Would you rather finish bottom-5 this season or fight for the playoffs?

[n8]

Byfield certainly dos. I do not see Lundell and think "elite". Though I would be very happy if he was to be the pick. Rossi certainly is a riser, and am not sure about him. For some reason, I never loved Stutzle. I could change my mind by draft day. But something is missing from his game for me.

Lundell's upside feels more like Patrice Bergeron. Byfield is more of a Draisaitl. Don't know anything about Stutzle.

 

[LionsHeart]

I like that they’re playing in some fun competitive games, but it’s better for the organization long term to get a Top 5 Draft Pick.

 

[bernmeister]

We are still paying for the sins of the win now crowd.
However, aberrations aside, good drafts/trades have us substantially reversed, back on course.

Need to dump vets an exception or two notwithstanding
give kids and our real core mo mins
would be smart to add a couple of primo prospects as the situation allows

 

[Kaapo Cabana]

Finishing bottom 5 would not be good for this team. I know this is unpopular, but I want them to play meaningful hockey games for as long as possible this season. Packing it in and finishing ~7th worst (we're not making bottom 5) could set us back much further than a failed playoff bid and a 13th OA pick. I want to see players who want to win.

Do I think we will make the playoffs? not likely, but I want our guys fighting until the answer to that question is certain.

also the points in the standings is about the only similarity between this year and last year. This team is MUCH better, has much more skill, and just doesn't rack up loser points.

we had 26 ROWs all of last season. We have 23 right now.

This team is light-years better than last, and if we drop down to bottom 5, then we have much more serious problems here than we all thought.

 

[Edge]

One of the challenges I see is that people take the word tanking as literal.

The Rangers can continue to fight, grow and progress, while trading away players that, for one reason or another, are not part of their plans moving forward. Finishing top 5 does not have to come at the cost of developing young players. They're not so fragile that a few seasons of not making the playoffs is going to kill their careers or breed some kind of sick culture. Plenty of teams have sucked for multiple years before remaining competitive for a decade. This isn't a unique concept the Rangers have invented.

The term tanking is just a broad term we use, half-joking, to indicate that this team continues to move established pieces to acquire capital.

 

[Kaapo Cabana]

One of the challenges I see is that people take the word tanking as literal.

The Rangers can continue to fight, grow and progress, while trading away players that, for one reason or another, are not part of their plans moving forward. Finishing top 5 does not have to come at the cost of developing young players. They're not so fragile that a few seasons of not making the playoffs is going to kill their careers or breed some kind of sick culture. Plenty of teams have sucked for multiple years before remaining competitive for a decade. This isn't a unique concept the Rangers have invented.

The term tanking is just a broad term we use, half-joking, to indicate that this team continues to move established pieces to acquire capital.

Assuming everybody else keeps their current pace, we would need to be historically bad to barely crack the bottom 5 in the standings.

We would need to play at a 13-14 Sabres pace to be in the conversation.

Even with selling at the deadline, there is no way that playing that poorly is a net positive.

Again, this is assuming current pace stays the same. This does not take into account that the teams below us will also be selling at the deadline, and will likely get worse as well.

Now that being said, I think it would be foolish to "self rent" our assets this season. Our absolute peak would be sneaking in to the playoffs, and you don't purposely miss out on opportunities to maximize assets for a 1st round exit.

 

[Mandar]

One of the challenges I see is that people take the word tanking as literal.

The Rangers can continue to fight, grow and progress, while trading away players that, for one reason or another, are not part of their plans moving forward. Finishing top 5 does not have to come at the cost of developing young players. They're not so fragile that a few seasons of not making the playoffs is going to kill their careers or breed some kind of sick culture. Plenty of teams have sucked for multiple years before remaining competitive for a decade. This isn't a unique concept the Rangers have invented.

The term tanking is just a broad term we use, half-joking, to indicate that this team continues to move established pieces to acquire capital.

You make quite a few valid points. I do think the issue is when people root to lose...many were annoyed when Strome scored in OT to beat the Pens at the end of last season. And many are openly happy with losses and want that to be the prevailing thought.

Moving players on expiring contracts to get an infusion of young talent and draft picks is good team management, especially as we rebuild. No one has an issue with that. It's the rooting to lose, and have this be an open-ended philosophy with no end game in sight (the "lose for a better draft pick" narrative year after year) is tiresome.

 

[True Blue]

This upcoming trade deadline is the third deadline of the rebuild (trades made with the expressed desire for rebuilding and acquiring young talent), so go easy with the decimals Einstein.

Third trade deadline, still 2.25 years as the initial year was not entered as a rebuilding year. So easy on revisionist history, Newton

A lot of recent posts in this thread have gotten it right....ridiculous to root to lose, as losing creates that culture. Not what we want all our young talent to be about. Maybe the message gets lost in the translation......do you want to tank and root for losses? I don't....was great to see the way the boys finished last year...when some got annoyed every time we won....and the we got the 2nd pick anyway

Not really sure that this has to do with anytihng.

I want us to win....to improve....and create a winning culture. And I want the young talent coming up and yet to be drafted to be entrenched in that kind of culture.

Who doesn't?

 

[True Blue]

Maybe you aren’t as high on Lundell or Stutzle because they don’t have anything that jumps out at you? They are great, but not amazing, at many things. Stutzle is an unknown for me, but I’m willing to take the risk. I would love to get him. Rossi I’m more cautious about. He’s been all over the place in the rankings.

On the contrary, I am on record having stated that I would love if Lundell was the pick. Or Holloway. And feel like you regarding Stutzle and Rossi.

 

[Edge]

You make quite a few valid points. I do think the issue is when people root to lose...many were annoyed when Strome scored in OT to beat the Pens at the end of last season. And many are openly happy with losses and want that to be the prevailing thought.

Moving players on expiring contracts to get an infusion of young talent and draft picks is good team management, especially as we rebuild. No one has an issue with that. It's the rooting to lose, and have this be an open-ended philosophy with no end game in sight (the "lose for a better draft pick" narrative year after year) is tiresome.

I think people who root for the team to lose typically do so after our destiny for the season has been determined, and when a regroup offers a perceived benefit that exceeds a fairly meaningless game.

Essentially, let's play with the years a little as an example. The letter goes out in 2017 instead of 2018. Do you want to take Pettersson 5th overall and enjoy watching him in 2020, or do you want miss out on him and reminisce about those two games we won in Edmonton and Calgary in March.

It's a flawed approach at times, and people can get carried away, but that's a rough sketch of the mindset.

 

[True Blue]

If it's just Kreider who leaves, I'd be comfortable in thinking that a Chytil for example or maybe even Kakko's production goes up with the additional ice time they'd get if Kreider leaves. Maybe a combo of both.

That is where I have my doubts. I do believe that they will step forward. But as to how much? A bit of a question mark.

Now if it's a total sell off and Fast and Strome also go maybe even Georgie too, than I might buy what your selling and thoughts of hanging around the .500 mark would be unrealistic and potentially a lottery team would be in play.

I think that it is even money that Kreider, Fast & Georgiev are moved.

But just Kreider goes, I'll take my chances I'd end up being right and Rangers would still hang around .500 area and not be even close to a bottom 5 team as the majority of peeps in here hope for the Rangers to be apparently.

Fair enough. I see it the other way.

 

[BKGooner]

The goal is a top 5 pick, which doesn't necessarily equate to a bottom 5 finish. Stay the course, let the kids keep developing, make the tough decisions and trades that need to be made and finish outside the playoffs. Beseech the hockey gods to let lightning strike twice since the team is doing the right thing. If the Rangers drop from 10th worst to seventh worst, their odds of a top 3 pick pretty much double. I like the odds of the end of the season lining up like this.

 

[Rangers in 7]

if i could vote bottom 5 more then once i would have....this team is no where near ready to compete in the playoffs

 

[Harbour Dog]

The more I see this title on the threadlist, the less sense it makes to me.

We either definitely finish bottom 5, or try to make the playoffs? The former isn't guaranteed and the latter is out of the question.

Neither of those things should actually be the question. The question begins and ends with whether we trade Kreider, and/or Fast, and/or Strome. If we make those trades, there's no guarantee of a bottom five finish; and if we don't make them, then there's no guarantee that we fight for the playoffs.

I will be pissed if we don't accumulate assets via a Kreider trade, and to a lesser extent; Fast. But I'm not going to cheer for the team to lose. And that's what that this poll is really asking.

 

[EdJovanovski]

Playoffs.
Screw tanking and this mindset that’s permeating every facet of society.

 

[HockeyBasedNYC]

Could have both

 

[Pawnee Rangers]

I think people who root for the team to lose typically do so after our destiny for the season has been determined, and when a regroup offers a perceived benefit that exceeds a fairly meaningless game.

Essentially, let's play with the years a little as an example. The letter goes out in 2017 instead of 2018. Do you want to take Pettersson 5th overall and enjoy watching him in 2020, or do you want miss out on him and reminisce about those two games we won in Edmonton and Calgary in March.

It's a flawed approach at times, and people can get carried away, but that's a rough sketch of the mindset.

Or, if they don't win that final game of the season against Pittsburgh, they finish lower in the standings and miss out on Kakko.

 

[Edge]

Or, if they don't win that final game of the season against Pittsburgh, they finish lower in the standings and miss out on Kakko.

And that's why you have to try to keep some balance to the approach.

Which is true for most subjects on here. People get really fired up about things, and there are a lot of variables involved.

 

[Rangers in 7]

Assuming everybody else keeps their current pace, we would need to be historically bad to barely crack the bottom 5 in the standings.

We would need to play at a 13-14 Sabres pace to be in the conversation.

Even with selling at the deadline, there is no way that playing that poorly is a net positive.

Again, this is assuming current pace stays the same. This does not take into account that the teams below us will also be selling at the deadline, and will likely get worse as well.

Now that being said, I think it would be foolish to "self rent" our assets this season. Our absolute peak would be sneaking in to the playoffs, and you don't purposely miss out on opportunities to maximize assets for a 1st round exit.

i dont know why we would need to be historically bad....we are two points ahead of the sharks and 7 points ahead of jersey, anaheim, and ottawa

im not saying we will drop beneath these guys but it isnt completely out of the question

 

[Rangers in 7]

And that's why you have to try to keep some balance to the approach.

Which is true for most subjects on here. People get really fired up about things, and there are a lot of variables involved.

right now im of the opinion that a win is great, but a loss is just as good

 

[Edge]

I really hope this doesn't turn into a debate where we're arguing over placing 5th vs. placing 6th or 7th. I don't think that's entirely the point of the question, nor is it quite as nuanced as we're turning it into.

You have two cards in front of you. You can either finish fifth, or you can sneak into the final seed of the playoffs. Pick a hand.

 

[Pawnee Rangers]

And that's why you have to try to keep some balance to the approach.

Which is true for most subjects on here. People get really fired up about things, and there are a lot of variables involved.

I just think purposely tanking / rooting for losses brings more negatives than positives. Try and win every game and then let the chips fall where they may.

 

[Rangers in 7]

I really hope this doesn't turn into a debate where we're arguing over placing 5th vs. placing 6th or 7th. I don't think that's entirely the point of the question, nor is it quite as nuanced as we're turning it into.

You have two cards in front of you. You can either finish fifth, or you can sneak into the final seed of the playoffs. Pick a hand.

fifth and thats the easiest question ive had to answer today, close second was what to have for lunch

 

[Harbour Dog]

right now im of the opinion that a win is great, but a loss is just as good

Same. It's like having a safety net.

I want our guys to take huge steps and to wreck teams every night, but realistically there's a very good chance that they play a little under .500 the rest of the way and finish in that 6th-8th range. A fine result for the youngest team in the league, while also netting us a top 10 pick (+ a 1st rounder from Kreider). A good season for where we're at.

 

[GoAwayPanarin]

The more I see this title on the threadlist, the less sense it makes to me.

We either definitely finish bottom 5, or try to make the playoffs? The former isn't guaranteed and the latter is out of the question.

Neither of those things should actually be the question. The question begins and ends with whether we trade Kreider, and/or Fast, and/or Strome. If we make those trades, there's no guarantee of a bottom five finish; and if we don't make them, then there's no guarantee that we fight for the playoffs.

I will be pissed if we don't accumulate assets via a Kreider trade, and to a lesser extent; Fast. But I'm not going to cheer for the team to lose. And that's what that this poll is really asking.

I took it as a which would you rather do thing.

It's almost a sure thing that neither thing happens. They have a better chance of picking in the top 5 than they do of making the playoffs, though the former will likely take lottery luck.