Speculation: Roster Building Thread: Part XXXIX

Status
Not open for further replies.

East Coast Bias

Registered User
Feb 28, 2014
8,362
6,422
NYC
I'm not against trading Kreider, in fact I'd probably trade him, but the potential value in the standings being part of the return is not how this works.

If your Kreider trade is Kreider for X return + value added in being a worse team, you're doing it wrong. And I suspect, in that case your emphasis on "X" return would be lower.
 

TheBloodyNine

Pure Bred Soviet Savage
Oct 8, 2016
10,466
8,894
Queens
I'm not moving 2OA for EP and the 40th

As good a player that EP looked this one year, its still just one year.

Fudge that.

That may represent fair value, but I'm not budging off the #2 pick for anything less than grand larceny
I agree whole heartedly. It needs to be overpayment in order to get one of the top 2 picks. Overpayment is the only fair value. Especially when we hold 100% of the leverage in the deal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: egelband

Gardner McKay

RIP, Jimmy.
Jun 27, 2007
25,416
13,802
SoutheastOfDisorder
I'm not moving 2OA for EP and the 40th

As good a player that EP looked this one year, its still just one year.

Fudge that.

That may represent fair value, but I'm not budging off the #2 pick for anything less than grand larceny
:dunno: It isn't like Kakko has been billed to be the next Malkin or Eichel. I feel like if he turned into an EP, we would be thrilled.

It isn't really about fair value for me. It is about taking the known quantity.
 

Off Sides

Registered User
Sep 8, 2008
9,755
5,585
Why on earth would the Rangers do that??

Say Dallas calls the Rangers and says, you know we would like to extend Zucc, yet not if we have to give up the 2020 1st.

Would the Rangers at that point be willing to say something like, well what if we add a bit to Zucc, then would you consider extending him and giving up the 1st?

If all it takes to make that compromise happen is what they'd likely get back for say Fast anyway, why not? Even if they have to say take back only a 4th instead of a 3rd, does it really matter in the bigger scheme of them getting Dallas 2020 1st?
 

ETTER DE

Registered User
Jun 24, 2017
706
347
I'll ask again. Why didn't we see any other veterans moved when Stepan was traded, or shortly after he was traded?

Trading away 1 player isn't rebuilding. Trading away Nash, Holden, McDonagh, Grabner, and Miller is rebuilding. Avoiding long term veteran contracts so you have spots for your prospects is rebuilding.

Some of you guys don't understand the difference between retooling and rebuilding.

What are you trying to say, that Girardi was not a veteran?
 

Lone Ranger

Registered User
Jan 31, 2009
481
732
New York
:dunno: I trust our staff to find the right guy at 15. I know what the odds are but just off the top of my head, McAvoy was at 14, Karlsson was at 15, Pastrnak was at 25.

There is talent to be had at that pick.

I'm fine with keeping Kreider and getting Panarin. I am not fine with getting Trouba and I am really, really not fine with us going after Karlsson.

Barzal was picked 16th.
 

Off Sides

Registered User
Sep 8, 2008
9,755
5,585
I'm not against trading Kreider, in fact I'd probably trade him, but the potential value in the standings being part of the return is not how this works.

If your Kreider trade is Kreider for X return + value added in being a worse team, you're doing it wrong. And I suspect, in that case your emphasis on "X" return would be lower.

I agree, yet even if the Rangers without Kreider and expensive UFAs end up in later lottery position or even make the playoffs, that means the young and younger must have taken some serious steps forward at the NHL level, so isn't that a win win regardless of the x factor?
 

GoAwayPanarin

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
May 27, 2008
41,062
50,565
In High Altitoad
:dunno: It isn't like Kakko has been billed to be the next Malkin or Eichel. I feel like if he turned into an EP, we would be thrilled.

It isn't really about fair value for me. It is about taking the known quantity.

It shouldn't be about the known quality or fair value.

In order for the Rangers to trade the highest pick they've ever had, the return has to be hilariously unrealistic
 

Edge

Kris King's Ghost
Mar 1, 2002
34,749
42,578
Amish Paradise
:dunno: It isn't like Kakko has been billed to be the next Malkin or Eichel. I feel like if he turned into an EP, we would be thrilled.

It isn't really about fair value for me. It is about taking the known quantity.

A big part of me gets that and agrees with that approach.

But there's also a part of me that watched Pettersson get beat up pretty good last year and think Kakko might be the better bet to hold up over the long-haul, likes the extra year on the contract, and thinks Kakko is more advanced at the same point as we head into the draft.

It's a calculated risk, but I don't know if I am comfortable giving Vancouver the second and 10th pick in this draft either.

I kind of feel like Mo Green in the Godfather:

Movie GIF - Find & Share on GIPHY
 

Gardner McKay

RIP, Jimmy.
Jun 27, 2007
25,416
13,802
SoutheastOfDisorder
A big part of me gets that and agrees with that approach.

But there's also a part of me that watched Pettersson get beat up pretty good last year and think Kakko might be the better bet to hold up over the long-haul, likes the extra year on the contract, and thinks Kakko is more advanced at the same point as we head into the draft.

It's a calculated risk, but I don't know if I am comfortable giving Vancouver the second and 10th pick in this draft either.

I kind of feel like Mo Green in the Godfather:

Movie GIF - Find & Share on GIPHY

That I completely get. I am just always weary of the mystery box scenario. I feel like if Kakko pans out to be a point per game guy, we would all be thrilled. EP nearly was last year as a rookie.

But yeah. Durability is a legitimate concern.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Edge

Kupo

MAFIA, MOUNT UP!
Sponsor
Oct 31, 2017
11,320
23,868
Stamford CT
What are you trying to say, that Girardi was not a veteran?

They bought him out to get cap flexibility.

If they were truly rebuilding, then they wouldn't care about such things (See: Staal is still here)

tenor.gif
 

TheBloodyNine

Pure Bred Soviet Savage
Oct 8, 2016
10,466
8,894
Queens
This whole Leafs comparison is bull**** anyway. They did what literally everyone here is encouraging the Rangers to do. They drafted 8th, 4th, 1st in 3 consecutive years. They made a move for a FA when the young kids broke out and were ready to win. They lost. It happens.

I don't think anyone here is encouraging the Rangers to neglect an extremely important part of their team (defense) in order to sign an superfluous and expensive offensive piece.
 

emodwarf

Registered User
Oct 12, 2009
355
96
Boston. Sucks.
If your Kreider trade is Kreider for X return + value added in being a worse team, you're doing it wrong. And I suspect, in that case your emphasis on "X" return would be lower.

Your mindset seems very much like how Gorton approaches it. After getting the 2nd pick at the lottery, he was talking about doing things the right way and karma coming around to reward you. They traded away FAs for assets to restock, not to drop further down the rankings.

I doubt leadership has delusions they'll compete for a playoff spot next year, but it's clear they want to ice a team that will compete game in and game out (regardless of the scoreboard).
 
  • Like
Reactions: egelband

duhmetreE

Blessed Bigly
Sponsor
Jan 18, 2012
33,337
49,958
Lets stop pretending. Gorton saw what we saw. The team was not good enough to win. The core was not good enough to win.

He dipped his toe in the pool when he traded Stepan. He then proceeded to cannon-ball the following TDL.

Arguing when the 'rebuild' began is worthless. Assets are needed to be 'rebuilt' We started accumulating assets, at an above average pace, starting with the Stepan trade. Those assets are part of the 'new core'. Time only matters in development for these players.

The core is theoretically in place already.

Zibs, Kakko, Kravtstov, Buch, Lias, Chytil, Howden, Lemiuex. Kreider? Panarin? Strome? That's the top9 filled already.

The defense will take longer, as they always do. We should get a better understanding by the start of next season... Skjei, ADA, Hajek, Rykov, Lindgren, Lundkvist and Miller is a nice pool. Adding a Trouba/Risto would help things... along with firing Ruff.. ( Dallas being a great example )
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: egelband

SA16

Sixstring
Aug 25, 2006
13,287
12,577
Long Island
He's got 4.5 left in salary, and 3m bonus paid out on July 1st. Brooks orpik got resigned for 1m by the Caps after being traded to Colorado and bought out, i see no reason why Marleau can't do the same.

As far as "cap advantage", this applies to a cap hit being stretched out over twice the remaining years of the contract. Because he is a 35+ the entire caphit will remain as if the contract was never bought out. This is no issue for a team that has plenty of extra cap space, or is trying to reach the cap floor. I'm not sure where you were going with that.

Arizona is already over the cap floor. They have 65.6M or so already spent and that's with only 9 forwards 7 defenseman and 2 goals (Stepan/Galchenyuk/Grabner/Hinostroza/Richardson/Keller/Dvorak/Fischer/Schmaltz OEL/Goligoski/Demers/Hjalmarsson/Connauton/Chychrun/Oesterle Raanta/Kuemper. Considering they do not need his cap hit to be compliant and they are a budget team I highly doubt their ownership is interested in paying a player not to play for them.

*Just mentioning Arizona as they are often the most common team that comes up in this.

And I believe the reason Marleau can't do the same is because I don't think the NHL would permit it to happen again. It's even more blatant in this case with a player having the NMC.

I think the best thing they could hope for is to trade him to another good team he would be willing to play for (if there are any) for someone else who has a bad contract but that bad contract is lower AAV for more years. Think like an Erik Gudbrandson although apparently the Penguins like him or a Riley Nash.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: egelband

East Coast Bias

Registered User
Feb 28, 2014
8,362
6,422
NYC
True, they would have been much better off without Tavares 45 goals. Very unnecessary.

and Dubas is being exposed as a fraud for allowing the Marleau and Zaitsev signings in 2016/2017.

And he definitely can't deal from a position of strength (say Nylander), for defensive help.

What a disaster they're in. All that talent, no one smart enough to trade it all for futures.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DanielBrassard

TheBloodyNine

Pure Bred Soviet Savage
Oct 8, 2016
10,466
8,894
Queens
True, they would have been much better off without Tavares 45 goals. Very unnecessary.
Certainly those goals elevated the team to a higher seed and a long playoff run. Oh wait, you mean they ended the season in the exact same seeding and got bounced in the first round again WITH Tavares? Oh man, I can't believe it!

The leafs scored a whopping 16 goals more with Tavares on their squad and actually had a worse overall record in the regular season.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BlessThisMess513
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->