Proposal: Rangers and Flames, around Buchnevich and Fox

[HawkeyTalkMan]

It's been a while since we had an inception level Bern proposal. It's been too long

 

[bernmeister]

Not giving Fox AND a first for Buch. Period. Even if you are giving back two seconds.

This is way more complicated than it needs to be. Put Fox on one side, Buch on the other, balance from there.

Not sure I'm guilty as charged on this one.

Yes, not all deals are done with idea to swap even value, coke for pepsi. Idea is to have a profit. However, this would qualify as complementary need, NY needs RD, CAL needs scorers.

Unfortunately, for reasons defined above, Fox =\= Buchnevich in current value.
Hence the later 1st.

The additional picks are there to further balance out.
Obviously, without those picks a deal could still be done but it would be that much more uneven.

Which begs the question: while there is a limit and a cut off point about adding a bit more to this side, then that one, then reducing hoping to simplify, etc., while acknowledging such limits, why would you not try for balanced deal on those occasions when that is your intent? [Does not refer to certain assets command overpay, etc.]

For years, peeps complain about too many ingredients, too many moving parts. But you see this is the direction of change in such deals. The last Brassard deal, 3 parts, had to wait approval 'cause IT was so convoluted. That is way worse application of moving parts than some variation of 5 or even 7 assets vs 4 or 5 the other way, but is a more straightforward presentation.

Sometimes deals by their unique nature are obviously balanced, and do not require adds.
Smith + Georgiev for Darling + McKeown
is a case in point.
2 bad contracts, almost identical term and $, but you have them cause their current team finds its own player toxic, while with reason to hope that the problem they acquire is one they can, based on track record, correct the problem.

Sure you could just do Smith for Darling for those reasons.
But why would you not make it a combo package adding elc G Georgiev Canes need for elc RD McKeown who Rangers need, both offers possible b'c current clubs have surplus G and D respectively.

But not everything is as neat and symetrical [sp?] as that particular example.

 

[bernmeister]

...

Disagreeing with you doesn't mean I'm angry, let's clarify that right away. I don't ever get "angry" on here.
I'm glad to hear it. And there is nothing wrong with a spirited dif of op.; I misread what I detected was passion in your reply pushing calm and civil disagreement towards becoming furious.
I apologize for the misread.
Disagree more often than not, though I tend to agree more with you than not as to other members' posts. My read is you have always been a standup guy, and that is always to be commended.
Now as to that dif of op...

There is no logic for dealing away the team's best young winger from an area of need to deal for a player that falls into an area of strength. The logic is backwards. They need to deal defenders/defense prospects for wingers if anything and that's not even a smart course of action fight now, due to organizational depth.
1 -- RD and LD are not the same atm on this club.
Delete Staal and Smith; still have Skjei and the 4 prospects.
RD is thin; we may be okay w/Shatty Pionk + ADA, but even still depth is in order.
RD is not strong, immediately or around the corner or otherwise, atm. It IS a position of need, not strength.

2 -- That said, we need to sharpshoot strategic adds who will deliver talent upgrade, regardless of position. In context of this scenario, that means even tho he is LD, of which we could always add but are covered atm, NY goes after Hanifin if he can be had at the right price.

3 -- Your fair challenge to that is we are not bursting apart at the seams with Ws. Esp if we are losing Zuc. We have one Buch, not a half dozen in reserve. That is not disputed, but it yields to what I said above and in earlier post. Depending on if Zib/Andersson + Georgiev + is moved for 2OA + Hanifin + cap dump Darling, Chytil may be available at W instead of C. And you have temporary stopgaps including presumably Kovy on the right deal.

Remember, if this team can jumpstart back to competitive play quickly, great; if not, while I don't believe an extended 3-4 year period of Dark Ages is upcoming, we do have to realize there is an ongoing need to build. Don't be afraid to take 1 step backward today to go 3 steps forward just around the corner.

If they want to deal Spooner or Namestnikov for help on defense, then that's fine. Neither fit the trajectory of the team going forward.
Agree.
If we get a decent price for either or both now, do it, accelerate the return.
If not, sign to reasonable 3 yr max deals and, presumably they are playing since presumably Zib/Andersson moved, at first opportunity that makes sense, move for future assets, pref picks. Injuries occur and clubs like Dallas who are not moving a pick this year will, if there is injury, likely consider adding a Namest. for a future.

Again, this doesn't make any sense. You're robbing peter to pay paul, as I said before.
LD peter has way more in the cupboard than RD paul

It doesn't make any sense, especially to deal off an established, young, cost controlled asset like Skjei.
Skjei is not automatically dealt in this equation.
He is a contingency fallback if necessary esp if the 4 prospects mentioned shine.

You look like you're trying to get every player on the team on an ELC, except Kreider and that's not a plausible solution for anything.
While elc status is always a plus, that is not my overriding consideration.
I don't think a truly single overriding consideration approach works, because there are multiple ingredients in play. That is reality. However, while any individual deal must be considered on its own for strategic and other reasons as well, as and for an overall impetus, it is not to better $ management and age manage our player assets with elc status, but rather to add more talent.

Don't see where or how this works.
Thanks and feel free to give it a 2nd look.

 

[bernmeister]

I'm not angry Bern. I just can't stroke out over proposals every day. I'm sorry. It's for the best. It's not you, it's me. I don't want to ruin your fun. I just can't be a part of it without the top number of my blood pressure doubling the bottom number.

Glad to hear there's no anger there.

Every writer usually hopes for a passionate response from his readers.
I never intended any chord I strike, deliberate or otherwise, to provoke health issues for you.

I gotta call em like I see em, stand on getting it right when applicable and taking my lumps when applicable.

For example, Boo Nieves TODAY is NOT a 1C by any measure.
But it is clear that he has size, speed, takes draws well, and can do basic/min playmaking support passing to Ws. This was witnessed initially when he was on a line w/Buch and somebody else, forget who.
Then ... AV ... other bs, etc.
Probably wanted to make roster space available for others to review them while extending effectively his elc status.

I continue to maintain Boo with Kreider and the right 1RW is a winning strategy, plus it effectively extends our C depth while giving Nieves the best chance to succeed. If Zib is kept, and he should be unless he goes to Car in a package for 2OA, he is the obvious choice.

That's the kind of outside the box comment that prompts an emotional response. It has to be said, not only in the name of free speech, but with an eye for Rangers to leave no stone unturned. After all, the worst that can happen is I'm wrong, and the next scenario on the list is realized. But if I am right, IF Nieves in an isolated situation, can be so productively employed more so than typically, then that is a benefit whose potential should not be dismissed out of hand. Chemistry is a fragile thing, and while on paper Nieves + Kreider + should be hand in glove, that might not render so in reality. But we should be open minded to try.

All that said, EEE, I extend to you all best wishes, and friendship, and totally get if choose to ignore my posts. Try to consider that open mind, but not if that's how you roll with your blood pressure.
Be well.

 

[tradenashnow]

Rangers fans on these boards have always had this idiotic obsession with Russian players. I would absolutely use Buchnevich or Skjei or both to move up to 4 if Tkachuk was there. He's the type of forward the Rangers need. They are an incredibly soft, easy team to play against now. Gorton with his deadline deals started to change that. That and his draft picks last year.