Speculation: Roster Building Thread 2019-20: Part XXVI

[aufheben]

Continue.

Click to read more...

 

[GoAwayPanarin]

There is room on this team for both DeAngelo and Fox.

Tattoo this on the inside of your eyelids @KreiderBomb

 

[Shesterkybomb]

There is room on this team for both DeAngelo and Fox.

Tattoo this on the inside of your eyelids @KreiderBomb

Tattoo this..."YOU NEED MORE THAN RIGHT DMEN TO WIN"

 

[Edge]

I really wish there was a way to carry over a quote from a previous thread, even if we can't reply in that thread.

Anyways, continuing the conversation:

@KreiderBomb - "Yes..but you also need forwards to play hockey."

I agree with you. I just don't see why they have to come from trading ADA. Or, more specifically, why it has to come from trading ADA now.

I think we have other avenues, and time, to pursue those forwards, and once Lundqvist is off the books (assuming Kreider isn't resigned), I think we'll have the room to have both ADA and the forward we both want on the same roster.

Which is probably my main sticking point, I don't think any of these scenarios are either/or, nor do I find them to be particularly time sensitive.

 

[GoAwayPanarin]

There are so many other ways to add forwards.

We have a shit load of capital in terms of prospects and picks and that is likely to grow in a little over 3 weeks. Dip into that pool.

 

[Edge]

There are so many other ways to add forwards.

We have a **** load of capital in terms of prospects and picks and that is likely to grow in a little over 3 weeks. Dip into that pool.

The last part is also something that we tend to overlook.

Let's assume for a minute that Georgiev brings back a second, Fast a third, and Kreider's return includes a prospect and a pick.

That means that on top of what we already have in our "Savings" account, we will have two additional first round picks/a total of 5 picks in the top 93 of the 2020 draft, and an additional young player.

So that's potentially the infusion of 6 more young assets, including a potentially elite young asset if we're picking in the top 10.

 

[Shesterkybomb]

I really wish there was a way to carry over a quote from a previous thread, even if we can't reply in that thread.

Anyways, continuing the conversation:

@KreiderBomb - "Yes..but you also need forwards to play hockey."

I agree with you. I just don't see why they have to come from trading ADA. Or, more specifically, why it has to come from trading ADA now.

I think we have other avenues, and time, to pursue those forwards, and once Lundqvist is off the books (assuming Kreider isn't resigned), I think we'll have the room to have both ADA and the forward we both want on the same roster.

Which is probably my main sticking point, I don't think any of these scenarios are either/or, nor do I find them to be particularly time sensitive.

Yes but if you spend 22 +/- mill on right side d you've spent a quarter of your cap space already. That's the issue. We actually have the perfect storm for making a good trade, we already have two top 4 right d, we have a nice prospect pool of right side d coming up. So trade from your position of strength to add to your weakness and you add a guy on league minimum to your right side d and have cap space for other areas of the team. It makes too much sense.
I'm ok with a bridge, but I don't want a contract that overlaps with Fox next contract. But I still feel the best option for team building is trading for a high end forward.

 

[GoAwayPanarin]

Would you feel better if DeAngelo moved over to the left? Because thats what most of us have suggested and it would even out the allocation of dollars, which really shouldn't matter.

Pay your best players what they deserve and don't overpay your depth guys and take advantage of a rising cap. Problem solved.

 

[Edge]

Yes but if you spend 22 +/- mill on right side d you've spent a quarter of your cap space already. That's the issue.

How are you getting $22 million for the right defense?

Trouba makes $8 million. ADA is probably looking at $6 million, and Fox makes $925k. That's $15 million if ADA is resigned. That's $7 million under what you're stating, and Fox isn't getting $6 or $7 million for at least another two years. So that's a 2022 concern.

On the flip side, if you bring in a wing like Connor, you're going to spend the roughly the same amount of money on 3 LWs (Panarin $11.6m + Connor $7m + Lemieux at roughly $3m) starting next year.

That argument doesn't make any sense to me.

And once again, why can't you trade ADA beyond the next few months? What do you believe is prohibiting someone being moved a year from now? Or two years from now when Fox is due for a raise?

 

[Shesterkybomb]

Would you feel better if DeAngelo moved over to the left? Because thats what most of us have suggested and it would even out the allocation of dollars, which really shouldn't matter.

Pay your best players what they deserve and don't overpay your depth guys and take advantage of a rising cap. Problem solved.

I would for sure. It hasnt happened enough to say that would happen. Not sure if it's because he isnt comfortable there or the coach doesnt want him there. If it worked there I'm good. I said it before that DeAngelo and Trouba would be a nice compliment if DeAngelo can handle the left side. There just isnt enough minutes on that right side to have a 3rd pair guy making 6 mill or more in 2 year.

 

[Shesterkybomb]

How are you getting $22 million for the right defense?

Trouba makes $8 million. ADA is probably looking at $6 million, and Fox makes $925k. That's $15 million if ADA is resigned. Fox isn't getting $6 million for at least another two years.

On the flip side, if you bring in a wing like Connor, you're going to spend the roughly the same amount of money on 3 LWs (Panarin $11.6m + Connor $7m + Lemieux at roughly $3m) starting next year.

That argument doesn't make any sense to me.

And once again, why can't you trade ADA beyond the next few months? What do you believe is prohibiting someone being moved a year from now? Or two years from now when Fox is due for a raise?

Yes....in another 2 years is what I'm talking about, it's why im comfortable with a bridge but not a long term.
What happens if DeAngelo regresses to last years DeAngelo? Can you trade him at 6 mill for the next 7 years?
You need to spread the money around the forwards and d, you dont and you get what the leafs have in reverse.

 

[Edge]

Yes....in another 2 years is what I'm talking about, it's why im comfortable with a bridge but not a long term.

Unless ADA completely falls off a cliff, there is nothing prohibiting the Rangers from making a move...in two years when it's actually a potential concern.

And even then, you're going to have Lundqvist, Staal and Smith off the books --- which would free up nearly $19 million dollars between now and then.

So I still don't understand why in the world we're worried about this today and feel we need to make a trade.

 

[Shesterkybomb]

Unless ADA completely falls off a cliff, there is nothing prohibiting the Rangers from making a move...in two years when it's actually a potential concern.

And even then, you're going to have Lundqvist, Staal and Smith off the books --- which would free up nearly $19 million dollars between now and then.

So I still don't understand why in the world we're worried about this today and feel we need to make a trade.

Because his value Is probably as high as it ever will be right now.

 

[Edge]

Because his value Is probably as high as it ever will be right now

Based on what?

 

[Brooklyn Rangers Fan]

Yes but if you spend 22 +/- mill on right side d you've spent a quarter of your cap space already. That's the issue. We actually have the perfect storm for making a good trade, we already have two top 4 right d, we have a nice prospect pool of right side d coming up. So trade from your position of strength to add to your weakness and you add a guy on league minimum to your right side d and have cap space for other areas of the team. It makes too much sense.
I'm ok with a bridge, but I don't want a contract that overlaps with Fox next contract. But I still feel the best option for team building is trading for a high end forward.

See, once you get into the details, you and @Edge (and I) may not be that far off.

I tend to agree that it would be suboptimal to have Trouba, Fox, and ADA all on big money deals at the same time. I also think it makes a ton of sense to leverage a position of strength to improve a position of weakness. And when the time comes, for a variety of reasons, I actually think Tony may be the one to go. But that's anticipating a problem we don't yet have to address, and won't for several years.

Sign him to a 2-4 year deal, see how Fox, Lundkvist, Keane, and whomever else may arrive in the meantime all develop, and then make the appropriate move when necessary. Until then, there's no need to force things... unless someone wants to do a megadeal (e.g. something centered around ADA for the aforementioned Connor, or maybe Nylander).

 

[Shesterkybomb]

Based on what?

Based on a bunch of things, 1) his history as a player 2) the minutes he is getting right now vs what he could potentially get once fox is a mainstay on the team. 3) contending teams that are tight against the cap would be able to take his contract on right now. 4) Because I dont see him scoring 70 points and all of a sudden becoming a better defender at 25.

 

[romba]

Fast a third

Fast has way more value to us than a third so I would hope he could bring back a bit more than that. Sure, every guy with middling stats is touted as 'defensively responsible' by the team looking to sell, but Fast really is top notch in the D zone. For a team with pretty crappy possession stats you rarely see his line get stuck in the D zone + and he's really solid along the boards in the O zone and can put the puck in the net occasionally with a decent enough shot too.

 

[Shesterkybomb]

See, once you get into the details, you and @Edge (and I) may not be that far off.

I tend to agree that it would be suboptimal to have Trouba, Fox, and ADA all on big money deals at the same time. I also think it makes a ton of sense to leverage a position of strength to improve a position of weakness. And when the time comes, for a variety of reasons, I actually think Tony may be the one to go. But that's anticipating a problem we don't yet have to address, and won't for several years.

Sign him to a 2-4 year deal, see how Fox, Lundkvist, Keane, and whomever else may arrive in the meantime all develop, and then make the appropriate move when necessary. Until then, there's no need to force things... unless someone wants to do a megadeal (e.g. something centered around ADA for the aforementioned Connor, or maybe Nylander).

I agree with all of this. I just get the feeling given how DeAngelo's career has gone so far that he will be trying to get a long term deal especially given the fact we strong armed him into a crappy deal this year. I mean it was only a couple years ago people were questioning if he had a spot in the nhl so I'd say he will be looking long term.
This bantering makes it seem like I dont like tony that's not the case, I just feel we have bigger needs now and a pipeline to support the decision to move him.

 

[Edge]

Based on a bunch of things, 1) his history as a player 2) the minutes he is getting right now vs what he could potentially get once fox is a mainstay on the team. 3) contending teams that are tight against the cap would be able to take his contract on right now. 4) Because I dont see him scoring 70 points and all of a sudden becoming a better defender at 25.

His history as a player? This guy's offense and potential has NEVER been the question.

Fox is a mainstay on this team, and they can be mainstays together.

So you want contending teams who are tight against the cap to trade for a guy that you want to move because you think he's going to cost more money? And they can trade him later, but we can't? And his value won't decrease for them?

I don't need him to score 70 points, I need him to score 50-60 in a given year. Anything above that is gravy.

But to clear about this, ADA's value is never going to be higher than it is right now, but Fox and Lundkvist will continue to get better, despite having played less in the NHL, or not in the NHL at all.

That's what you want the Rangers to bank on?

 

[Shesterkybomb]

Fast has way more value to us than a third so I would hope he could bring back a bit more than that. Sure, every guy with middling stats is touted as 'defensively responsible' by the team looking to sell, but Fast really is top notch in the D zone. For a team with pretty crappy possession stats you rarely see his line get stuck in the D zone + and he's really solid along the boards in the O zone and can put the puck in the net occasionally with a decent enough shot too.

That's the problem with Fast, he is really worth more to us to keep him than to trade him. How much is a deal everyone is happy with though

 

[Zibanejbread]

Rossi's mailbag: How could the Penguins land Chris Kreider?
Hi Rob, if the Penguins target Kreider do you think the asking price would be higher since both teams play in the same division? And what do you think the Penguins would have to give up to get him?

The Penguins are targeting Kreider. They’ve inquired. They’ve not been told by the New York Rangers that Kreider isn’t available, which should dismiss the notion that Kreider won’t be moved to a Metropolitan club.
Here’s what seems to be the consensus regarding Kreider’s status:
He’ll be moved.
The asking price is a first-round pick... (more behind paywall, but this is the main point)

Sounds like Pitt doesn't have the ammo to get Kreider.

 

[rangers1314]

That's the problem with Fast, he is really worth more to us to keep him than to trade him. How much is a deal everyone is happy with though

Not going above 3aav for Fast.

I think he could bring back a Grabner link return. He's the type of guy playoff bound teams covet.

 

[Edge]

I am confused here by these Roster Building threads.

On the one hand, when it comes to signing Kreider, at age 29, we cite all the money coming off the books, the ways we can make it work, and how he is likely to maintain his level of play through the contract.

When it comes to signing ADA, at age 24, apparently none of that money is coming off the books, we have to trade him now, and he's going to get hit by a bus and his play is going to collapse.

 

[Shesterkybomb]

His history as a player? This guy's offense and potential has NEVER been the question.

Fox is a mainstay on this team, and they can be mainstays together.

So you want contending teams who are tight against the cap to trade for a guy that you want to move because you think he's going to cost more money? And they can trade him later, but we can't? And his value won't decrease for them?

I don't need him to score 70 points, I need him to score 50-60 in a given year. Anything above that is gravy.

But to clear about this, ADA's value is never going to be higher than it is right now, but Fox and Lundkvist will continue to get better, despite having played less in the NHL, or not in the NHL at all.

That's what you want the Rangers to bank on?

Fox is a rookie, DeAngelo in his 4th nhl season, is 24 where most players peak in this era.

 

[Shesterkybomb]

I am confused here by these Roster Building threads.

On the one hand, when it comes to signing Kreider, at age 29, we cite all the money coming off the books, the ways we can make it work, and how he is likely to maintain his level of play through the contract.

When it comes to signing ADA, at age 24, apparently none of that money is coming off the books, we have to trade him now, and he's going to get hit by a bus and his play is going to collapse.

Who said any of that?