Speculation: Roster Building Thread: Part XIX

[DutchShamrock]

If I had to pick one, I felt closer in the LA series than the Tampa series, actually.

Playing not to lose cost us more games under AV than just that series. Ottawa stings. 2 goal leads vanished in the 3rd. Maybe they didn't have gas in the tank to play aggressive, but we saw it in other series and other years. It was his way.

That LA series was razor thin. Three leads turned into 3 OT losses, 2 in 2OT.

 

[Edge]

Keller doesn’t bother me as much as Pettersson. I was figuring Vancouver was taking Villardi. I figured we were getting one of Pettersson or Glass. Just awful.

Vancouver did their HW, gotta give em that.

I think the frustrating thing with Vancouver, and especially Arizona, is the number of kicks they get at the can. They get those players and then they can’t find anyone else, so they just keep sucking.

The Rangers get the players outside of the top picks, but aren’t there to get those talents at the top.

It’s why I’ve never really shied from the “tanking” approach. If the Rangers were already bad at finding talents in the late first and beyond, I’d be more concerned. But they’re not.

Typically when we talk about teams that can’t break the rebuild cycle, they either can’t draft outside of high picks, can’t attract and retain talent, or some combination of the two.

We don’t have those concerns.

 

[East Coast Bias]

I strongly believe if the Rangers could just nab those one or two elite guys with a top pick, and then do what I think they’ve done well over the last 14 years, they’d be in great shape. For me, I don’t even think they’d need generational.

It’s one of the main reasons I never thought the comparisons to Edmonton, or Colorado, or other teams was accurate.

If we dont draft someone that has WILL SCORE 600 NHL GOALS on their scouting report come draft day, people here are gonna stroke out.

 

[Machinehead]

Pettersson and Keller.

Not going to pretend I haven’t thought about it.

We had Gordie Howe in camp and cut him. That was 45 years before I was born and I think about that

I strongly believe if the Rangers could just nab those one or two elite guys with a top pick, and then do what I think they’ve done well over the last 14 years, they’d be in great shape. For me, I don’t even think they’d need generational.

It’s one of the main reasons I never thought the comparisons to Edmonton, or Colorado, or other teams was accurate.

You're right that it doesn't have to be generational.

I would chew my arm off for a Scheifele or a Monahan.

Give those 2014 and 2015 teams a solid, 80-point, play-driving center, and they win back-to-back Cups blindfolded.

 

[Machinehead]

Playing not to lose cost us more games under AV than just that series. Ottawa stings. 2 goal leads vanished in the 3rd. Maybe they didn't have gas in the tank to play aggressive, but we saw it in other series and other years. It was his way.

That LA series was razor thin. Three leads turned into 3 OT losses, 2 in 2OT.

As much as the Ottawa series sucked when it happened, I'm sitting here in 2019 kissing the ground that we lost that series.

We sure as f*** didn't need a longer leash for AV and another kick at the ever-loving can.

 

[Kupo]

Even if they go well and reasonably fast, rebuilds are brutal.

Uncle Larry said something a while back that I found particularly true - everyone loves the idea of a rebuild, it’s the actual execution they don’t like. As a result, it’s one thing to talk about a rebuild, and another thing entirely to execute it.

When was the last time the Rangers commited themselves to a full rebuild though?

2004? I wouldn’t even consider that a proper rebuild considering we traded for Jagr, then signed Nylander a few months later. Regardless, I recall the fanbase being very supportive of what happened in 04, outside of seeing Leetch in a different jersey.

My biggest concern about our current rebuild is trying to stay competitive while rebuilding.

We half assed it in 2004 and the decisions Quinn + Gorton have made are making me think we’re going to half ass it again.

I’m probably the minority here, but I disagree with Brooks.

 

[Ghost of jas]

Vancouver did their HW, gotta give em that.

I think the frustrating thing with Vancouver, and especially Arizona, is the number of kicks they get at the can. They get those players and then they can’t find anyone else, so they just keep sucking.

The Rangers get the players outside of the top picks, but aren’t there to get those talents at the top.

It’s why I’ve never really shied from the “tanking” approach. If the Rangers were already bad at finding talents in the late first and beyond, I’d be more concerned. But they’re not.

Typically when we talk about teams that can’t break the rebuild cycle, they either can’t draft outside of high picks, can’t attract and retain talent, or some combination of the two.

We don’t have those concerns.

I have to be honest, though. Andersson is the one pick I’m still unsure about/not in love with/however you want to describe it. I try to be fair, and won’t go on a tirade about him, but, my gut feeling about him isn’t a positive one. There’s a part of me that believes he’s one of the players who gets moved if Gorton goes big game hunting when this team is close. Which is not unusual in this type of rebuild.

 

[Edge]

When was the last time the Rangers commited themselves to a full rebuild though?

2004? I wouldn’t even consider that a proper rebuild considering we traded for Jagr, then signed Nylander a few months later. Regardless, I recall the fanbase being very supportive of what happened in 04, outside of seeing Leetch in a different jersey.

My biggest concern about our current rebuild is trying to stay competitive while rebuilding.

We half assed it in 2004 and the decisions Quinn + Gorton have made are making me think we’re going to half ass it again.

I’m probably the minority here, but I disagree with Brooks.

What the Rangers are currently doing is already well into unchartered waters for the franchise.

Just the number of first round picks we’ve had/will have from 2017 through 2019 is unheard of in Rangers lore.

 

[Edge]

I have to be honest, though. Andersson is the one pick I’m still unsure about/not in love with/however you want to describe it. I try to be fair, and won’t go on a tirade about him, but, my gut feeling about him isn’t a positive one. There’s a part of me that believes he’s one of the players who gets moved if Gorton goes big game hunting when this team is close. Which is not unusual in this type of rebuild.

Let me just say that I would not be the least bit surprised.

 

[Kupo]

What the Rangers are currently doing is already well into unchartered waters for the franchise.

Just the number of first round picks we’ve had/will have from 2017 through 2019 is unheard of in Rangers lore.

I don’t disagree.

But are we going to turn back now or still continue exploring those uncharted lands...?

 

[Machinehead]

What the Rangers are currently doing is already well into unchartered waters for the franchise.

Just the number of first round picks we’ve had/will have from 2017 through 2019 is unheard of in Rangers lore.

I talk about teams having cultures that transcend who's running the team, and you are what you are, and we have to re-invent ourselves.

Well, what we're doing now is something we've never done, so give them credit for that.

I just wish it was going better. We've picked up points we've had no business picking up and I think the loser point should be done away with in general.

 

[Ghost of jas]

What the Rangers are currently doing is already well into unchartered waters for the franchise.

Just the number of first round picks we’ve had/will have from 2017 through 2019 is unheard of in Rangers lore.

Yup...just get me the first line center I’ve always craved.

 

[Kupo]

Yup...just get me the first line center I’ve always craved.

If we don’t draft that 1C, we’ll just claim one off of waivers!

 

[Machinehead]

I have to be honest, though. Andersson is the one pick I’m still unsure about/not in love with/however you want to describe it. I try to be fair, and won’t go on a tirade about him, but, my gut feeling about him isn’t a positive one. There’s a part of me that believes he’s one of the players who gets moved if Gorton goes big game hunting when this team is close. Which is not unusual in this type of rebuild.

Like you, I'm not gonna harp on it and go on a tirade, but Andersson strikes me as old Rangers. He's not great, but he should be good. We're gonna work hard, we're gonna get 'er done, character, leadership, responsibility, defense, net out, block shots, 55 points, etc. etc. etc.

I'm not saying any of that is bad, but it screams 2014 Rangers. And yeah, that team was good. That team also fell short.

Kravtsov and Miller say to me "we're not doing that anymore, we're taking players that are absolute gamebreakers if they hit their ceiling." (And some will call Miller's WJC disappointing because of lack of points and the occasional blunder, but I'm still seeing him do things that humans shouldn't do, and I'm still very excited)

In 2017 when we drafted Andersson, we were still sort of, kind of retooling, sort of kind of wanted to do it while still winning. Kravtsov and Miller were post-letter when we really dove in.

Again, that doesn't make Andersson bad, but it's the sort of piece we need 3-4 years from now. Right now we need the foundation. I would argue that at his ceiling, he was never foundation. He was drafted to be a nice little piece, nothing more.

 

[Kupo]

Like you, I'm not gonna harp on it and go on a tirade, but Andersson strikes me as old Rangers. He's not great, but he should be good. We're gonna work hard, we're gonna get 'er done, character, leadership, responsibility, defense, net out, block shots, 55 points, etc. etc. etc.

I'm not saying any of that is bad, but it screams 2014 Rangers. And yeah, that team was good. That team also fell short.

Kravtsov and Miller say to me "we're not doing that anymore, we're taking players that are absolute gamebreakers if they hit their ceiling." (And some will call Miller's WJC disappointing because of lack of points and the occasional blunder, but I'm still seeing him do things that humans shouldn't do, and I'm still very excited)

In 2017 when we drafted Andersson, we were still sort of, kind of retooling, sort of kind of wanted to do it while still winning. Kravtsov and Miller were post-letter when we really dove in.

Again, that doesn't make Andersson bad, but it's the sort of piece we need 3-4 years from now. Right now we need the foundation. I would argue that at his ceiling, he was never foundation. He was drafted to be a nice little piece, nothing more.

Excellent analogy.

 

[Ghost of jas]

I talk about teams having cultures that transcend who's running the team, and you are what you are, and we have to re-invent ourselves.

Well, what we're doing now is something we've never done, so give them credit for that.

I just wish it was going better. We've picked up points we've had no business picking up and I think the loser point should be done away with in general.

This team’s record remains buoyed by a 9-1-1 stretch, that took place primarily at home. The schedule in the 2nd half of the season is brutal. I see more nights like last night in the future.

 

[Ghost of jas]

If we don’t draft that 1C, we’ll just claim one off of waivers!

I find no humor only pain in this post.

 

[Inferno]

Miller's wjc hasn't disappointed me at all
..it screams someone who is sick and trying to play thru it.

 

[Edge]

I don’t disagree.

But are we going to turn back now or still continue exploring those uncharted lands...?

Personally, I think they're playing the long game. But I also think that once they have a cupboard full of assets, they're going to be fairly aggressive.

But it depends on a lot of variables.

Let's say the team wins the lottery and gets someone like Hughes or Kakko, and has another couple of firsts to boot, I think they'll be aggressive sooner.

 

[Edge]

I talk about teams having cultures that transcend who's running the team, and you are what you are, and we have to re-invent ourselves.

Well, what we're doing now is something we've never done, so give them credit for that.

I just wish it was going better. We've picked up points we've had no business picking up and I think the loser point should be done away with in general.

I think the process is going to be longer than a lot people want, and not as long as some fear it will be.,

But I think it will be process that takes a while.

 

[Edge]

Like you, I'm not gonna harp on it and go on a tirade, but Andersson strikes me as old Rangers. He's not great, but he should be good. We're gonna work hard, we're gonna get 'er done, character, leadership, responsibility, defense, net out, block shots, 55 points, etc. etc. etc.

I'm not saying any of that is bad, but it screams 2014 Rangers. And yeah, that team was good. That team also fell short.

Kravtsov and Miller say to me "we're not doing that anymore, we're taking players that are absolute gamebreakers if they hit their ceiling." (And some will call Miller's WJC disappointing because of lack of points and the occasional blunder, but I'm still seeing him do things that humans shouldn't do, and I'm still very excited)

In 2017 when we drafted Andersson, we were still sort of, kind of retooling, sort of kind of wanted to do it while still winning. Kravtsov and Miller were post-letter when we really dove in.

Again, that doesn't make Andersson bad, but it's the sort of piece we need 3-4 years from now. Right now we need the foundation. I would argue that at his ceiling, he was never foundation. He was drafted to be a nice little piece, nothing more.

Personally, I've always felt the Rangers wanted to get a groundwork down and develop some core young talent, and then really start taking the bigger swings.

So having the Anderssons and the Howdens of the world means they can look at the Kravtsovs, the Chytils, and the Millers.

In other words, I think they somewhat wanted men on base before they started telling the heavy hitters to swing away.

I think it's also pretty likely the Rangers didn't necessarily see the guy they thought was worth the swing in 2017 at the 7 spot.

Gorton doesn't strike me as a guy who is afraid to take a big swing, but he's not going to do it if he thinks he's not going to get the pitches he is looking for. I think he'd rather hit one to the warning or even strike out than hit a pop fly to the second baseman.

 

[Machinehead]

Miller's wjc hasn't disappointed me at all
..it screams someone who is sick and trying to play thru it.

Also worth noting that the WJC has an umbrella 18, 19 YO rule for all positions (which is fine, it makes the most sense) and the three positions are just not the same at that age.

Teenage forwards are close to jumping into the NHL. Teenage defensemen are much further away. Teenage goalies are wearing diapers. That's why scores can get out of hand in this tournament.

Same age group but three radically different levels.

To make your team as a D+1 defenseman is impressive. To be good in college where the forwards are 21 is even more impressive.

 

[Machinehead]

Personally, I've always felt the Rangers wanted to let a groundwork down and develop some core young talent, and then really start taking the bigger swings.

So the Anderssons and the Howdens of the world, are so they can look at the Kravtsovs, the Chytils, the Millers.

In other words, I think they somewhat wanted men on base before they started telling the heavy hitters to swing away.

I think it's also pretty likely the Rangers didn't necessarily see the guy they thought was worth the swing in 2017 at the 7 spot.

Gorton doesn't strike me as a guy who is afraid to take a big swing, but he's not going to do it if he thinks he's not going to get the pitches he is looking for. I think he'd rather hit one to the warning or even strike out than hit a pop fly to the second baseman.

I can get behind this.

As much as I'm not telling my grandkids about the Andersson pick, I'm not losing sleep over anyone picked after him either.

 

[aufheben]

Actually, an excellent point that we don’t really bring up.

Girardi, Talbot, Zucc, JMA, others.

Stralman, Raanta, Brassard, Zibanejad, Holden, Pionk. That all counts as scouting to me.

 

[Edge]

I can get behind this.

As much as I'm not telling my grandkids about the Andersson pick, I'm not losing sleep over anyone picked after him either.

I think at the end of the day, if the Rangers pull this off, there should be a sort of symbiotic relationship between the prospects.

I think guys like Andersson and Howden set the tone for the team and enable the ultra skilled players to do what they do best. In turn, the ultra skilled players make the tone setters better than they would be if they were asked to be carry the offensive load.

If they pan out, this first crop will be the ones setting the identity for what this team hopes to someday be. They're the ones bringing in the next crop and the one after them under their wings.

I can't help but feel that guys like Andersson and Howden aren't necessarily in contrast to guys like Chytil and Kravtsov, they're the gateway to them.