Confirmed with Link: TYLER MOTTE TO NYR

[Synergy27]

I think the thing some are missing is that the salary cap is essentially a clock. Draft a guy first overall and the clock starts ticking because it’s only a matter of time until you can’t afford everyone.

Having a steady flow of late first round picks that become good, not great, players is a way to remain competitive long term. Waiting around for them isn’t how you win it all though.

You win with high end talent. It’s usually better from a cost perspective to draft that talent.

If you’re trying to trade for high end talent at the deadline that’s an indication that your team isn’t very good. That’s a thing the Rangers have unfortunately done a lot in the past.

Tarasenko was a depth trade.

Kane would not be a depth trade.

The goal is to either win the Cup before the clock runs out or to recognize that the core isn’t good enough to win before the clock runs out so that you can recoup assets and start over. We don’t yet know if this Rangers core is good enough. There is reason to believe it is. It is correct to invest in them for a couple more seasons (thru Igor’s contract).

The Blackhawks and Penguins have waited until after the clock ran out to start dealing. They are going to go through painful down years in the near future. The Blues have been proactive and will likely turnaround much faster.

 

[Roo Returns]

Both Tampa Bay and Colorado have made major deadline moves leading up to the last 3 Cup wins, not sure that's proving his point that it never works.

The reason I made the statement is because sometimes it's about acquiring the right player, not the flashiest. The Rangers kind of did that last year where Vatrano/Motte/Copp all fit in really nicely.

The final add this year doesn't need to be sexy, it just needs to ensure the 4C or 4W (depending on Goodrow) is competent.

 

[Roo Returns]

I think the thing some are missing is that the salary cap is essentially a clock. Draft a guy first overall and the clock starts ticking because it’s only a matter of time until you can’t afford everyone.

Having a steady flow of late first round picks that become good, not great, players is a way to remain competitive long term. Waiting around for them isn’t how you win it all though.

You win with high end talent. It’s usually better from a cost perspective to draft that talent.

If you’re trying to trade for high end talent at the deadline that’s an indication that your team isn’t very good. That’s a thing the Rangers have unfortunately done a lot in the past.

Tarasenko was a depth trade.

Kane would not be a depth trade.

The goal is to either win the Cup before the clock runs out or to recognize that the core isn’t good enough to win before the clock runs out so that you can recoup assets and start over. We don’t yet know if this Rangers core is good enough. There is reason to believe it is. It is correct to invest in them for a couple more seasons (thru Igor’s contract).

The Blackhawks and Penguins have waited until after the clock ran out to start dealing. The Blues have been proactive.

The ECF trip last year definitely raised expectations. This year's journey is going to be much tougher.

Is it possible the experience will help and the Rangers turn it up an extra few gears with a killer instinct? Sure. But it could be the opposite.

It's not always win or start over. A retool is possible. There's a chance the Othmann/Cullye/Sykora/Edstrom/other future combines with whoever remains from this group and has more cajones and killer instinct.

 

[McRanger92]

The reason I made the statement is because sometimes it's about acquiring the right player, not the flashiest. The Rangers kind of did that last year where Vatrano/Motte/Copp all fit in really nicely.

The final add this year doesn't need to be sexy, it just needs to ensure the 4C or 4W (depending on Goodrow) is competent.

Totally agree. There are downsides to someone like Bjugstad as a player, most notably that he's soft for his size, but they'd be able to build their best 4th line in a decade.

Motte-Bjugstad-Goodrow rivals Boyle-Moore-Dorsett

 

[haohmaru]

The Rangers lost the trade the moment they gave up a first round pick in the exchange.

Nah, it's a late 1st and pretty much every expert/sport site/etc... give the Rangers an "A" on the trade. You're getting a minimum of 100+ NHL games from these two players (Tarasenko/Mikkola) + however many games you go into the playoffs. That could be more than the NHL career of whoever you pick late in the first round. The Rangers got good value out of both of their trades.

If the pick were higher or the Rangers were worse, I'd agree with you. This is the perfect time to roll the dice when you're giving up the later of two picks and address two clear deficiencies.

 

[mas0764]

C.) True that every Cup winner has added something at the deadline. FACT.

And I have said many times that I liked the moves for seconds, thirds, fourths, etc. I'm talking about trading firsts and high end prospects.

Did you think Nils was a middle tier prospect?

Barron is/was in the same tier.

Nils was a higher tier prospect which is why he brought back a first round pick himself.

But even so Barron didn't go for a rental, he went for a long term piece.

Which, if we were trading Nils or Jones for a 25 year old top 6 winger who we signed long term I can live with that.

 

[IceColdOx]

Nah, it's a late 1st and pretty much every expert/sport site/etc... give the Rangers an "A" on the trade. You're getting a minimum of 100+ NHL games from these two players (Tarasenko/Mikkola) + however many games you go into the playoffs. That could be more than the NHL career of whoever you pick late in the first round. The Rangers got good value out of both of their trades.

If the pick were higher or the Rangers were worse, I'd agree with you. This is the perfect time to roll the dice when you're giving up the later of two picks and address two clear deficiencies.

Late-round picks are fine. I get more annoyed when you give up picks when you're a borderline playoff team.

 

[TopShelfSnipes]

Totally agree. There are downsides to someone like Bjugstad as a player, most notably that he's soft for his size, but they'd be able to build their best 4th line in a decade.

Motte-Bjugstad-Goodrow rivals Boyle-Moore-Dorsett

My biggest question marks about Bjugstad are that the body of his game seems decent when the Rangers have played his teams. He looks like a legitimate 20-25 goal player with a good release, who's likely to put up a similar number of assists.

Yet every year, I look up and it seems like he's got 25-30 points tops. And it's been over a decade in the league and he's never once cracked the 50 point plateau.

Personally, I wanted Watson for the 4th line since he adds something different but can still take a shift, but now that Motte's back that's out of the equation.

At this point, our best options would be a top 9 RW, a 4th line C or RW to get JL outta the lineup (or calling someone up from Hartford) - with Goodrow moving to 4RW if we get a C - and depth that won't dress but would be better than Harpur/JL. Not sure who we're getting with such little cap room though, and definitely don't want to part with that second first. Not sure how I feel about Bjugstad as 4C, would definitely depend on what the offer was.

 

[gravey9]

Totally agree. There are downsides to someone like Bjugstad as a player, most notably that he's soft for his size, but they'd be able to build their best 4th line in a decade.

Motte-Bjugstad-Goodrow rivals Boyle-Moore-Dorsett

I agree that we need at least one more piece, a 4th line guy who can give us a full 4 lines we can roll all game. What I want most, after a faceoff guy, is someone who can win a board battle, take the puck off the wall and carry it right to the net. That fourth line needs to be stout along the walls but what will separate it from other 4th lines is if it can legit cause havoc in front of the opposition's goal.

Last night, the Pack came back to beat the Phantoms. Every goal was from right in front of the net. Either a nifty centering pass to a player on top of the goalie or net front scramble.

A very strong 4th line is one that can forecheck and keep the puck below the opposition goal line. An elite 4th line does that + finds a way to get those pucks to the net and bangs in some goals. That wears down opponents in the playoffs. Of course it helps if one of those guys can also send a D man through the glass and get under opponents' skin. But playing fast, hard, strong as an entire line is a huge positive.

It's too bad Cuylle isn't quite ready yet.

 

[mas0764]

This is a great post, if you’re going to give top assets you want more than just 1/2 a season and 1 playoff run. I understand maybe that’s not an option and if we win a cup who cares but it’s a big risk to make such short term deals. Maybe the 1st we gave up is a guy who would have played here 10 years.

Of course if we win a Cup, who cares, but that's not really the point.

The teams that rent big are usually teams who are chasing something they know they lack, they know they are a flawed team. Flawed teams don't beat the really good teams in 7 game series'.

Then they overpay for an aging, pennies on the dollar return and are shocked when they can't win 4 grueling series' in a row. I know why - it's cause they were flawed teams to begin with and adding one aging player isn't enough to overcome those deep organizational personnel flaws.

The Rangers are a very good team right now but unless Kakko and Laf can be even better in the playoffs, we remain in the flawed category in my book. That's not to say that a flawed team CAN'T win the Cup (see St. Louis Blues), it's just rare and not worth overpaying to try to chase.

Take your best shot with what you have, if you are counting on Shesterkin to carry you, then you can do that with or without paying a first for Tarasenko. That kind of declining player almost never really moves the needle. And you can cite Marty St. Louis all you want but the fact is that guy played worse when he got here too and we didn't win a Cup with him either. And we could have had Sebastian Aho had we kept those picks.

Both Tampa Bay and Colorado have made major deadline moves leading up to the last 3 Cup wins, not sure that's proving his point that it never works.

I don't think you are getting my point. Colorado is exactly the kind of deadline deal that would be smart. They traded for a 25 year old guy they wanted and got long term. If we had traded Jones and a first for Meier with the ability to actually sign him there would be way less complaining.

What Colorado did absolutely proves my point - don't rent. Invest.

 

[McRanger92]

Of course if we win a Cup, who cares, but that's not really the point.

The teams that rent big are usually teams who are chasing something they know they lack, they know they are a flawed team. Flawed teams don't beat the really good teams in 7 game series'.

Then they overpay for an aging, pennies on the dollar return and are shocked when they can't win 4 grueling series' in a row. I know why - it's cause they were flawed teams to begin with and adding one aging player isn't enough to overcome those deep organizational personnel flaws.

The Rangers are a very good team right now but unless Kakko and Laf can be even better in the playoffs, we remain in the flawed category in my book. That's not to say that a flawed team CAN'T win the Cup (see St. Louis Blues), it's just rare and not worth overpaying to try to chase.

Take your best shot with what you have, if you are counting on Shesterkin to carry you, then you can do that with or without paying a first for Tarasenko. That kind of declining player almost never really moves the needle. And you can cite Marty St. Louis all you want but the fact is that guy played worse when he got here too and we didn't win a Cup with him either. And we could have had Sebastian Aho had we kept those picks.


I don't think you are getting my point. Colorado is exactly the kind of deadline deal that would be smart. They traded for a 25 year old guy they wanted and got long term. If we had traded Jones and a first for Meier with the ability to actually sign him there would be way less complaining.

How are we flawed based on Dom L's Ten Commandments? I'm honestly curious what our shortcomings are compared to the other contenders who apparently arent.

As for our moves, do they all of a sudden become good if we retain Tarasenko? What if we re-signed Copp last year? Based on past experiences I think youll come up with a reason to still be against them. This team and many others around the league physically cant trade for players with term unless they lose other players. You used Colorado as an example. They retained Manson and Lehkonen but lost Kadri and Burakovsky and are now an 8th seed.

 

[mas0764]

Nah, it's a late 1st and pretty much every expert/sport site/etc... give the Rangers an "A" on the trade.

And on draft day all the publications give NFL teams an A or B too because no one clicks to read how their team got an F. Also, like I said, what the Rangers gave up isn't unreasonable in comparison to what other teams give up.

It's that giving up those assets in general is just foolish and the Rangers should opt out of that whole business.

You're getting a minimum of 100+ NHL games from these two players (Tarasenko/Mikkola) + however many games you go into the playoffs. That could be more than the NHL career of whoever you pick late in the first round. The Rangers got good value out of both of their trades.

I would feel damn near certain that of the 6-7 first round picks we have given up since 2014 with zero Cup wins to show for it, that the Rangers would find 2 or more long term players with those picks, if not way, way more given their recent history of late first round drafting hits (Chytil, Miller, Nils was flipped for another first, Othmann, Schneider, etc).

The Rangers recent history shows that they would have done way better selecting players who would be long term pieces for them rather than the extra playoff round or two they experience.

And it doesn't mean they can't rent at all. Just stop paying premiums for the biggest name pieces, who again (see my list) don't ever get bought by the real winners.

If the pick were higher or the Rangers were worse, I'd agree with you. This is the perfect time to roll the dice when you're giving up the later of two picks and address two clear deficiencies.

It's never the perfect time to give up first round picks. At best it's merely not a terrible time.

In this scenario, in a ultra deep draft and the year after having given up another first, it's a downright bad time for the Rangers with this trade. They should have gone after something with seconds and thirds.

How are we flawed based on Dom L's Ten Commandments? I'm honestly curious what our shortcomings are compared to the other contenders who apparently arent.

Well his article has us in the second tier and like 7th or 8th overall.

I can go post the link. If Laf and Kakko really take off and play like stars down the stretch I think we move into the top category but they haven't reached that plateau yet.

As for our moves, do they all of a sudden become good if we retain Tarasenko? What if we re-signed Copp last year? Based on past experiences I think youll come up with a reason to still be against them. This team and many others around the league physically cant trade for players with term unless they lose other players. You used Colorado as an example. They retained Manson and Lehkonen but lost Kadri and Burakovsky and are now an 8th seed.

I am on the record saying that if the plan was to keep Tarasenko for 3-4 years and he resumes his 75 point pace then that becomes a much better trade, but I really don't see how there's any chance that happens.

When it happens I would re-evaluate how that trade looks.

 

[mas0764]

B.) Untrue, because Tampa Bay added David Savard for a first round pick + in 2021 and was a pure rental

Ok, add him to the list. He had 0 goals and 5 assists for Tampa that playoff run, and was their 6th defenseman. They were adding a 6th defenseman. And they paid a first round pick to do it.

You think that was really a good trade that they needed to win that Cup? I'm not gonna make that case.

I think we can find a 6th defenseman for way less.

 

[McRanger92]

And on draft day all the publications give NFL teams an A or B too because no one clicks to read how their team got an F. Also, like I said, what the Rangers gave up isn't unreasonable in comparison to what other teams give up.

It's that giving up those assets in general is just foolish and the Rangers should opt out of that whole business.



I would feel damn near certain that of the 6-7 first round picks we have given up since 2014 with zero Cup wins to show for it, that the Rangers would find 2 or more long term players with those picks, if not way, way more given their recent history of late first round drafting hits (Chytil, Miller, Nils was flipped for another first, Othmann, Schneider, etc).

The Rangers recent history shows that they would have done way better selecting players who would be long term pieces for them rather than the extra playoff round or two they experience.

And it doesn't mean they can't rent at all. Just stop paying premiums for the biggest name pieces, who again (see my list) don't ever get bought by the real winners.



It's never the perfect time to give up first round picks. At best it's merely not a terrible time.

In this scenario, in a ultra deep draft and the year after having given up another first, it's a downright bad time for the Rangers with this trade. They should have gone after something with seconds and thirds.



Well his article has us in the second tier and like 7th or 8th overall.

I can go post the link. If Laf and Kakko really take off and play like stars down the stretch I think we move into the top category but they haven't reached that plateau yet.



I am on the record saying that if the plan was to keep Tarasenko for 3-4 years and he resumes his 75 point pace then that becomes a much better trade, but I really don't see how there's any chance that happens.

When it happens I would re-evaluate how that trade looks.

Chytil Kakko and Lafreniere have all been scoring at a PPG pace since before the Tarasenko trade was made. BTW, no one at the Athletic gave the Rangers lower than a B grade for the trade, with 2/3 people giving it an A-. It wasn't a bad trade. You just wanted to retain the lottery tickets at all costs.

 

[mas0764]

You just wanted to retain the lottery tickets at all costs.

Not "at all costs." I said verbatim that if they had been able to bring back a 25 year old long term piece I'm good with that too.

Yes, I would issue a flat prohibition on trades of first round picks for players who are rentals. It doesn't work.

We will see how Kakko and Laf do down the stretch. You know I'm their biggest fan. But even with how well they've been playing in their ten game samples they aren't playing like Zibanejads and Panarins.

 

[McRanger92]

Not "at all costs." I said verbatim that if they had been able to bring back a 25 year old long term piece I'm good with that too.

Yes, I would issue a flat prohibition on trades of first round picks for players who are rentals. It doesn't work.

We will see how Kakko and Laf do down the stretch. You know I'm their biggest fan. But even with how well they've been playing in their ten game samples they aren't playing like Zibanejads and Panarins.

You also verbatim said you didn't want Meier

 

[mas0764]

You also verbatim said you didn't want Meier

Because we can't re-sign him.

If the idea was to pay a late first and a prospect like Jones and we'd bring in Meier and then KEEP him, I'm ok with that.

I'm not hot for Meier, I don't think he's the star I'd be looking for or targeting. I think better players will hit the market and I'd like to keep the powder dry for those moves. For example, Drury was definitely making serious efforts to get Eichel. That's the kind of guy I'd have been looking for (granted Eichel has disappointed a little since that trade was made).

But I'm not denying Meier's a first line player. If that was the way they went and they were gonna move Trouba out to recoup assets and accomodate re-signing Meier.... I'll do that.

 

[TominNC]

A.) I specifically said trade deadline -OR- bolstered their roster acquiring players for picks in the off season and cited examples (ROR, Kessel, etc...). I said nothing about pure rentals or otherwise nor did I limit my statement to TDL moves.

B.) Untrue, because Tampa Bay added David Savard for a first round pick + in 2021 and was a pure rental

C.) True that every Cup winner has added something at the deadline. FACT.



3% of teams win the Cup every year. Those aren't odds. 1 Cup, 32 teams, ~3%.

Once the playoffs start, and why we acquire dealine players, it's 1 of 16. A reason why teams don't make deals at the beginning of the year that they'll make later. So, odds, percentages, whatever, you chances when the playoffs start are better than when the season begins.

 

[McRanger92]

Because we can't re-sign him.

If the idea was to pay a late first and a prospect like Jones and we'd bring in Meier and then KEEP him, I'm ok with that.

I'm not hot for Meier, I don't think he's the star I'd be looking for or targeting. I think better players will hit the market and I'd like to keep the powder dry for those moves. For example, Drury was definitely making serious efforts to get Eichel. That's the kind of guy I'd have been looking for (granted Eichel has disappointed a little since that trade was made).

But I'm not denying Meier's a first line player. If that was the way they went and they were gonna move Trouba out to recoup assets and accomodate re-signing Meier.... I'll do that.

So the only options in your eyes were to trade for a player that doesn't exist in this market or stand pat? We've been playing at the same pace the Bruins were earlier in the season since December. The East being good doesnt mean "oh well better luck next year". Someone has to win and it might as well be us. We're in a Cup window and one of the top teams in the league. We're also still picking in the 1st and 2nd Rounds this year if that's what you were worried about.

 

[haohmaru]

Ok, add him to the list. He had 0 goals and 5 assists for Tampa that playoff run, and was their 6th defenseman. They were adding a 6th defenseman. And they paid a first round pick to do it.

You think that was really a good trade that they needed to win that Cup? I'm not gonna make that case.

I think we can find a 6th defenseman for way less.

They won the Cup, so, yes it was a good trade. Evaluating Savard by points (and, for him, that was actually pretty good) is like evaluating Kravtsov as a tough guy. We'll never know if they hoist that thing without him.

If the Tarasenko trade results in 6G 3A in the playoffs and a NYR Cup was it a bad trade? No.

 

[Trxjw]

Would've rather added to the 4th line as it was with Motte instead of having to jettison Gauthier in the process.

 

[haohmaru]

I would feel damn near certain that of the 6-7 first round picks we have given up since 2014 with zero Cup wins to show for it, that the Rangers would find 2 or more long term players with those picks, if not way, way more given their recent history of late first round drafting hits (Chytil, Miller, Nils was flipped for another first, Othmann, Schneider, etc).

This is the best Rangers lineup since the mid 90's. I don't care what happened 2014-21. Those teams weren't sniffing this one.

The Rangers recent history shows that they would have done way better selecting players who would be long term pieces for them rather than the extra playoff round or two they experience.

And it doesn't mean they can't rent at all. Just stop paying premiums for the biggest name pieces, who again (see my list) don't ever get bought by the real winners.

Real winners bought players like Ryan O'Reilly, Phil Kessel, etc... Gaborik at the deadline helped win a Cup for a LA. Timonen and Vermette helped Chicago win a Cup.

This conversation, at least from my end, hasn't been about trade deadline acquisitions either. It's been about moving pieces for pieces that fit. The Rangers did that here and for below market value.

I don't think a very late 1st, a 3rd, and Blais is a "premium" for Tarasenko and Mikkola - particularly if the Rangers can sign one of the two.

 

[mas0764]

So the only options in your eyes were to trade for a player that doesn't exist in this market or stand pat?

Or just make lesser trades like for Motte, Barbashev, etc, to shore up real weak points. Trying to integrate an elite first line winger doesn't usually pay dividends.

We've been playing at the same pace the Bruins were earlier in the season since December. The East being good doesnt mean "oh well better luck next year". Someone has to win and it might as well be us. We're in a Cup window and one of the top teams in the league.

It could be us without paying a first. History says these high end rentals don't really close the gap and get teams over the hump.

I hope Tarasenko scores over a PPG in the playoffs and proves the exception to history, but it still won't make it smart to have counted on that outcome.

More likely he won't be a true difference maker and a guy like Igor or Fox or Zibanejad will carry us as far as they can take us.

We're also still picking in the 1st and 2nd Rounds this year if that's what you were worried about.

I would rather have two firsts than one. It's a huge loss. With two you can target who you want and you have a decent chance at getting up in a trade if you need to as well. That is great if there is a Pastrnak who is falling or something.

 

[mas0764]

This is the best Rangers lineup since the mid 90's. I don't care what happened 2014-21. Those teams weren't sniffing this one.

Well history is relevant.

Real winners bought players like Ryan O'Reilly, Phil Kessel, etc... Gaborik at the deadline helped win a Cup for a LA. Timonen and Vermette helped Chicago win a Cup.

Ryan O'Reilly and Phil Kessell were brought in as core pieces to their teams. O'Reilly was a Blue for 4 years. Kessell was a Penguin for 4 years. These are the moves I'm saying we SHOULD make, not rentals.

Gaborik cost a second and a third. Those are the moves I'm saying we SHOULD make, not paying firsts.

 

[McRanger92]

Or just make lesser trades like for Motte, Barbashev, etc, to shore up real weak points. Trying to integrate an elite first line winger doesn't usually pay dividends.



It could be us without paying a first. History says these high end rentals don't really close the gap and get teams over the hump.

I hope Tarasenko scores over a PPG in the playoffs and proves the exception to history, but it still won't make it smart to have counted on that outcome.

More likely he won't be a true difference maker and a guy like Igor or Fox or Zibanejad will carry us as far as they can take us.


I would rather have two firsts than one. It's a huge loss. With two you can target who you want and you have a decent chance at getting up in a trade if you need to as well. That is great if there is a Pastrnak who is falling or something.

Drafting a player in the late 20s of the first round guarantees less than the 30 games + playoffs of Tarasenko and Mikkola will. The flaw in you logic is overstating the worth of a non lottery first rounder.