Jump to content
  • Join us — it's free!

    We are the premiere internet community for New York Rangers news and fan discussion. Don't wait — join the forum today!

IGNORED

Doubtful Spooner is in Rangers' Long-Term Plans


Phil

Recommended Posts

I doubt that Ryan Spooner fits into the Blueshirts? long-term plan. The winger, reasonably productive but a bit too perimeter-oriented for a team that wants to transform into more of a straight-line attack mode, is also arbitration-eligible and a year away from free agency.

 

To that end, it may be difficult to move Spooner, who went 4-12-16 in 20 games after coming to New York as part of the Nash deal, at the draft. The Rangers will have to decide whether to sign the winger for one year ? probably for around $3.5 million ? so he can be available as a trade-deadline rental or simply allow him to become a free agent by not qualifying him.

 

https://nypost.com/2018/05/12/only-one-way-a-lou-lamoriello-rescue-of-islanders-would-work/

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Blueshirts Brotherhood mobile app powered by Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 172
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Ridiculous. I let Names go unqualified before I let this guy go. Good passers are needed in a North South style of play? WTF?

 

Shit, I definitely think about trading Veseys rights soon because I am seriously thinking they shouldn't qualify him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ridiculous. I let Names go unqualified before I let this guy go. Good passers are needed in a North South style of play? WTF?

 

Shit, I definitely think about trading Veseys rights soon because I am seriously thinking they shouldn't qualify him.

 

I was just wondering about this. Do clubs ever not qualify an RFA?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How dumb is that? Where does he come up with this shit? And his Spooner assessment just hit him today? Thankfully Brooks is not involved in our asset mgmt. Gotta write something I guess.

 

Unbelievable, the guy comes here and puts up 16 points in 20 games on a team where half the roster played like they were on ???? support. I get he may be little perimeterish, but he can move the puck with skill and effectiveness...Id give him a looksee contract at least.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was just wondering about this. Do clubs ever not qualify an RFA?

 

Yes. It almost never happens with quality ones, though. I'm no Namestnikov fan, but not qualifying him, or Vesey, or Spooner, is a non-starter in my court. That's just pissing away an asset. I'd sooner sign any of them to a one-year deal and trade them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Namestnikov went from playing on the first line of the best team in the league to the 4th line of a team playing out its schedule. He wasn't all that special before playing with superstars last season, and I'm not optimistic about him. Still, he is skilled must get a chance. If he's a total bust, the trade of McDonagh and Miller is going to look catastrophically bad. At my most pessimistic moments, I think of Namestnikov and Spooner as like a long procession of players who came and went in the dark seven non-playoff years.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Namestnikov went from playing on the first line of the best team in the league to the 4th line of a team playing out its schedule. He wasn't all that special before playing with superstars last season, and I'm not optimistic about him. Still, he is skilled must get a chance. If he's a total bust, the trade of McDonagh and Miller is going to look catastrophically bad. At my most pessimistic moments, I think of Namestnikov and Spooner as like a long procession of players who came and went in the dark seven non-playoff years.

 

When Toronto trades one of their young top forwards for a top pairing D man this summer, is when I completely lose my shit over the McD trade. I'm already underwhelmed on the return they got. If they could have gotten one of Marner, Nylander or even Kapanan in exchange for McD and Miller,....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love how some have already graded the McD/Miller trade disastrous and we haven?t even made either draft selection or seen either prospect yet.
Yea it's not making much sense to me.

 

This team has no business selling players and picks for one guy like Nylander (who, btw is almost Nash-like in the playoffs) when we can acquire multiple picks and prospects instead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No reason why Spooner shouldn't be around next season unless the Rangers get a trade offer they can't refuse for him. Qualify him for one year, and if we're out of the playoffs trade him for the highest bidder. If we end up getting a 2nd rounder+ for Spooner, that will already make the Nash trade a win. A 1st, Lindgren and a year+ of Spooner and whatever he can get back in a trade? Pretty darn good!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No reason why Spooner shouldn't be around next season unless the Rangers get a trade offer they can't refuse for him. Qualify him for one year, and if we're out of the playoffs trade him for the highest bidder. If we end up getting a 2nd rounder+ for Spooner, that will already make the Nash trade a win. A 1st, Lindgren and a year+ of Spooner and whatever he can get back in a trade? Pretty darn good!

 

I fear the contract, honestly. I don?t want to see anything long term, and I want to avoid contracts in the 4-6m range (mediocrity is death - range).

I wouldn?t mind him back, but I?d much rather use cap space for Kovalchuk or Tavares, if possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How does Brooks know the style this team will play when they don't even have a coach yet? I would re-sign Spooner for a year and see what he can do here for a full season. He is a guy that can play either wing or center, so it doesn't hurt keeping a guy that can lay like that around.I liked his play those couple of games here, so Id like to see what he can do here for a full year. If he is a bust, we can cut ties with him at the end of the season.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Mac/JT trade can’t be judged on Namestnikov’s performance.

It’s a good couple of years until we have any idea whether it was great, shit or somewhere in between.

100% correct. It'll take at least 3 years to see what Hajek and Howden have to offer and at least 5 years until we see what comes of the other 1st round pick.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How does Brooks know the style this team will play when they don't even have a coach yet?

 

Bingo! How does Brooks even know how we are going to play or the players and mix the new coach wants? Or the skills he will emphasize, the variations he deploys or who fits for 2018-19 and/or the longer term?

 

This is way too premature. We should take a step back and think more logically. Until we hire a coach, the roster construction will be minimal. Mgmt will begin to make some decisions on the RFAs and it could be a while before all the decisions are finalized. If there are RFAs they do not want long term those will be the players mgmt will be looking to trade this off season. Whether mgmt is able to and receive the value they want in return is a whole different discussion.

 

Also consider that mgmt made the trades that included Spooner and Names, therefore they saw value in those assets and would never consider letting them expire. That has to be one of the most ridiculous things written since this rebuild began.

 

Back to the OP on Spooner. So anyone paying attention is supposed to believe we acquired Spooner who then put up 16 points in 20 games and mgmt is disappointed? What did Brooks and mgmt expect? He doesn't fit on a coachless team that has many needs because he doesn't play a heavy game? Does Brooks think we didn't scout Spooner who is a known quantity, just entering his prime?

 

His thesis makes no sense and should be completely dismissed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

100% correct. It'll take at least 3 years to see what Hajek and Howden have to offer and at least 5 years until we see what comes of the other 1st round pick.

 

How Howden and Hajek turn out is a key measurement in judging the trade. We were able to scout them and traded for them. As for the picks? The picks are the picks. If it turns out that we make bad 1st and 2nd round selections that is on scouting/drafting and really is no longer a measure of the trade. Everyone knows there will be NHL talent in the entire first round this year and it is up to us to make a good selection or use the pick to improve other assets or areas of the team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How Howden and Hajek turn out is a key measurement in judging the trade. We were able to scout them and traded for them. As for the picks? The picks are the picks. If it turns out that we make bad 1st and 2nd round selections that is on scouting/drafting and really is no longer a measure of the trade. Everyone knows there will be NHL talent in the entire first round this year and it is up to us to make a good selection or use the pick to improve other assets or areas of the team.

 

Agree with almost everything you've said here on the issue in this post and others. The only thing I feel differently about is it's splitting hairs saying that if they blow the picks it's no longer a measure of the trade because that's on the scouts etc. It's the same front office/organization and if they piss away the picks it's still a factor in the return for some quality players we moved. The end result would be bad and that's all that matters.

 

As for Brooks I wouldn't expect anything but crap most of the time, he didn't disappoint here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agree with almost everything you've said here on the issue in this post and others. The only thing I feel differently about is it's splitting hairs saying that if they blow the picks it's no longer a measure of the trade because that's on the scouts etc. It's the same front office/organization and if they piss away the picks it's still a factor in the return for some quality players we moved. The end result would be bad and that's all that matters.

 

As for Brooks I wouldn't expect anything but crap most of the time, he didn't disappoint here.

 

So true, as far as evaluating mgmt, as a whole. Our ability to compete at the highest levels and the end results is all that matters.

 

I don't mean to be splitting hairs, but only when it comes to evaluating the trade with Tampa (or any individual trade analysis) should we consider the pick we received, not the player we selected with the pick. We can't really evaluate the Tampa trade (a deadline deal not a draft day one) based on the idea that we took a bust and the next 3 picks were all quality NHL players. That just means good trade, horrible scouting and drafting.

 

When running a big org it is important to be able to evaluate and LEARN what one does well and what we suck at, or somewhere in between. Sometimes conflating a whole bunch of issues, responsibilities and analysis' results in continuous bad assessments and decisions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You never can judge a trade until some time down the road, but we were a little to anxious to make it, we showed our hand, and I think Tampa was able to take advantage of that. A package of McD and Miller should have gotten us a proven young stud defenseman, not a maybe in the future stud defenseman.

 

At this early point, the Nash and Grabner trades look much better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...