick playing a substantial role. I stand by that assertion. But a key component is surrounding those guys with talent as well.

When I look at the organization as a whole, I truly don't believe this a team that would need a multi-year downtime. Frankly, I think this is a team that could theoretically reset the clock pretty damn well in a span of 12-24 months if they're smart. Let's for arguments sake say this team ended up with one of the top two picks in the 2018 draft, and moved some of its older talent for picks/young players. You'd be adding those guys to a system that already includes Andersson, Chytil, Shestyorkin and others. You'd have a potential cornerstones in Dahlin or Svechnikov and our scouts would have an excellent opportunity to find additional talent with the other picks. You'd be bringing those guys in to join a roster that has guys who are still going to be in their prime years in 2-3 seasons.

I know I keep beating a dead horse, but this team really is in a good position if it would just take a realistic ####### look at where it's at.

 

[Off Sides]

Two or more 1sts, plus any extra picks next draft would be the next step.

However those picks are much more available and cheaper at the trade deadline than they are right before the draft. Play the supply and demand game.

Should the Rangers even remotely be in playoff position, they still should sell, which is what they should have been doing last year and the year prior too. E Staal and Smith were steps backwards.

 

[Edge]

The Rangers no longer have the argument/justification/excuse that Lundqvist is the best or one of the best goalies in the game and therefore they have gamble on surrounding him with the talent to win this season.

When I think of what a rebuild/re-tool/re-load/whatever looks like, I don't think it has to mean perpetually sucking, or entail a process that takes half a decade. This is something that could come together a lot faster than people think and constitute a serious launching pad for the future. If we do this right, we could get the stud young player with a high pick that we dream about, without having to tear the whole house down. This very well could be the ideal time and the ideal draft to do it. Add a few good young players, add a cornerstone guy in the draft, get additional picks and re-stock the system even more, etc.

With what we have in place, we really don't have to go the same route as the Oilers, Avs, etc.

 

[SingnBluesOnBroadway]

I’m confused.
1) You put forth the idea that you should tank or trade assets at the right time. You then say trade players because quantity can create quality. To me, those ideas contradict each other.
2) You equate today to 1998. This team is much better positioned for the future now than it was in 98.
3) You assume that Marc Savard would have become a 100 point player here.
4) The poor record the Rangers had with draft picks during that time doesn’t instill a ton of confidence.
5) You can’t equate now to 98 because of the salary cap. The mentality in 98 was “we’ll buy a team”. Can’t operate like that anymore. And I don’t believe they are.
6) With a salary cap, its easy to just move vet players.
7) You’re operating with the benefit of an awful lot of hindsight.
8) Wouldn’t the Stepan trade fall into the category of what you find favorable throughout this post?

 

[haveandare]

I am saying that moving a few old vets is unlikely to produce good players in return because how much can you possibly get for a 35 year old on his last legs? What if you trade McDonagh, for instance, you can get a good young defenseman plus a first rounder. Same for MZA. Then you can get a bunch of picks in the first 3 rounds for Nash, Grabner, Holden and hopefully some turn into good players.

But if you wait until Nash and Grabner are gone, while McDonagh and MZA are old, what exactly are you getting at that point? A couple second round picks who may or may not turn into a single middle-6 forward? That won't save us.

My point is, ok, you move McD for a good young d and a first. Who’s that d? Are we talking a DeAngelo or a Trouba? A DeAngelo type is a big risk to move McD fit with a first. You lose McD for a middling d and a pick that could potentially be nothing. Is that more valuable that having the rest of McDs prime? I don’t know. If we’re talking a Trouba type you maybe can’t get that player alone let alone with a first.

As you said, you get those picks and hopefully get a few good players. And if not? If you get a couple decent guys in exchange for a group that included your top f and top d? Then you have a garbage current team, still a middling future and no assets to speak of.

I don’t think it’s wise to do these things wholesale like this. Move individuals when it’s wise to move them in deals that are wise to move them for. Don’t gut a team all at once and throw it at the same type of high risk assets. Move Nash, Grabner and Holden for futures now, they’re not integral at all and have little if any future here. See how that pans out and then think about a McD or a Zucc and see what’s out there. Don’t move them for futures and hope and pray. Those kinds of huge assets I’d rather move for other more established but younger players if at all.

 

[Off Sides]

I think looking at some point in the future, and than working backwards from then to now would be the right idea.

NHL or NHLPA can opt out of the CBA Sept. 15, 2020.

Which is also the last years of the Lundqvist, Shattenkirk, Smith, and Staal contracts.

Using the time between now and then to have a team ready for whatever the next CBA entails, with a bunch of cap space, with a strong prospect pool that includes entry level, bridge, rfa deals, seems like a good timeline to me.

Does not mean I'd like to see them move everything for picks/prospects and go total tank, they can have a whole process in those 4 years where they just play the supply and demand that is built into the current CBA.

 

[bernmeister]

Thing is that if we have a lot of picks, we can take shots at high risk guys. Gorton is on the record saying he wants at least one safe player in the first round to make sure we get at least one rookie every season. Fine, that's why he drafted Lias. But since we had a second pick, we could take a stab at a very young kid playing on the bottom-6 in the Czech league who may have more raw talent than his young age gives away right now. I suspect if we didn't make the Stepan trade and didn't have Lias, Gorton would've chosen a safer draftee than Chytil.

I thank OP for his labor of love here.
Sure I agree w/most of it.
My point here is we must build, build, build and the level of risk needs to be commensurate with the costs.

90+% of smaller guys should be a no. Proven sports adage: the good big man usually beats the good little man.

So no more Christian Thomas - Kovacs types regardless of character.
However, if we have a gem like Zuc show up and it does not cost draft picks but just demonstration he can cut the mustard, then sure, there's a place for that exception who proves the rule.

For years we had atrocious scouting/drafting compounding our finishes and less than optimal draft slots.

So far, Gorton and Clark seem to be getting results, a few exceptions notwithstanding, so the more picks the merrier - at the right price, and I can not stress this urgently enough IF THEY ARE PAID IN THE RIGHT PRICE.

 

[Matz03]

It might be by design or by chance we're bottom 5. Depending on the type of moves they make will confirm what they're really trying to accomplish. Edmonton, Florida, maybe Buffalo can overtake us so a bottom 3 finish is still not out of question. If they begin to sell once we get into December, with the obvious guys like DD, Grabner, Holden, and Nash, then they'll get some great futures back in the coming draft. They have to listen on McD & Zucc, guys one year away from FA always bring a boatload back, maybe they get a deal they like or maybe they have to wait until the draft on next season on them. Combined with the past summers draft, and what they actually do this season could mean we're in the middle of rebuild, or just a quick scheme to get a little younger.

 

[True Blue]

I know I keep beating a dead horse, but this team really is in a good position if it would just take a realistic ####### look at where it's at.

Could not agree more. This team does not need to be blown up. But it can retool. The issue is that they cannot admit or seem to be able to, as to who they truly are. They Yankees should be an example. Cashman saw what the team truly was. And how he lost out on not trading a Cano. He then went out and traded pieces, but also has some pieces already in the pipeline and in place. If Gorton plays his cars right, this team could be retooled rapidly. If, if, if......

 

[Beacon]

The problem with saying we still have pieces plus we'll add youth is that by the time our youth hits their prime, these pieces will be retired or a shell of themselves. Take Lias and Chytil. Even if they make it next year, we still need to deal with the many problems kids have their first 2 NHL seadons. Maybe rhey wont even make it for a couple more years. Even McDonagh was 21.5 by the time he made the NHL. Kreider was up and down AHL/NHL at 22. By the time a kid is truly ready to contribute without rookie/sophomore issues, he's 21-24 years old, meaning you had to wait 3-6 years (sometimes longer).

In the meanwhile, your 28-29 year olds are deep into their 30s, maybe mid-30s. They are not as good and playing out the final years of their UFA/payday contracts, and are no longer performing to par per cap dollar spent on them.

So on the one hand, in 4 years we will have Lias and Chytil. On the other, McDonagh, Shatty, MZA, etc will all get older and significantly worse. We don't have the prospects to replace our stars as they age or leave.

 

[True Blue]

So on the one hand, in 4 years we will have Lias and Chytil. On the other, McDonagh, Shatty, MZA, etc will all get older and significantly worse. We don't have the prospects to replace our stars as they age or leave.

You are listing exactly the people who should be traded. McDonagh, Shatty, MZA should all be moved for a combination of picks and and prospects who are closer to prime time. Combine that with who is already on the roster plus a pick that can possibly play right out of the gate, and you have the makings of a team.

 

[Ori]

We will win the cup with guys like Kampfer & Smith - maybe it`s wishful thinking who knows?
How do you guys evaluate Smith`s contract now? I`m curious, because if you move productive players to keep hot garbage players - that`s how you accelerate the process to a hire a completely new GM to the New York Franchise and start over with a new chapter.

When I think about it - maybe we should start with a new Coach & GM - then we can start a proper rebuild since you guys are so eager to get younger.

 

[Ori]

Ryan Mc. have many good years for sure. I just don`t think it`s this simple to move another captain within a 5 years period - and it might backfire. My point is Brendan Smith`s contract is either A. bought out B. moved before we even consider Ryan Mc. new contract in two years or move him for future pieces.

 

[mas0764]

I agree. I don't know if I'd trade McDonagh, but I would definitely be shopping Nash, Zucc, Holden and Grabner, right this second, and for the rest of the season until I thought I had my best offer. I'd also be seeing if I can sell high on underperforming players who may still have some value in their name, like Vesey, Miller, Kreider, Hayes, but I'm only moving them if I'm clearly winning the exchange. I'm not sure what Brendan Smith's no trade/no movement details are, but if possible, I'd already be looking to see what I can get for him; he is clearly not a future wave defenseman, he's not mobile, agile, puck moving, and has very limited offensive skills. I want DeAngelos and Skjeis, not Smiths and Staals.

Once I'd cleared that salary out, I'd seek to buy out Staal next offseason, if I can't trade him for literally anything. Any pick. 7th Rounder and he's yours.

Those moves are gonna shave $10 million or so off next year's cap (I'm not deducting salary for Nash or Grabner or Holden cause they are free agents anyway, but I am counting Smith, Zucc, and Staal buyout). Then you are hopefully filling top line spots with Chytil and Andersson, you've probably banked a couple extra first rounders, and your own first rounder is a top 5 or top 10 pick. You are probably landing another impact player that high. On top of that, you probably have money to take a run at Tavares now.

I would definitely make these moves if I could.

 

[kovazub94]

This rant would be more appropriate around the time when E. Staal was brought in. Now the team is clearly in the mode of getting younger, not acquiring older over the hill vets to extend a run. Gorton started this process in '16 offseason and so as some already noted we are nowhere near the '98. This team's core is incomparably younger from '98.

On a different point, getting to SCF that was decided in 3OT and 2 ECF (one of which went to game 7) with so many variables that go into determining an outcome for a particular game is statistically close enough to winning a Cup. Saying that a different way of building a core would've gotten the SC is wrong.

 

[mas0764]

The Rangers no longer have the argument/justification/excuse that Lundqvist is the best or one of the best goalies in the game and therefore they have gamble on surrounding him with the talent to win this season.

When I think of what a rebuild/re-tool/re-load/whatever looks like, I don't think it has to mean perpetually sucking, or entail a process that takes half a decade. This is something that could come together a lot faster than people think and constitute a serious launching pad for the future. If we do this right, we could get the stud young player with a high pick that we dream about, without having to tear the whole house down. This very well could be the ideal time and the ideal draft to do it. Add a few good young players, add a cornerstone guy in the draft, get additional picks and re-stock the system even more, etc.

With what we have in place, we really don't have to go the same route as the Oilers, Avs, etc.

Exactly. Sell off the impending Free Agents like Nash and Grabner, get high picks. Zucc is a fan favorite, but he can go too if he brings back a high pick. Then you've got space to buy out Staal and free up more money, technically, but you don't feel bad eating his $2.5m.

Adding two more first round studs to Chytil and Andersson, plus you've already got Buchnevic and Zibanejad, you've got the makings of two really top lines.

 

[mas0764]

honestly..i think trading for Staal 2 years ago instead of trading away Yandle was an idiotic decision by Gorton..thats when the rebuild should have started tbh.

Agreed. Should have moved Yandle for a first instead of trading three seconds for Staal. Would be in a much better spot.

 

[haveandare]

We will win the cup with guys like Kampfer & Smith - maybe it`s wishful thinking who knows?
How do you guys evaluate Smith`s contract now? I`m curious, because if you move productive players to keep hot garbage players - that`s how you accelerate the process to a hire a completely new GM to the New York Franchise and start over with a new chapter.

When I think about it - maybe we should start with a new Coach & GM - then we can start a proper rebuild since you guys are so eager to get younger.

I think it's a fools errand to evaluate any player based on how they're doing right now. The entire team is out of whack, the system is stale and broken. Before moving any d-man or rating them good or bad in a meaningful way, I want to get a new coach and see them all play zone. I don't think a new GM is necessary or even a good idea right now, nor is a "full rebuild." I'm okay with shipping off the older players over the course of a few years and trying to get back futures, but I'm not okay with shipping everyone out at once to get a ton of picks in one draft and a ton of players who are at step 1 of their development. Bad idea. Top assets like Zucc for example should only go if they return good young players who are further along and aren't pure gambles. Moving a guy like that for a pick or picks runs a real risk of moving them for absolutely nothing of value down the road, and that's an avoidable risk when you can get a young player who is further along instead.

Regarding Smith, as machinehead said in another thread, Smith's real strength is breaking plays up at the blue line and denying zone entries, something that our current d system doesn't even try to do as a whole. Having Smith play the way we're asking him to is like getting OV and telling him not to take one-timers. We're not taking advantage of his best skill at all. It's silly to judge Smith a "hot garbage player" when the whole team has looked like complete garbage so far. It's not an issue of every player sucking as individuals, it's a systems issue that's tainting everything. Once it's fixed then we'll know where individuals stand.

 

[Kaapo di tutti capi]

I think it's a fools errand to evaluate any player based on how they're doing right now. The entire team is out of whack, the system is stale and broken. Before moving any d-man or rating them good or bad in a meaningful way, I want to get a new coach and see them all play zone. I don't think a new GM is necessary or even a good idea right now, nor is a "full rebuild." I'm okay with shipping off the older players over the course of a few years and trying to get back futures, but I'm not okay with shipping everyone out at once to get a ton of picks in one draft and a ton of players who are at step 1 of their development. Bad idea. Top assets like Zucc for example should only go if they return good young players who are further along and aren't pure gambles. Moving a guy like that for a pick or picks runs a real risk of moving them for absolutely nothing of value down the road, and that's an avoidable risk when you can get a young player who is further along instead.

Regarding Smith, as machinehead said in another thread, Smith's real strength is breaking plays up at the blue line and denying zone entries, something that our current d system doesn't even try to do as a whole. Having Smith play the way we're asking him to is like getting OV and telling him not to take one-timers. We're not taking advantage of his best skill at all. It's silly to judge Smith a "hot garbage player" when the whole team has looked like complete garbage so far. It's not an issue of every player sucking as individuals, it's a systems issue that's tainting everything. Once it's fixed then we'll know where individuals stand.

I get what you're saying about the system and I agree 100%, but it's not like we didn't have the same coach and the same system last year when Smith looked really solid - it's like an alien who has never even watched a hockey game, much less played one invaded his body this year.

 

[Ori]

Yeah true @haveandare.
@Ola mention it might take (2-3) years until Chytil & Lias can contribute in NHL - it`s speculation, but hockey is a physical game and it takes time to build muscles when they are obviously too young. And Buch is a great example regarding this - and he had to work hard last year and we see some of the result of it now when he is one year older in NHL with a very good start.

- Yeah, just a notion sometimes when I read this forum - often based on wishful thinking. But it might be delays, development might stagger, last news concerning Lias - he was working on his skating with a New York coach some days ago on facebook - that is basic skills, it takes time to be NHL ready unless u are a generation talent.

 

[True Blue]

I'm not sure what Brendan Smith's no trade/no movement details are, but if possible, I'd already be looking to see what I can get for him; he is clearly not a future wave defenseman, he's not mobile, agile, puck moving, and has very limited offensive skills. I want DeAngelos and Skjeis, not Smiths and Staals.

Just on this note, there is a little more to being a defenseman than being a puck mover. I know it is early, but Shattenkirk is showing exactly why I feared tying up the cap space with him. He is mobile, agile, a puck mover....yes. And has been a disaster in his own end. Showing exactly why two previous teams would not play him against the oppositions top pairings. Like I said, if his play is not raised AND he cannot be on the ice when the oppositions top players are, then his contract is the next albatross around this franchise's neck.

Agreed. Should have moved Yandle for a first instead of trading three seconds for Staal. Would be in a much better spot.

Or not traded for either at all and kept the picks and Duclair.

 

[Trxjw]

Count me in the camp that believes this team could step back now and be significantly better in 18 months with just a couple shrewd moves. Yes they'll need to get lucky, but they have a good core in place and they've proven adept at finding viable talent outside of the top-20 of the draft.

I also admit they've bungled some draft picks in recent years. However, I'd be willing to bet that the drafting strategy gets tweaked if they know they're not supplementing the roster with "safe" picks.

 

[Beacon]

SingnBluesOnBroadway in regular letters. My comments in bold.


1) You put forth the idea that you should tank or trade assets at the right time. You then say trade players because quantity can create quality. To me, those ideas contradict each other. No, it does not contradict it. We got mid-1 pick, mid-2 pick and a couple middling prospects for Leetch in 2004 at the age of 36. We could've gotten a ton more. Around the same time, Glen Wesley got 3 first round picks iirc, and Wesley was not qualified to shine Leetch's shoes. That's like comparison Karlsson to Stralman today. A 30-year-old Leetch would've brought us multiple first round picks on top of a couple very good prospects.

2) You equate today to 1998. This team is much better positioned for the future now than it was in 98. I acknowledged that, but some of it is hindsight. At the time, we were really excited about guys like Cherneski (injury destroyed a promising career), first rounder Jeff Brown and Christian Dube (145 points in 62 games in the Juniors, then 57 in 79 as an AHL rookie), but right now with the benefit of hindsight, we ignore them as assets at the time. However, some of the prospects we have now will go bust as well.

3) You assume that Marc Savard would have become a 100 point player here. Savard was an incredible talent even in the Juniors. I remember his coach quoted in the Blueshirt Bulletin saying, "he scores at will in the OHL" and it was true. He looked like Gretzky when he was in Oshawa. Trading away guys like him was the height of insanity. Maybe he wouldn't pan out in New York, but the odds of that are very small. I followed him from the day he got drafted and if you told any prospect watchers in 1997 that Savard will turn into a 100-point NHL player, nobody would laugh at you.

4) The poor record the Rangers had with draft picks during that time doesn’t instill a ton of confidence. Granted. But again, if you focus on the future instead of signing Quintal and trading for the badly injured Lindros and Bure, maybe more attention would be paid to scouts. At some point as you acquire all these picks, it would probably occur to the GM, "hey, maybe we should get quality scouts to make these selections" instead of "hey, I wonder who else I have to add to finally acquire Lindros."

5) You can’t equate now to 98 because of the salary cap. The mentality in 98 was “we’ll buy a team”. Can’t operate like that anymore. And I don’t believe they are. The Brass-for-Zib trade followed by Step-for-Lias was a good sign. But I will believe there's a real rebuild when guys like MZA and McDonagh are traded because they have the most value right now to bring back quality youth. Nash might bring back a late first rounder or a pair of second rounders, but the odds of us getting someone good from those are 50-50 at best. McDonagh can fetch us a very good young NHLer plus a good first round pick.

6) With a salary cap, its easy to just move vet players. Not sure what this means.

7) You’re operating with the benefit of an awful lot of hindsight. I said all that I wrote about as it was happening, first on AOL's NYR forum, then here, but that's besides the point. The point isn't that we missed here and there, but rather that even when everyone knew in 1998 that we are going down, Neil Smith and then Slats refused to acknowledge it and continued to link money and young assets to try to save a rotten, sinking ship. In 2017, it is again clear that we're on the way down. We can't save this ship because as rookies join the team in 2-6 years, vets will leave (Nash, Grabs) or slow down (McDonagh, MZA, Lundqvist). Let this ship sink and build a new one by acquiring quantity for Nash, Holden and Grabner, and quality for McDonagh and MZA.

8) Wouldn’t the Stepan trade fall into the category of what you find favorable throughout this post? Yes.