That's an awful look for management and the players. I've been patient but that shit won't fly. They won't go anywhere with that mentality and if they don't learn how to stick up for one another.
Speculation: Roster Building Thread LXXX: Going 8-0 to close out might not be enough!
- Thread starter BBKers
- Start date
- Status
That's an awful look for management and the players. I've been patient but that shit won't fly. They won't go anywhere with that mentality and if they don't learn how to stick up for one another.
Tob
Registered User
- Sep 16, 2017
- 15,839
- 34,856
When you're a former 4th rounder who signed an UFA contract with the Rangers expecting to spend the coming years in the AHL but you're being called upon by a billion dollar organization and its fans in a multi-billion dollar league to singlehandedly deliver justice, retribution, and restore a franchise's dignity and the league's integrity against the biggest goon in the NHL.
NYR94
Registered User
When you're a former 4th rounder who signed an UFA contract with the Rangers expecting to spend the coming years in the AHL but you're being called upon by a billion dollar organization and its fans in a multi-billion dollar league to singlehandedly deliver justice, retribution, and restore a franchise's dignity and the league's integrity against the biggest goon in the NHL.
Was he signed for his powerplay wizardry?
mas0764
Registered User
- Jul 16, 2005
- 13,815
- 11,159
No one "needs," to do anything. This is hockey, not indentured servitude.
The Senators didn't "need," to trade Stone, it's not like their franchise was going to fold if they didn't trade him. The situation was that they faced an ugly choice being that if they didn't trade him at the deadline, they would either face losing him for nothing or having to sink a massive contract into a player who was no good use for them as they wanted to rebuild. Facing that set of choices, they chose to trade, and the acceptable, now proven historic return for such a trade of a 26 year old first line player, which the Senators found sufficient as compensation, was a prime defensive prospect who had never played in the NHL before, plus relatively worthless filler in a player who has no place in the league full time (Lindberg) and a hit or miss second round pick.
The Rangers don't need to trade Buch either, but -- and this is the part you seem to keep missing -- similar to the Senators not having use for Stone as they entered their rebuild, they do not have good use for Buch at first line salary while playing third line minutes and thus face a set of ugly choices by not trading him (let him walk in RFA or sign him to a bloated contract that they don't want to have languishing on the third line sooner rather than later like Kreider's). The circumstances are not entirely the same but the set of choices are remarkably similar. The Senators did not "have to" trade Stone, but they would have had to sink a huge contract into a player that they could continue to play on their first line but who would hinder their attempt to bottom out and rebuild; plus, they also were highly desirable of "re-setting their clock" by getting younger. Thus, trading him was highly desirable.
Well, the Rangers are highly desirable of getting a young center in return. Edge indicated that this is their preference: to move Buch for a young center "with runway," (ie, not a player who already is already all that he will become like Lindholm, I'd think) rather than keep him and sign him, the latter of which they'd view as a negative outcome and a missed opportunity, because they have no use for Buch at $5+m or more with Kakko and Kravtsov slotted for those spots. Ie, Buch's presence is a net negative for value at a first line contract and hinders their attempt to acquire a young center for the future "with runway."
Of course the Rangers are not "over a barrel." If nothing else, they will probably have multiple suitors for Buch. If you think they can get more back in return, fine, feel free to posit what that "more," might be. Lundell seems like the ideal target to me, given that I know they loved him just last draft, that he projects in my book (and their book) as a 1B/2A center with defensive acumen who would be perfect alongside talented wingers (and probably not THAT expensive when it comes extension time), and his age relative to Kakko and Lafreniere. I'm happy to discuss other names - Newhook, Glass, Krebs, etc - but you don't ever have any interest in suggesting anything, just shitting all over what everyone else has to say. If you want to throw names into the ring who have already played in the NHL, like Barrett Hayton or something, feel free to suggest it and make the case why that would be better.
But if your "more," is a couple of third liner "veterans," who have simply played in the league already, that's not what Edge is implying they are going to be chasing FIRST. That might be the ultimate outcome but only because then that Buch isn't valuable enough to bring back a player like Lundell.
And if the problem is that Buch isn't valuable enough to bring back a prospect like Lundell, well, then the issue isn't that an aspiring playoff team like the Rangers wouldn't trade a 26 year old first liner as you keep claiming, it's that Florida wouldn't.
I don't understand how this is running. It's been repeated over and over and over again. This is the answer.
Buch + for Lundell+ would be the profile that closely mirrors a Stone trade.
Rangers trade a 26 year old first line winger who is not under contract anymore and who they do not wish to sign to a long, expensive extension, and acquire a prospect who addresses a dire need for them (young top 6 center depth).
If the Rangers have to throw in a second round pick, or add PDG, or ask for a second back from Florida, whatever. Iron it out. The main components would be Buch for Lundell like the main components were Stone for Brannstrom.
Speaking of disingenuous. See, Smith has never scored 10 goals in a game before.
But a 26 year old first line player has been traded for prospect who has never played in the NHL before.... it just happened a few years back with the Stone trade.
So.... the trade is way more likely to happen than something ridiculous you pulled out of a hat.
Granted, any trade projection is ultimately unlikely at the end of the day, but that's not what's being discussed here really. It's that this is a realistic trade that would be a desirable outcome for the Rangers and Panthers.
Which it is.
I've literally never said it "was going to happen."
It's been something I've been advocating, as you know, we all do in a trade thread on a message board, as wise for the Rangers and eminently possible (while not being probable).
And it is possible, as demonstrated by the undeniable fact that 26 year old first liners sometimes get moved for prospects, like what happened about 2 years ago.
But we also know that the Rangers almost pulled the trigger on Buch for the 8OA just over a year ago too, so.... once again you are living in the land of the deluded here.
"NO! Trades of first liners for prospects don't happen!" (except they do, see Stone for Brannstrom)
"Rangers won't trade players for prospects!" (except they just tried to with the exact same player like 20 months ago, see Edge confirmed attempt to trade Buch for 8OA/Zegras).
"Things are different now! They won't trade that player anymore because the rebuild is over!" (except Edge just said they want to trade that same player for a player who is young and can grow with Kakko and Lafreniere, like a Lundell)
My, how the spin machine is in overdrive.
I mean, how many times do you have to bury your head in the sand on this "no more trading for futures," schtick?
IT IS THE INCORRECT APPROACH to draw a hard line in the sand on the issue.
Remember how wrong you essentially were when you doubled down on keeping DeAngelo at all costs because Fox "hadn't proven" that he could come close to DeAngelo's point totals? You laughably told me that you wouldn't trade DeAngelo for a top 5 pick in last year's draft, which would have been like Stutzle, Raymond, Holtz, or Lundell or something. And look at Fox now! You refused to entertain the OBVIOUS projections that Fox was about to become a stud and make DeAngelo redundant.
And now DeAngelo is trash for us, a big fat nothing.
Yet you keep forgetting about the concept of proper asset management every time you cling to this ridiculous notion of "can't trade for futures anymore." Sometimes it's better to move a player for a future. It's sad that you can't get that.
Last edited:
Rangers should call up Will Cuyle for tomorrow's game. one game is not gonna hurt his career. he has the nastiness size and grit this team needs
TheAHL.com | The American Hockey League
Cuylle already has a fight in today's game
TheAHL.com | The American Hockey League
Cuylle already has a fight in today's game
Gardner McKay
RIP, Jimmy.
That is not a correct assumption. It would likely neutralize the PP. In which case, I'm all for it.
I think the way his contract is structured, he can't be called up until next season.
Kords
Registered User
- Jun 19, 2019
- 6,497
- 11,064
When you're a former 4th rounder who signed an UFA contract with the Rangers expecting to spend the coming years in the AHL but you're being called upon by a billion dollar organization and its fans in a multi-billion dollar league to singlehandedly deliver justice, retribution, and restore a franchise's dignity and the league's integrity against the biggest goon in the NHL.
Lmao, this is my initial thought when people keep saying to call him up
yea I believe it starts next season. I just hope he is not the next Dane Byers. shocked he never took the next step since he had some good AHL seasons
haohmaru
boomshakalaka
- Status
