Kitchener Rangers 2019 Offseason Thread

[K2]

wonder when little Pinelli signs. Valade was announced at the beginning of this camp last year and Langdon signed at the conclusion

Anytime ... though eliminate the outliers & late May seems typical for 1st rounders.

Valade Apr 20
Ladd May 18
Vallati May 25
Meireles Sept 9
Mascherin May 30

 

[Coaches Coroner]

Thanks Ward. I figured it must be something like that. It was news to me. Kind of renders the source questionable.

That site may have been better a few years ago. It's former head scout/site runner left to take a scouting job with Owen Sound and then the guy who took over for him left for London some time later iirc. Haven't been keeping up with it as much under whoever runs it now.

 

[MatthewsMoustache]

Colin Purcell camp interview RANGERS VISION: Spring Camp – Colin Purcell Interview – Kitchener Rangers

make what you want of it but it sounds to me like he may be coming over next season. just don’t see where he’d fit if they’re contending, unless they plan on keeping Richardson or Pfeil as the starter in a go year. he also wouldn’t be able to play Jr. B here

 

[Ward Cornell]

. he also wouldn’t be able to play Jr. B here

I thought that just applied to 16 yr olds?...could be wrong though

 

[EvenSteven]

Colin Purcell camp interview RANGERS VISION: Spring Camp – Colin Purcell Interview – Kitchener Rangers

make what you want of it but it sounds to me like he may be coming over next season. just don’t see where he’d fit if they’re contending, unless they plan on keeping Richardson or Pfeil as the starter in a go year. he also wouldn’t be able to play Jr. B here

If our three prospective overage forwards return, we know Richardson will be the odd man out. If not, then we may keep Richardson and Pfiel would be the odd guy out. I believe that if we find ourselves in a position where we are going for it next year, either Richardson or Pfiel will be our goaltender to start. If neither of them work out, then by trade deadline time we trade for an upgrade.

(I have to agree with what someone said earlier on here. I'm not in favour of using an import pick on a goalie. Too many ??? )

We know a rookie goalie is coming in. How big a part he plays in next years team is another story. With Wu playing in Georgetown next year, it could pave the way for Purcell to be on the club next year. As the back up, he could get 20 to 25 starts. Then the following year, a tandem of Purcell and Wu would make a lot of sense to me.

 

[MatthewsMoustache]

If our three prospective overage forwards return, we know Richardson will be the odd man out. If not, then we may keep Richardson and Pfiel would be the odd guy out. I believe that if we find ourselves in a position where we are going for it next year, either Richardson or Pfiel will be our goaltender to start. If neither of them work out, then by trade deadline time we trade for an upgrade.

(I have to agree with what someone said earlier on here. I'm not in favour of using an import pick on a goalie. Too many ??? )

We know a rookie goalie is coming in. How big a part he plays in next years team is another story. With Wu playing in Georgetown next year, it could pave the way for Purcell to be on the club next year. As the back up, he could get 20 to 25 starts. Then the following year, a tandem of Purcell and Wu would make a lot of sense to me.

fair enough, Guelph has been rolling with Anthony Popovich who is by no means stellar back there. but to do that the team in front of Richardson or Pfeil would have to be second to none, and would surely need 1 or 2 big upgrades on the back end

that being said, you could keep Richardson for an OA year & trade one of the OA forwards (Garreffa to a team that will play him on D makes the most sense) and whatever else it may take for that defence

 

[EvenSteven]

fair enough, Guelph has been rolling with Anthony Popovich who is by no means stellar back there. but to do that the team in front of Richardson or Pfeil would have to be second to none, and would surely need 1 or 2 big upgrades on the back end

that being said, you could keep Richardson for an OA year & trade one of the OA forwards (Garreffa to a team that will play him on D makes the most sense) and whatever else it may take for that defence

As far as I'm concerned, I think Garreffa would bring us more value on defence next year full-time than what we could get for him in trade.

If we use him back there, we can go after just one veteran d-man in the mold of Connor Hall. That would set us up OK on the backend. Garreffa was playing third line minutes down the stretch and in the playoffs anyway at forward. Of course, then he quarterbacked our power-play. We can replace his minutes up front via the import draft.

Go after two forwards in that draft. With our first rounder we can hopefully bring in a high-end forward that can play among our top six right away. With our second pick, because it is distant second round, maybe we draft a younger project to play among our bottom six who will be here two or three years.

Petizian. Meireles. Yantsis.
Import 1. Damiani. Stepien.
Pinelli. Langdon. Valade.
Tresoor. Serpa. Import 2.
Dickerson. Fishman.

Vukojovic. MacPherson.
Garreffa. Acquired Veteran.
Xhekaj. Sebrango.
Motew.

Pfiel.
Purcell.

Acquire that veteran D within the first two months.

We'll have a better idea on Pfiel by mid November if not earlier. Depending on how he is, if we are a contender, upgrade in goal.

By the deadline, we could fortify the top six by acquiring a high end forward if need be.

 

[GeoBlue]

As far as I'm concerned, I think Garreffa would bring us more value on defence next year full-time than what we could get for him in trade.

If we use him back there, we can go after just one veteran d-man in the mold of Connor Hall. That would set us up OK on the backend. Garreffa was playing third line minutes down the stretch and in the playoffs anyway at forward. Of course, then he quarterbacked our power-play. We can replace his minutes up front via the import draft.

Go after two forwards in that draft. With our first rounder we can hopefully bring in a high-end forward that can play among our top six right away. With our second pick, because it is distant second round, maybe we draft a younger project to play among our bottom six who will be here two or three years.

Petizian. Meireles. Yantsis.
Import 1. Damiani. Stepien.
Pinelli. Langdon. Valade.
Tresoor. Serpa. Import 2.
Dickerson. Fishman.

Vukojovic. MacPherson.
Garreffa. Acquired Veteran.
Xhekaj. Sebrango.
Motew.

Pfiel.
Purcell.

Acquire that veteran D within the first two months.

We'll have a better idea on Pfiel by mid November if not earlier. Depending on how he is, if we are a contender, upgrade in goal.

By the deadline, we could fortify the top six by acquiring a high end forward if need be.

Sorry, NO Garreffa on defence. :-( PP okay, defence no.

 

[EvenSteven]

Sorry, NO Garreffa on defence. :-( PP okay, defence no.

I was of that opinion too pre-2018 playoffs. But he proved his worth in the 2018 post season when he was forced to play D. IMO, put him with a solid stay at home guy 5 on 5 and it's all good. I also avoid using his pairing vs the other team's top line when possible. Leave that assignment to the Vukojovic / MacPherson duo.

He'd QB the first PP unit and play regular shift 5 on 5. I'd avoid using him at all on the PK.

 

[IceCold]

I was of that opinion too pre-2018 playoffs. But he proved his worth in the 2018 post season when he was forced to play D. IMO, put him with a solid stay at home guy 5 on 5 and it's all good. I also avoid using his pairing vs the other team's top line when possible. Leave that assignment to the Vukojovic / MacPherson duo.

He'd QB the first PP unit and play regular shift 5 on 5. I'd avoid using him at all on the PK.

You do realize his plus/minus was third worst on the team at -25. Just have him wheel around the net and skate it out. No need to play D to do that.

 

[Rangers True Blue]

Not a fan of Gareffa on defense even if that's what HE wants to play. His contribution on offense once moved up there in the latter part of the season is too valuable to ignore. As for the #1 PP.....let's get someone with a booming shot on one of the ends and put Joey up on one of the sides to move the puck around.

 

[Rangers True Blue]

Colin Purcell camp interview RANGERS VISION: Spring Camp – Colin Purcell Interview – Kitchener Rangers

make what you want of it but it sounds to me like he may be coming over next season. just don’t see where he’d fit if they’re contending, unless they plan on keeping Richardson or Pfeil as the starter in a go year. he also wouldn’t be able to play Jr. B here

He did say "if he gets a chance" to play with the Rangers so his interest seems to be there. But whether the Rangers are interested, we'll have to wait see. I sure liked what I saw at camp.

 

[EvenSteven]

You do realize his plus/minus was third worst on the team at -25. Just have him wheel around the net and skate it out. No need to play D to do that.

Not a big fan of the +/- stat. But that -25 was on a middling team playing primarily third line minutes at forward.

He was a +9 during last year's playoffs.

Second on the team - playing primarily on defence.

Just sayin.

 

[EvenSteven]

I contend that I'd rather go with Garreffa, Yantsis and Meireles as our OA's. If we are moving one of them in favour of an OA goalie, it better be a goalie with a much better track record than Richardson.

If we are a contending team, I want a better option than Richie in net. He had a decent playoff this year, but still allowed his share of goals he'd "like to have back".

Those four games are too small a sample size for me to commit to him being the starter next year. Especially with the other OA options we have.

We went through last season not knowing which Richardson was going to show up from one game to the next. Not consistent enough for me.

 

[GeoBlue]

Not a big fan of the +/- stat. But that -25 was on a middling team playing primarily third line minutes at forward.

He was a +9 during last year's playoffs.

Second on the team - playing primarily on defence.

Just sayin.

I feel that the +/- tells us a lot. -25 states he was on the ice for 25 more goals against than he was for and it does not include PP or shorthanded situations. That does not scream "defense". And if you are going to compare the -25 with the "middling team" then you have to also look at the team and defensive partners he was playing with when he got his +9 in the playoffs last year.

His 2 minutes in penalties is not an indicator of defense either. I know, one might say that you don't want to take penalties but I am all for defenceman that will take a good penalty in order to get in someone's face and clean out the front of the net. Joey is not that man.

To me this past season, it has become obvious that Joey belongs on offence with some PP time quarterbacking with a partner that has a cannon from the point. And I feel that his best chances to make it to the NHL lie here. Sorry Joey.

 

[EvenSteven]

I feel that the +/- tells us a lot. -25 states he was on the ice for 25 more goals against than he was for and it does not include PP or shorthanded situations. That does not scream "defense". And if you are going to compare the -25 with the "middling team" then you have to also look at the team and defensive partners he was playing with when he got his +9 in the playoffs last year.

His 2 minutes in penalties is not an indicator of defense either. I know, one might say that you don't want to take penalties but I am all for defenceman that will take a good penalty in order to get in someone's face and clean out the front of the net. Joey is not that man.

To me this past season, it has become obvious that Joey belongs on offence with some PP time quarterbacking with a partner that has a cannon from the point. And I feel that his best chances to make it to the NHL lie here. Sorry Joey.

Some true points, but that -25 came with linemates such as Valade, a future star here for sure but who was obviously trying to find his way here this year as a 16 year old rookie who struggled at times on both sides of the puck. Lipanov, his other linemate, never really lived up to his NHL draft position as a Ranger. He seemed to play hard when he felt like it and that happened on rare occasion.

His +9 came on the back end on a true contender. Yes he had high end D partners to play with (though I'll point out that Vukojovic played primarily with Stanley - especially after the McEneny injury), but he did excel playing D.

And my having him play D next year is assuming we may contend and will bolster the D with a strong stay at home type to be his partner.

I wouldn't lose sleep having Joey play forward either. But if we go that route, we are looking at bringing in two veteran D to fill out the back end. That could get pricy as they aren't cheap - especially if we find that we have to go goalie shopping too.

What we have to do is weight the pros and cons:

1) Joey plays D, we bring in a 19 year old vet to play with him. Maybe have to bring in a 19 year old goalie if need be.

2) Joey plays F, we shop for two veteran D to fill out the blueline, and still maybe bring in that 19 year old goalie.

3) Move Joey out of town, use that OA spot on a D (still have deal for another D and a G) or G (still have to deal for two D).

What has to be considered is how the coaching staff feels about Joey as a D. We may already have an idea on that.

Also, what Joey's worth is on the market. I think he projects to be a point a game player minimum, more likely around 80 point player as an OA. Are we going to get the proper return for him in trade? I'm not so sure. He may be worth more to us here no matter where he plays.

 

[MatthewsMoustache]

Some true points, but that -25 came with linemates such as Valade, a future star here for sure but who was obviously trying to find his way here this year as a 16 year old rookie who struggled at times on both sides of the puck. Lipanov, his other linemate, never really lived up to his NHL draft position as a Ranger. He seemed to play hard when he felt like it and that happened on rare occasion.

His +9 came on the back end on a true contender. Yes he had high end D partners to play with (though I'll point out that Vukojovic played primarily with Stanley - especially after the McEneny injury), but he did excel playing D.

And my having him play D next year is assuming we may contend and will bolster the D with a strong stay at home type to be his partner.

I wouldn't lose sleep having Joey play forward either. But if we go that route, we are looking at bringing in two veteran D to fill out the back end. That could get pricy as they aren't cheap - especially if we find that we have to go goalie shopping too.

What we have to do is weight the pros and cons:

1) Joey plays D, we bring in a 19 year old vet to play with him. Maybe have to bring in a 19 year old goalie if need be.

2) Joey plays F, we shop for two veteran D to fill out the blueline, and still maybe bring in that 19 year old goalie.

3) Move Joey out of town, use that OA spot on a D (still have deal for another D and a G) or G (still have to deal for two D).

What has to be considered is how the coaching staff feels about Joey as a D. We may already have an idea on that.

Also, what Joey's worth is on the market. I think he projects to be a point a game player minimum, more likely around 80 point player as an OA. Are we going to get the proper return for him in trade? I'm not so sure. He may be worth more to us here no matter where he plays.

I think the only way Joey plays here is as a defence. It just doesn’t make sense to roll 3 OA forwards. Joeys the easiest to move (imo) because they can say that they traded him somewhere where he can fit in on their D core. I just don’t think Kitchener is that place.

Best case scenario, they can trade Joey for an OA D and maybe a couple picks, Axel Andersson signs and the 2nd import spot can be used on a playmaking winger to make up for the loss of Joey. That costs 0 draft picks and they could actually recoup some to make some deadline moves and hopefully add a goalie

 

[EvenSteven]

I think the only way Joey plays here is as a defence. It just doesn’t make sense to roll 3 OA forwards. Joeys the easiest to move (imo) because they can say that they traded him somewhere where he can fit in on their D core. I just don’t think Kitchener is that place.

Best case scenario, they can trade Joey for an OA D and maybe a couple picks, Axel Andersson signs and the 2nd import spot can be used on a playmaking winger to make up for the loss of Joey. That costs 0 draft picks and they could actually recoup some to make some deadline moves and hopefully add a goalie

Joey for an OA D wouldn't make sense to the other team if it's an OA D replacing an OA D. Sideways move for that team. I suppose Joey for a stay at home OA D would make some sense.

Also, depending on the caliber of the incoming D (Cole Cameron or Kyle Gentles isn't good enough for a contender) we may have to sweeten the deal with pick(s). Ditto if it's Joey out to one team, and an OA D coming in from another. Speaks to his trade value. I'm fearing it isn't high. I have Garreffa as a high end OA. (PP QB who should put around 80points on the board). The return for a high end OA last year was around two 2nds and a 3rd (Salinitri). Can we get that for Joey?

Axel coming in would be the best case scenario. It would eliminate the need for Joey on the PP. Especially with Vukojevic and Sebrango around as secondary PP d-men. Fingers crossed.

 

[Rangers True Blue]

CHL Power Rankings: 10 highest risers in final Central Scouting draft rankings

 

[GeoBlue]

His +9 came on the back end on a true contender. Yes he had high end D partners to play with (though I'll point out that Vukojovic played primarily with Stanley - especially after the McEneny injury), but he did excel playing D.

He did get partnered with Vallati, who was no slouch. And Gentles held his own. Even if we got a solid D man to play with him, I still think he would benefit us most playing up front. There is some talk on these boards of trading him but I would not want to do this. Richardson obvious OA to trade if we can find a goalie. I can't see Richardson upping his game. And as much as he is one of my faves, I might have to let Yantsis go if we need to trade an OA forward. Does he have another 50 in him?

 

[EvenSteven]

He did get partnered with Vallati, who was no slouch. And Gentles held his own. Even if we got a solid D man to play with him, I still think he would benefit us most playing up front. There is some talk on these boards of trading him but I would not want to do this. Richardson obvious OA to trade if we can find a goalie. I can't see Richardson upping his game. And as much as he is one of my faves, I might have to let Yantsis go if we need to trade an OA forward. Does he have another 50 in him?

I feel we go with the three OA skaters (no matter where Joey plays) and try to acquire a 19 year old goalie off a non contender. That would be three high end OA's without having to deal for one. Would be one of the best OA tandems in the league.

If the only way that we can get a big upgrade in net is to go with an OA, then that's the only way I deal one of the three. Meireles could put up 100 points next year. I'd be surprised if Yantsis got to 50 again. But I'd be happy with 35-40 out of an OA. Garreffa I think should get to 75-80 points. Who to deal?

Meireles isn't going anywhere period.

Move Joey? His biggest value is on the PP. By next year, I think Vukojovic and Sebrango should be ok running it. Not ideal, but it would work.

Move Yantsis? Losing those goals off the roster would hurt. He has the size but isn't a mean player. His play 5 on 5 without the puck is in question at times.

Lose either of these two and there's a big hole to fill.

My answer:
I think we avoid using an OA goalie at all costs.

 

[Coaches Coroner]

A cannon from the point would be nice, but we managed to have the 1st or 2nd ranked power play in the entire league with what we currently have.

 

[EvenSteven]

A cannon from the point would be nice, but we managed to have the 1st or 2nd ranked power play in the entire league with what we currently have.

It took a few months, but once Vuko was finally given time on the PP, he showed that he could bring that big shot.

One thing that may help our PP is to not be one dimensional. The first unit with Garreffa on the point dishing pucks around and then the second unit with Vuko blasting away from the points would be two different power plays all together.

Two different dimensions of the power play requires much more planning to kill said PP's.

 

[Rangers True Blue]

A cannon from the point would be nice, but we managed to have the 1st or 2nd ranked power play in the entire league with what we currently have.

Which fizzled in playoffs. Knowing a big shot is not coming from the point helps focus on the cross passing.

 

[GeoBlue]

Which fizzled in playoffs. Knowing a big shot is not coming from the point helps focus on the cross passing.

I WAS going to say that but I think it was not so much us fizzling out than it was Guelph just not taking many penalties. However, I agree that a cannon from the point would be an additional weapon to an already potent arsenal. No pun intended.