Speculation: Roster Building Thread: Part XIX

[Machinehead]

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.

I suppose depending on how much we pay Andersson and Howden on their next contracts, I'm totally ok with this.

My whole thing with character and "setting the tone" is not that we shouldn't do it, it's that we shouldn't shell out huge bucks for it.

That's why I'm a little salty that we're 12-6 with McLeod in the lineup. I don't want Gorton or Quinn buying into that shit.

For example, I think the Penguins are insane giving Jake Guentzel $6M AAV. An ELC could do what he does in the same role.

But contract discussions are many years down the line. The concept, I'm on board with.

 

[Ghost of jas]

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.

Let’s face it...if Andersson was a late 1st, the collective view on him would be a lot different. He’s much better than his critics give him credit for being. That being said, I don’t have the confidence in him that I do in the other 1st round picks, most notably Chytil, Kravtsov and Miller.

 

[Walter t]

If Andersson and Chytl were picked in each other's spots, with Filip the #7 pick, we would probably think they were doing about what was expected from them. In the end we have both and it doesn't matter where they were picked.

 

[wafflepadsave]

Duclair? He's on his 4th team in 5 years. I don't think that's a great example. The Rangers have held on to the prospects that were tops for the Rangers - Stepan, Fast, Kreider, Skjei, etc...

I thought at the time duclair was traded that he was our top kid. Been wrong before.

 

[bobbop]

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.

Probably 1964. The Rangers traded Andy Bathgate to Toronto on 2/22/1964 with Don McKenny for a package of 5 players that included stud young defenseman Rod Seiling. That trade shook the Ranger universe. Not long after, the Rangers traded Camille Henry to the Blackhawks.

 

[bobbop]

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.

2017 wasn’t a great draft. That didn’t help.

 

[Machinehead]

This is live footage of me remembering daily that we almost traded up for Pettersson

 

[Mikos87]

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.

A lot of people did. Great use of misdirection by them with their interest in Valiardi

 

[wafflepadsave]

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.

As long as Hank is here, the potential for jumping ship looms.

 

[Brooklyn Rangers Fan]

WTF, I just scrolled through two pages of posts between @Edge and @Machinehead, and they were agreeing on pretty much everything. Are the end times here?

 

[Machinehead]

WTF, I just scrolled through two pages of posts between @Edge and @Machinehead, and they were agreeing on pretty much everything. Are the end times here?

I don't know if we're agreeing on everything, but we can agree on common sense things.

That's why I like @Edge. If we do disagree, we're going in. Getting down to the nitty gritty of the game. Next level stuff. It's always a pleasure.

 

[Profet]

WTF, I just scrolled through two pages of posts between @Edge and @Machinehead, and they were agreeing on pretty much everything. Are the end times here?

It's pretty nuts.

But I think we've hit the point of realization. Hayes needs to be traded. For the good of the tank. Hayes needs to be traded.

 

[darko]

I don't know if we're agreeing on everything, but we can agree on common sense things.

That's why I like @Edge. If we do disagree, we're going in. Getting down to the nitty gritty of the game. Next level stuff. It's always a pleasure.

Don't lie. No one likes Edge.

 

[Machinehead]

Don't lie. No one likes Edge.

 

[Brooklyn Rangers Fan]

I don't know if we're agreeing on everything, but we can agree on common sense things.

That's why I like @Edge. If we do disagree, we're going in. Getting down to the nitty gritty of the game. Next level stuff. It's always a pleasure.

I’ve been enjoying it as well. Together this evening, you’ve been laying out pretty much exactly how I feel about/look at the rebuild and the current pipeline.

 

[Edge]

WTF, I just scrolled through two pages of posts between @Edge and @Machinehead, and they were agreeing on pretty much everything. Are the end times here?

The funny thing is what we disagree with, we seem to always disagree on. But there's a decent amount of topics that we're not too far off.

Different ways of processing, and expressing what we've processed, but not necessarily completely different concepts.

 

[Edge]

Don't lie. No one likes Edge.

Mrs. Edge doesn't like Edge.

All of his little Edge children don't like Edge.

Edge can barely tolerate Edge.

 

[offdacrossbar]

It's pretty nuts.

But I think we've hit the point of realization. Hayes needs to be traded. For the good of the tank. Hayes needs to be traded.

nope. count me out.

im solidly in the dont trade hayes camp unless the return is an overpayment

otherwise, keep hayes and 93 and 20 and rebuild around those 3.

not one other player on this roster is off limits. not one.

including henrik

 

[darko]

nope. count me out.

im solidly in the dont trade hayes camp unless the return is an overpayment

otherwise, keep hayes and 93 and 20 and rebuild around those 3.

not one other player on this roster is off limits. not one.

including henrik

What if he walks?

 

[Edge]

I don't know if we're agreeing on everything, but we can agree on common sense things.

That's why I like @Edge. If we do disagree, we're going in. Getting down to the nitty gritty of the game. Next level stuff. It's always a pleasure.

I always tell people, it's the topic, not the poster.

It's nothing personal, it's not based on anger, though it can include a reasonable amount of frustration.

But there's nothing wrong with disagreeing, even vehemently disagreeing.

I will admit that I do tend to push back harder on certain things --- blanket statements, claims that don't really have a lot of support but persist, if I see something that veers into an assessment about a person I've been around or a time period I was around certain events, things of that nature.

But it's kind of like how the old enforcers like Probert and Kocur used to view their experiences --- you do what you have to do, and then you move on.

You're always going to gravitate towards certain personalities and find yourself in disagreement with others. But I generally try to avoid group-think. Even if it's something I agree with, I'll play a little bit of devil's advocate and question the concept.

 

[offdacrossbar]

What if he walks?

get him signed or if not, trade him but make the offer

if he wants to stay here, keep living in chelsea and be a key part of the rebuild, hell make a deal.

if we can win in 2-3, he'll still be only 30

 

[Kupo]

As long as Hank is here, the potential for jumping ship looms.

Hanks playing too many games as is. Proof that we’re actually trying to win instead of fully committing ourselves to rebuilding and developing.

I’ll point our RB’s post once more: If Petterrsson was a Ranger, I guarantee you he wouldn’t have 42p in 37 games.

 

[GeorgeKaplan]

Hanks playing too many games as is. Proof that we’re actually trying to win instead of fully committing ourselves to rebuilding and developing.

I’ll point our RB’s post once more: If Petterrsson was a Ranger, I guarantee you he wouldn’t have 42p in 37 games.

Because any of our young players are as good/ready as him?

 

[NYR Viper]

get him signed or if not, trade him but make the offer

if he wants to stay here, keep living in chelsea and be a key part of the rebuild, hell make a deal.

if we can win in 2-3, he'll still be only 30

I find myself in a bit of a conundrum with Hayes. His size and reach are a serious weapon, always have been. What I keep questioning is whether that reach and size will allow for him to be an impactful player for the next 6-7 years (or what I believe his next contract length to be) with his already somewhat sub-par skating.

Another way to put this is, will the NHL continue increasing its pace and quickness over those years or have we reached the point where that increase in pace has somewhat plateaued?

For me, I’m less concerned about Hayes’ next 3 years as I am his last 3 years on his next contract. It’s those last 3 years where I believe the team may begin to start pushing for more than a possible wildcard birth as well. By keeping Hayes, you’re probably looking at worse picks as well as he will increase the point totals of the team so perhaps that 3 years of development time needs to be 4, or 5?

I have similar feelings about Kreider, although I have less of an issue with him because of his physical gifts and the fact that even though the league has continued to get faster, he’s still one of the fastest in the world.

If I were Gorton, I’d probably lean towards trading him UNLESS he took a serious pay or term cut. Something like 5 x $5.5m or so. Maybe 6 x $5.5m. I’d issue a full NMC in years 1+2 and partials later on. If he wants more, I’d move on.

 

[bobbop]

Don't lie. No one likes Edge.

I, on the other hand, like @Edge (even though I did try to trade him to Winnipeg a month ago)