Worst Case Scenario

[NCRanger]

If this belongs somewhere else, please move. Just saying, I haven't read anything about this possibility and would like to see how the tank commanders would handle it.

Personally, I don't believe the Rangers are going to be anywhere near as bad as most believe. They aren't a playoff team, aren't anywhere near a playoff team, but they are better than Ottawa, Montreal, Detroit, the Islanders, and potentially Buffalo and Carolina. That's not "bad enough" for securing a guaranteed NHL prospect at the draft unless they win the lottery. So, what is the actual goal? Based on what I'm seeing, is a Carolina Hurricanes situation over the next few years.

Then, consider this. Let's say Mika Zibanejad lives up to what many think he's capable of (35 G/75 P), Kreider puts up 35, and Buchnevich pots 25. Zuccarello centers a second line with Spooner and Namesntinkov that's more solid than any second line the Rangers have had in years. Hayes develops into a really good two way center. Fast becomes the second coming of Jan Erixon with tons more offense, and Vesey does pot 18 in a third line role. At the same time, NONE of the prospects deliver ANYTHING of value. Andersson looks lost in the NHL, Chytil is overwhelmed, Nieves should be waived, etc. Not even going anywhere with the defense, other than Shattenkirk is a above average PP QB, and Skjei continues getting better. Hank has a pedestrian GAA, but a stellar save percentage because the team bleeds shots.

That said, because of the offensive numbers, the Rangers sit in 9th at the deadline.

Knowing the "youth" has been undewhelming, and the guys so many want to dump for picks actually look like they're finally producing to potential, do you "stay the course" and dump them for unproven picks?

Buying is not an option. But standing pat is.

Thoughts?

Click to read more...

 

[SingnBluesOnBroadway]

I don't think they're better than Carolina, the Islanders and I could see Buffalo taking a big step forward.

If Zuccarello is centering the second line, the team will compete for the #1 overall pick.

 

[Kupo]

Why is Zucc centering a line with two forwards who actually have experience at Center?

 

[haveandare]

Why is Zucc centering a line with two forwards who actually have experience at Center?

Yeah, I don't think either of those guys have any business playing center regularly but Zucc has even less business doing it than they do.

 

[NCRanger]

Was basically throwing a line together of those three players. Obviously, they can play other positions.

 

[haveandare]

Imo, if this occurs, and it's extremely unlikely to occur, I'd still look to move the guys on that second line at least for younger players. They still wouldn't be a playoff team, so standing pat doesn't do much to facilitate the goal of building a winner. I'd probably keep Mika, Kreider and Buch more long term if they broke out in that way, but that second line is really secondary players who are good but not great and probably don't figure into the long term plan.

 

[Hi ImHFNYR]

That's a way too long winded way to say

Prospects and players could reasonably be expected to develop into solid contributors...enough to get us close to the PO's. What would you do at the trade deadline in that case?"

If it costs more than a 2nd and a 3rd and if it's a player having a down year (Not referencing Eric Staal at all)just stay the f*** away and let this team live and die on its own merits. I still have np trading away Zucc and certain players for a 1st or well regarded prospects

 

[NCRanger]

That's a way too long winded way to say

Prospects and players could reasonably be expected to develop into solid contributors...enough to get us close to the PO's. What would you do at the trade deadline in that case?"

If it costs more than a 2nd and a 3rd and if it's a player having a down year (Not referencing Eric Staal at all)just stay the f*** away and let this team live and die on its own merits. I still have np trading away Zucc and certain players for a 1st or well regarded prospects

What I'm actually saying is that the players that could be expected to meet high expectations do, but prospects look like hot garbage.

I'm just not sold on the whole younger = better and lots o'draft picks = automatic success that so many think is the only way to rebuild an organization.

My take would be if this group delivered this, stand pat and if they make the playoffs fine, if they don't fine. Tweak after the season. I just don't buy into this team being anywhere near as bad as many do. Sure, if there are a few injuries, yes, they go from mediocre to bad.

I don't like the idea of purposely sabotaging a season, and in this case, another season, for the hope that draft picks and someone's else's "prospect" is the fix.

 

[Mac n Gs]

I agree that we won’t be as bad as some think, but I believe that we won’t see them hit their stride until it’s too late.

I’m predicting us to have an Arizona-esque season. They had a horrible start last season and got sandbagged by Raanta being hurt, but they hit their stride late and had a strong second half finish. They also had a rough start acclimating to how Tocchet wanted them to play, and they did this while having aruably a better defense than we do now.

I’d expect us to follow a similar trend under Quinn where we struggle a bit getting used to a new system and seeing some prospects get juggled around between the NHL and Hartford. I still think we’re a weak depth team that’s screwed if there’s an injury at the top of the lineup.

They’ll ultimately try to win every game and be competitive, but there just isn’t enough there to have Hank carry us to a wild card spot. I care more about them fixing bad defensive habits from AV, seeing them shift to a more structured system, and having prospects put in position to succeed. I thought they could’ve put themselves in a position to win this year, but I can live with the patient approach.

Just be smart with you manage the roster and keep a core in place to augment with guys like Kravtsov, Lias, Chytil, Hajek, etc. my best bet for when they’ll have a truly competitive season again is 20-21.

 

[haveandare]

What I'm actually saying is that the players that could be expected to meet high expectations do, but prospects look like hot garbage.

I'm just not sold on the whole younger = better and lots o'draft picks = automatic success that so many think is the only way to rebuild an organization.

My take would be if this group delivered this, stand pat and if they make the playoffs fine, if they don't fine. Tweak after the season. I just don't buy into this team being anywhere near as bad as many do. Sure, if there are a few injuries, yes, they go from mediocre to bad.

I don't like the idea of purposely sabotaging a season, and in this case, another season, for the hope that draft picks and someone's else's "prospect" is the fix.

I don't think many people actually think the bolded.

The issue is that this current core, or what's left of it, isn't good enough to win a cup and the goal is to win a cup, not to merely build a team that isn't completely horrible.

If this core isn't good enough to win, the strategy should be, and is, to start assembling the next core. Due to trading away tons of high picks over the last 5 years, we had to move players to restock picks to restock prospects. It's not that younger = better, it's that younger = in line with the majority of assets the team is acquiring and has acquired recently, and in line with the strategy of building a new, hopefully better core that has a real chance to win. And its not draft picks = success, it's draft picks = chances to get the players necessary to fill out the new core and hopefully make them future contenders.

There's nothing to be gained from standing pat at the deadline with a team that likely won't even make the playoffs and there's quite a bit to lose.

The idea isn't to purposely sabotage the season(s), it's to embrace that were developing a new core and have some patience rather than keep trying to cobble together playoff teams and hoping they somehow magically beat far better teams and win a cup. Even if this scenario plays out, is there any hope at all of this lineup beating Washington, Pittsburgh, Winnepeg, Nashville, etc and winning a cup? I'd say absolutely not. So why waste chances to add more pieces to the future team?

 

[GAGLine]

No one is giving up on the season, least of all the players, coaches and management. That said, they aren't going all in on the season either. People around here tend to think in extremes. We either have to do everything we can to be as bad as possible so we have a better chance to get a top 3 pick or we have to do everything we can to be as good as possible so we can win the cup. Neither scenario is very realistic.

We have many goals for this season, which really aren't different than any other season, except they are weighted differently. We want to see our young players and prospects improve. We want to see that the coaching staff is putting players in positions to succeed. We want to see that management is making smart moves that will help the team win both now and in the future. And, we want the team to win games. Those are team goals every year. The only difference is that winning is the least important goal this year, as opposed to years past. As the team matures and improves, the priorities will shift, but they will all still be goals of the team every year.

With the way the lottery works now, teams can get a top 3 pick without finishing in the bottom 3. In 2017, the Devils went from 5 to 1, Philly from 13 to 2 and Dallas from 8 to 3. This year, Carolina went from 11 to 2 and Montreal went from 4 to 3. We need some luck regardless of where we finish, so being intentionally bad probably isn't the best strategy.

This team is going to try to make the playoffs. I have no doubt of that. I don't think they'll make it, but I wouldn't be surprised if they flirt with the possibility for most of the year.

 

[The Crypto Guy]

We will never be a bottom feeding team as long as Lundqvist is in net.

 

[eco's bones]

There are a lot of if's right now. The one thing--the Rangers have committed to going younger and developing, cultivating their kids. I don't see them giving up on any of their key prospect for at least a season and probably two. They're not bringing in any UFA's apart from Claesson pretty much commits them the youth movement.

IMO they have 12 key prospects who should become NHL players (how good may be debatable) and another 20 or so who have at least a somewhat realistic chance of becoming NHL players. That's a lot---not everyone of them is going to shake out in the Rangers favor but IMO there is a lot of quality--maybe not elite quality but even so.

For next year--it doesn't look great. That said if Meskanen and/or Lindqvist turn out to be players that could take the pressure off the forward position. If Claesson can give us solid play and Pionk contines to improve--our D is going to be better. There are several other rookies who could stick. We're going to all be a bit out to lunch though until the preseason/regular season begins when we'll actually be able to see for ourselves. Do I like the new direction? I'm hopeful and really we were spinning our wheels--we needed to do something else other than getting worse with the same cast of characters who'd gotten bored with the script. Playoffs? I doubt it. Who knows though--I wouldn't have thought Vegas would have done as well last year. Play one game at a time--a lot of shit can happen.The team is going to need to come together though on the ice--like they haven't been for the last two-three years. Too f***ing complacent--or not accountable enough.

 

[Off Sides]

Not sure that is the worst case scenario, I kind of think that is the more likely scenario.

Yet I don't view that as such a bad thing, my expectation for the prospect pool in general are probably lower than for many others and I don't believe the 2017 draftees are really NHL ready so should they be on the NHL roster it would not surprise me to see them struggle.

I think they were going with the anything can happen idea concerning NHL roster building, it was not happening. Now they are going with the anything can happen draft and development idea.

I think the later eventually actually has a greater chance to produce the anything happening, should they stick with it, but I think it would/will be a longer process than most will like, possibly even longer than the Rangers are currently envisioning.

 

[eco's bones]

Not sure that is the worst case scenario, I kind of think that is the more likely scenario.

Yet I don't view that as such a bad thing, my expectation for the prospect pool in general are probably lower than for many others and I don't believe the 2017 draftees are really NHL ready so should they be on the NHL roster it would not surprise me to see them struggle.

I think they were going with the anything can happen idea concerning NHL roster building, it was not happening. Now they are going with the anything can happen draft and development idea.

I think the later eventually actually has a greater chance to produce the anything happening, should they stick with it, but I think it would/will be a longer process than most will like, possibly even longer than the Rangers are currently envisioning.

The 'are they ready?' thing can be a funny thing. Most players playing in their first NHL games are going to struggle at least in some areas. If you think they're close enough it's often best to give some time to make the adjustment. Some will begin to process things better or quicker. IMO having Chytil and Andersson finish last season with the team should help them quite a bit coming into next season. They have a much better idea of what the league is about now and an off season to prepare themselves for it. That said---it would not surprise me if one or both spent considerable amount of next year in Hartford. Guys like Kreider and Miller were shuffling back and forth at a later stage than those are at right now. Those teams though were also deeper than the Rangers are right now. That will factor in how the Rangers deploy Chytil and Andersson.

 

[Good Intentions]

Then, consider this. Let's say Mika Zibanejad lives up to what many think he's capable of (35 G/75 P), Kreider puts up 35, and Buchnevich pots 25. Zuccarello centers a second line with Spooner and Namesntinkov that's more solid than any second line the Rangers have had in years. Hayes develops into a really good two way center. Fast becomes the second coming of Jan Erixon with tons more offense, and Vesey does pot 18 in a third line role. At the same time, NONE of the prospects deliver ANYTHING of value. Andersson looks lost in the NHL, Chytil is overwhelmed, Nieves should be waived, etc. Not even going anywhere with the defense, other than Shattenkirk is a above average PP QB, and Skjei continues getting better. Hank has a pedestrian GAA, but a stellar save percentage because the team bleeds shots.
Thoughts?

My thoughts are that you're suggesting video game numbers up and down the board.

75 points from #93? Another 35 from #20...Oh, and 25 from Buchnevich. It's either NHL94 and/or you're looking for the team to put up 300 goals on the season...

 

[NYRFANMANI]

From a materialistic consequential standpoint, the worst case would be missing out on the objective. The objective is the rebuild.
Since there is a lottery, simply getting in and better the odds is the favorable goal to pursue.
Worst case scenario would be to have only one 1st round pick in 2019 and overachieving, that's all. Stockpile 1st rounders.

But there is also pride in this. The idealistic consequence of winning, playing exciting effective hockey.
Would I be mad at an entertaining and 50/50, if not better, season? No, I want to see the boys win. With plenty rookies? Good, valuable experience.
The 2018 draft looks really good to me. So a mid late 1st rounder still leaves us with good options in 2019.

I guess the true worst case scenario is Hank catching fire, walling us into the playoffs only to have the whole thing collapse on us after one round.
But the numbers and players on paper suggest that it's rather unlikely.

 

[Pavel Buchnevich]

I'm struggling to see how we won't be very bad.

The defensive talent is bottom 5 in the league. No top pairing D. When Staal or Smith is your fourth best defenseman, your defense sucks.

The forwards should be decent, but we still lack an elite forward talent and there are definite questions about who will play 2C and how the fourth line will look. That is probably closer to league average than being in the top 3rd of the league.

Hard to know what we will get from the goalies. Last year between Hank and Geo we got probably the best case scenario, if you liked to see the team win. Will they repeat that? If they don't, we'll be worse in net. And we still sucked last year with them being as good as they were.

We also were much worse in the second half of the season last season because we sold off a lot of players that aren't currently on the team. The team in the second half of the season is a lot closer to the Rangers current ability than the team in the first half. The team in the first half wasn't good, but it was a fringe playoff team.

 

[NCRanger]

My thoughts are that you're suggesting video game numbers up and down the board.

75 points from #93? Another 35 from #20...Oh, and 25 from Buchnevich. It's either NHL94 and/or you're looking for the team to put up 300 goals on the season...

Please read the threads about Zibanejad. There are many around here who EXPECT him to put up those kind of numbers.

If Kreider plays the way he is capable, 35 goals is not a stretch. I think that's his top end, but it's not impossible.

If Buch can't score 25 at some point in the near future, I sincerely hope everyone here who thinks he's spectacular eats their words.

If you do the math, that's 100 from the top line. Even if my hypothetical second is "on fire", the most they put up is about 75, if that. The third, less than 60. I wouldn't expect more than 12 from the fourth line. Even with a great year from Shattenkirk, the defense isn't scoring more than 30.

I don't know where you're seeing "video game numbers", when math says about 270 at most. And that's with a defense that might give up nearly 300.

 

[OrlandK]

I don't know where you're seeing "video game numbers", when math says about 270 at most. And that's with a defense that might give up nearly 300.

Very useful take on bringing reality to our realistic outlook for the season. While our forwards appear to be the strength of the team they still don't have an all star among them and likely will not score more than league average as a group.

And our defense is dreadful. Our first pair would be an acceptable 2nd pair on a good team. After that we have a bunch of bottom pair candidates, two of which will have to play 2nd pair D. So we figure to be one of the poorer teams defensively in the league, even assuming Quinn can integrate a better system than AV's failed defense strategy.

And at this point our goaltending is probably league average too. The King will keep us somewhat respectable but his save % at this point has trended to just average for a starting goalie in the NHL. And we appear to be going with an unproven backup in Georgiev.

Agree with the strategy to make player development the focal point but it could be a rough season. Sure Ottawa and Montreal could be worse, but they might not be either depending on the unpredictable variables that occur every season.

 

[Good Intentions]

I don't know where you're seeing "video game numbers", when math says about 270 at most. And that's with a defense that might give up nearly 300.

Your entire writeup reads as a career year x10. Pie in the sky, video game numbers. You're way off - and that's coming from an optimistic supporter. Others will agree with me, sorry.

 

[nyr2k2]

Your entire writeup reads as a career year x10. Pie in the sky, video game numbers. You're way off - and that's coming from an optimistic supporter. Others will agree with me, sorry.

Yeah, and others will disagree with you.

Seriously, who says that? "Others will agree with me." Who f***ing cares, even the legitimate nutjobs we have here find people to agree with them. It doesn't really bolster your argument.

 

[sbjnyc]

The Rangers aren't going to be good but the silver lining is that the Islanders will be worse.

 

[NCRanger]

Your entire writeup reads as a career year x10. Pie in the sky, video game numbers. You're way off - and that's coming from an optimistic supporter. Others will agree with me, sorry.

My "entire writeup" listed actual numbers from four players.

Mika Zibanejad with 35 goals and 75 points
Chris Kreider with 35 goals
Pavel Buchnevich with 25 goals
Jimmy Vesey with 18 goals.

Does anyone feel those numbers are career years times 10?

I wouldn't think so, as those numbers should be realistic expectations for those players having good seasons.

I mentioned a second line that produces and has more chemistry than recent second lines. Is Spooner, Namestnikov, and Zuccarello scoring 75 between the three of them a career year x10 for any of them?

Nothing I mentioned screamed career year times 1o for anyone.

The fact of the matter is the scenario is quite realistic. That's the reason I posted it for discussion. The whole point being the Rangers conceivably can be quite decent up front WITHOUT one of the many prospects doing anything. That's when the questions arise about trading a Zucc, Hayes, Spooner, Names -- having good years for 1sts and 2nds, when the prospects we'd be expecting to show something positive are not showing anything.

I think it's a worthy debate to discuss whether it makes sense to dump fairly young talent that may just be hitting their career peaks for picks that are more likely to bust than produce anything at the NHL level. Sure, finish bad enough to ensure a high pick, or win the lottery, and you might get lucky. More likely it's years of spinning wheels just trying to find that "elite" pick that changes everything.

This team, on paper, is finishing no worse than 12th in the East. A healthy, peak level Lundqvist, no worse than 10th. And all that guarantees is a mid level 1st that doesn't appear in the NHL for 3 years.

 

[Off Sides]

While I tend to agree being "stuck in the middle" is not where a team wants to be, I think the timeline here is maybe just different than most believe.

Over the next three trade deadlines they will have Zucc, Name, Vesey, Fast, Beleskey, Kreider, Smith, Shattenkirk, Staal, and Lundqvist all enter their last contract year. (maybe Spooner too)

While I believe only Zucc, Name, Vesey, Fast, Kreider, Shattenkirk, Spooner will likely be worth much at those deadlines, that is a lot of tickets, magic beans, whatever one wants to call them added to the long list of prospects the Rangers already have plus their own picks.

Right now we really do not know even what the current group of prospects unfolds to, adding in as many picks as possible is going to increase the odds at least somewhat that some of them may turn into players that become far better than their draft slots would have indicated.

In a way we have seen that already happen with Lundqvist, Buch, Kreider, Skjei, Hayes, Fast just as we did with Miller, Stepan, Dubsinky Anisimov, etc.

Where they get the elite stuff is my concern as well, but given the amount of tickets it's not out of the realm that maybe some of those turn into that. And if not, they still are likely to have a pretty solid group of players.

The contingency plan I assume is they roll some of that up and make another Nash like trade at some point, or they end up signing some UFAs but until all that comes or does not come to fruition there is really no other option other than to do what they had been doing, trying to cobble together some group of players who ultimately lose in the playoffs to some team who ended up drafting some elite level players, which is probably still what the contingency plan would turn into.