Salary Cap: 2014 - 2015 New York Rangers :: Roster Building / Proposal Thread Part XIII

[Made Dan]

His physicality and the fact that he's come out in the open about what he wants as a FA give him that IMO. They provide different things, and different teams would probably pay different prices. I also think Sekera is better than Methot, but Sekera provides puck moving, and Methot provides strong defensive play, while being good at moving the puck.

See what you're saying, not trying to knock Methot who I consider a very solid player, but there will probably be more players available in his skill range (and style, probably) than comparables to Sekera. I don't see Methot going for more than a 2nd + B level prospect personally. Obviously a lot can change. Just takes one team to get desperate.

Have their been rental d-men as good as Methot/Sekera in recent memory? I can't think of any.

Closest I can come up with is Kaberle. Returned a lot but even he was on the downswing by that point

 

[Raspewtin]

Bouwmeester, Kaberle (although he ended up being pretty bad for the Bruins), Murray, Regehr, Brewer (circa 2011), Seidenberg.

Let's not quibble over whether any of these players are better or worse than Methot/Sekera. The point is more about their perception than anything.

Just nitpicking but Bouwmeester wasn't a rental.

 

[Charlie Conway]

Craig Custance says that the price for Vermette is a “top prospect and second round pick.â€

If we go after Vermette or Hanzal, I just hope we can somehow retain them heading into next year.

If that's the cost, I'd rather give a 2nd and two decent prospects....i.e. McIlrath + Lindberg + 2nd and maybe a smaller plus. If Sather could talk him into taking Glass as that plus...I'd be happy as hell. We need to retain some picks in this draft. Our prospect pool for forward isn't great--that much is obvious.

I just feel the priority should be to retain Miller. He can play any forward position, isn't afraid to hit, and has pretty good wheels. Hags, Miller, and Hayes looked very good for stretches last night.

MSL has 37 points in the 50 or so games we've played, yet he hasn't looked so good since the start of the new year, really. I feel like the rest of the season is going to decide what we do with him.

Duc and Butcher continue to impress.

 

[Tawnos]

Just nitpicking but Bouwmeester wasn't a rental.

Your right. I remembered him signing an extension, but I thought it was before free agent season. He signed it a year early.

Still... a D with one year left on his deal didn't even get a roster player from the Blues.

 

[Inferno]

id offer a lot for hanzal...he'd solve a lot of our issues...and i love the idea of a 3rd line of Hayes, Hanzal and Miller...talk about a nightmare matchup. size, speed, skill....*drool*

Of course im not sure how you get Hanzal w/o trading miller...

 

[Amazing Kreiderman]

id offer a lot for hanzal...he'd solve a lot of our issues...and i love the idea of a 3rd line of Hayes, Hanzal and Miller...talk about a nightmare matchup. size, speed, skill....*drool*

Of course im not sure how you get Hanzal w/o trading miller...

Well, it would take Hagelin and a 2nd round pick at least, if Miller isn't included

 

[Made Dan]

id offer a lot for hanzal...he'd solve a lot of our issues...and i love the idea of a 3rd line of Hayes, Hanzal and Miller...talk about a nightmare matchup. size, speed, skill....*drool*

Of course im not sure how you get Hanzal w/o trading miller...

Unless we're gonna deal Hags, also don't see how you can get Hanzal without sending them JT. I have no problem with that, though. Just refuse to trade him for a rental. Hanzal would be a great piece for at least two playoff runs with us. The guy just has it all and seems like our best option. He's my desired target for sure.

 

[Inferno]

Unless we're gonna deal Hags, also don't see how you can get Hanzal without sending them JT. I have no problem with that, though. Just refuse to trade him for a rental. Hanzal would be a great piece for at least two playoff runs with us. The guy just has it all and seems like our best option. He's my desired target for sure.

as much as I love Hagelin...and I really think hes an important player...I think id trade him over Miller.

cost control being a big reason. also the fact that im a believer in Miller...hes a very very good player whose inexplicably being railroaded by his coach.

 

[BarbaraAlphanse]

I don't see Miller nor Hagelin being included for Hanzal.

 

[Inferno]

I don't see Miller nor Hagelin being included for Hanzal.

yeah i wonder how you can get Hanzal w/o trading those guys.

I dont think John Moore + Lindberg + Kristo + 2nd would be enough...

 

[Trxjw]

I don't see Miller nor Hagelin being included for Hanzal.

Which means you probably aren't getting Hanzal. You're not getting a player of his caliber for a couple of prospects with zero NHL experience and a draft pick.

 

[Made Dan]

as much as I love Hagelin...and I really think hes an important player...I think id trade him over Miller.

cost control being a big reason. also the fact that im a believer in Miller...hes a very very good player whose inexplicably being railroaded by his coach.

I've definitely considered it. Especially with MSL/Zuc being unrestricted in a few months, could make sense in terms of asset management to retain those two while trading Hags, the lone controlled asset. Really the only thing for me is wanting the best possible team for this run, and presumably next year as well. I too am a believer in Miller, but at this point Hags is the better player.

 

[NYR Viper]

Which means you probably aren't getting Hanzal. You're not getting a player of his caliber for a couple of prospects with zero NHL experience and a draft pick.

I like Hagelin, but with Fast here for what we are hoping is long-term, I would move him for Hanzal.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

as much as I love Hagelin...and I really think hes an important player...I think id trade him over Miller.

cost control being a big reason. also the fact that im a believer in Miller...hes a very very good player whose inexplicably being railroaded by his coach.

He handles the puck like a hand grenade in the defensive zone. Its not inexplicable.

Glass playing over him is inexplicable.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

I like Hagelin, but with Fast here for what we are hoping is long-term, I would move him for Hanzal.

Just because Fast is growing into an NHL player doesn't mean he'll replace Hagelin. In fact, I think thats a downgrade any way you slice it.

 

[BarbaraAlphanse]

Which means you probably aren't getting Hanzal. You're not getting a player of his caliber for a couple of prospects with zero NHL experience and a draft pick.

Why not? Hanzal has never put up a point more than 40 over the course of a season.

He is injured every season. Every season out 8. That's bad.

To make it worse, he's missing more games as time goes along.

Over 8 years, he has played in 83% of games.

His last 5? He has played in 77%.

This year? Thus far? He has appeared in 70% of their games.

Let's not make Hanzal out to be the second coming of Wayne Gretzky here. A guy who is always injured, who's injury proneness is actually getting worse as the years go along, and who has never put up more than 40 points in a season will take several top prospects to acquire? Please.

 

[silverfish]

I move Miller for Hanzal 100/100 times before Hagelin.

Hanzal coming here pushes Hayes long-term to the wing, so yeah, I see why the debate is between Miller and Hags.

I think we really, really miss Hags' speed if we deal him. We also miss him on the PK. Sure, we're hoping Fast becomes Hagelin, but that's far from a guarantee currently.

Hags is infinitely superior to Miller in pushing the play, getting in deep, and keeping the puck alive. Gonna need that in our bottom-6 from now until eternity. We also really need that two-way game come April, and I think where Hagelin is at now is better than JT will ever get in that department.

I get that Miller is cost-controlled, but what Hags brings to the table over him is something I don't want to lose.

I don't see what Miller brings to the table over Hagelin besides potential. And as we all know by now I'm sure, I'm not too sold on that for Miller.

Wouldn't lose any sleep if JT isn't a Ranger come 3pm on March 2nd... well, pending return, of course.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

Why not? Hanzal has never put up a point more than 40 over the course of a season.

He is injured every season. Every season out 8. That's bad.

To make it worse, he's missing more games as time goes along.

Over 8 years, he has played in 83% of games.

His last 5? He has played in 77%.

This year? Thus far? He has appeared in 70% of their games.

Let's not make Hanzal out to be the second coming of Wayne Gretzky here. A guy who is always injured, who's injury proneness is actually getting worse as the years go along, and who has never put up more than 40 points in a season will take several top prospects to acquire? Please.

He is still way way better than any of our prospects with zero NHL experience (and many of them WITH NHL experience).

 

[BarbaraAlphanse]

He is still way way better than any of our prospects with zero NHL experience (and many of them WITH NHL experience).

So then why don't you see teams trading their top prospects for marginal role players all the time?

Faulty logic.

 

[silverfish]

So then why don't you see teams trading their top prospects for marginal role players all the time?

Faulty logic.

In what world is Hanzal a "marginal role player"?

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

So then why don't you see teams trading their top prospects for marginal role players all the time?

Faulty logic.

Because they trade picks instead. If we had those, Im sure they'd be thrown into the conversation.

Instead, its our crappy prospects that people act like other teams want.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

In what world is Hanzal a "marginal role player"?

In the alternate universe where big/defensive sound centers who can crack 40 points are marginal role players.

 

[BarbaraAlphanse]

Miller has 10 points in 27 games this year.

Between the benchings and the consistent playing with Tanner Glass, how many more points would we consider a conservative amount had he played all of those games with better players? Shall we say 3 more points... just 3? 13 points in 27 games puts him at 39 pts per 82.

As is he is producing at the rate of 30 pts per year. Hanzal's healthiest years, his first 3, he produced between 31-35 points.

And to think that the Rangers would give up significantly more than Miller for Hanzal??

Highly highly highly doubt Miller is gone in that trade.

Highly. No matter what click bait speculation beat writers like Larry Brooks and Steve Zipay are posting out there.

 

[BarbaraAlphanse]

In what world is Hanzal a "marginal role player"?

In the world that he misses over 1/5 of the season and has never produced more than a marginal player? So there's those glaring holes in your argument to begin with...

 

[BarbaraAlphanse]

Because they trade picks instead. If we had those, Im sure they'd be thrown into the conversation.

Instead, its our crappy prospects that people act like other teams want.

We have two 2nd's. Ryan Clowe went for a 2nd and a conditional 2nd. People act like Clowe isn't a good comparable. He's an incredible comparable. To both Vermette and Hanzal.

Clowe was 29 when he was traded to the Rangers. His final 4 seasons: 52 pts, 57 pts, 62 pts, 45 pts.

People have short memories. Clowe is an excellent example.

A 2nd and a conditional 2nd is what I suggested Vermette would go for. Why should he not? He is roughly around the same value that Clowe was at back then.

For as much chatter is out there that Hanzal would cost more than Vermette, there are equally as much people claiming Hanzal could be dealt for a team that doesn't want to pay as steep a price as Vermette would cost (thus less than Vermette). Considering I used a comparable to set the price for AV @ a 2nd and a conditional 2nd, Hanzal could very well cost less.

And funny thing is that we have the capability of performing the same exact trade.