Fatfrancesa

I have no idea how you can focus so much on Lias. We have chytil, kravtsov, kakko/hughes, miller, Lundkvist, shesterkin and many more good prospects and picks. So far all our picks since 2016 looks really good except Lias and thats the one you focus on. With all the talent coming in now, if Lias can turn into a solid 3rd/4th line C that can PK its fine.

 

 

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

Not focusing on lias at all. The point was things change quickly when your talking about prospects. I’m focusing on the center ice position and how the prospect pool perception has changed in one year. Chytil is a good prospect but maybe at wing not center. If Kakko is our pick the rangers are stocked at wing with extremely high ceiling prospects in Kravtsov, Kakko and chytil. The defense boasts miller, fox, Hajek, Lundqvist, Lindgren, and the other Russian kid from the grabner trade. They are also seemingly stocked in goal as well. Heading into the draft last year the rangers deepest prospect pool was considered to be at center. Heading into this years draft and the impending pick of Kakko at 2 the center ice position maybe the area of need.

 

All of what I’m saying is not disparaging of what they are doing, it’s actually the opposite. They have done a remarkable job of restocking the cupboards. My point was that while goalie may seem well addressed right now a lot can change quickly. And because of that I wouldn’t disregard a goalie prospect like spencer knight because nothing is a guarantee when discussing prospects. If he is the best player on the board I’d take him. Just like I’d take Podkolzin if he was there even though he’s a wing and the rangers are stocked there. Nothing about this post is about doubting any prospect currently in the rangers system. Some will surprise and some will disappoint. I just like the idea of taking the best player available because of the very idea that the rangers seem to have capable prospects at every position.

It doesn't really concern me what guys do on the big ice. We agree he's been garbage in NA.

 

Again, I'm not saying he'll never be anything. I just don't see anything to be excited about yet.

 

Wow I agree 100%. Also it?s not that he can?t be anything but it?s also far from a guarantee he will. It just goes to show things can change. Last year at this time it was probably considered the rangers were best set up at center in the future. Well it now looks like the glaring need in the pipeline.

I’m not giving up on Andersson. Just noting that the center ice position isn’t as locked up as people thought this time last year.

The thing about having too many goalies, everybody knows you have to trade one. I wouldn't call that a position of strength.

 

So much for the ignore button. Anyway the rangers have goalie prospects not proven nhl goalies. This time last year the rangers were deep at center. Now Andersson isn?t looking like a 7th overall, chytil maybe better suited as a wing and howden?s ceiling may only be 3rd line center.

 

Regardless is just a thought. They should take their best player available. When drafting 18 year olds you shouldn?t be drafting for need. By the time most are ready those needs can change.

I?m not advocating the need to take a goalie. Just pointing out that late in the first round he maybe far and away the best player available. He is by almost everyone?s account the best goalie to come out in a long time. No offense to lindbom but I?m at least thinking about ?burning? a pick to grab such a prospect at undoubtedly the most important position on the team. Hopefully it would be an embarrassment of riches at the goalie position. I?d much rather be trading from strength there than needing one of lindbom and Shestyorkin don?t develop as expected. I?m fine with not taking him too. I just don?t think it should be an afterthought not to be considered.

I’m not advocating the need to take a goalie. Just pointing out that late in the first round he maybe far and away the best player available. He is by almost everyone’s account the best goalie to come out in a long time. No offense to lindbom but I’m at least thinking about “burning” a pick to grab such a prospect at undoubtedly the most important position on the team. Hopefully it would be an embarrassment of riches at the goalie position. I’d much rather be trading from strength there than needing one of lindbom and Shestyorkin don’t develop as expected. I’m fine with not taking him too. I just don’t think it should be an afterthought not to be considered.

I would seriously think about taking spencer knight if he’s still on the board with the Winnipeg or possible Dallas pick. I know it wouldn’t be popular. However he supposedly the best goalie prospect in years and rivals price and fleury in their draft years. While I get that the rangers seem to be well stocked at goalie, why not take a guy who further guarantees the most important position will be in good hands for the next decade and beyond. Furthermore having a capable goalie on an elc betters the chances of putting the best team together for a cup run. Also in the years to come one of the goalies can win the job and leave the rangers with a great asset to trade to fill other holes. We all agree that late first round picks are somewhat of a crap shoot. This guy doesn’t seem to be, it’s just that teams are reluctant to spend a first on a goalie. When you have so many picks you have the ability to spend one on a player that won’t bear fruit for years. If he really is as good as everyone says wouldn’t that be a good insurance policy to invest in?

Ok I thought he was lining up there all series.

Fair series of questions

 

I’ll start off by saying that I’m not assuming this guy is available or being shopped. While I did put it out there that maybe they’re down on him, I don’t know that to be the case and for all I know, they want to keep him.

 

As for why Calgary might trade him, well they do have needs. No long term answer in goal. Bottom 6 lacks real bottom 6 guys. PK and PP could both use help as they were middle of league in both categories. They are LH heavy up front. And there’s no real veteran on that roster that’s really been deep or won anything.

 

Now none of those necessitate a deal with the Rangers per se. Nor do I know off hand if they’d even have the assets for him, what the price would be, or what Calgary might ask for if the Rangers inquired about him.

 

They might have some interest, in a package, for guys like Georgiev, Krieder, Fast, Strome, possibly Namestnikov, Vesey, to name a few.

 

Again, Calgary might not want to move him at all. And while I did say that I’d like to see them take a run at him, if the price is too high, forget it. Maybe a contentious arbitration brings the price down.

And I’m not advocating swapping Krieder outright for him, as that would be an overpayment based on their respective production, I’m just putting it out there.

There was speculation last season that Bennett was available or could be had. Now he doesn’t have a contract, so maybe that’s still the case.

 

If you’re Calgary, what are you looking for in a deal for him?

 

I’m not sure and I also don’t know their cap situation. I do know that the fan base and the team while being initially disappointed with him have now grown to like the player for what he is. He actually is a good third line center. He plays in the high traffic areas, is an impactful forechecker and all around intangible player capable of chipping in on the offense.

There were multiple times when zucc was rumored straight up for him the past two years and the indications were that Calgary seemed that was insufficient. So if that is true what would they ask for? I’m not sure kreider works because that would be more than likely a 1 year rental. They have a solid defense and good prospect depth at that position. So I think your looking at a forward, prospects or picks. Buchnevich straight up maybe? Andersson? No thanks if I’m the rangers but I think that’s where they start. Of course if the rangers would take Neal back the price would drop significantly.

 

I don’t see a fit but if Gorton could find a palatable deal I’m sll for it.

I really don’t think the book is closed on him developing into a very high level player. The skill level is there, he’s grown into his body, increased his strength, no one has ever questioned his skating ability and I’ll again cite improved possession numbers in reduced minutes while playing with bottom 6 talent as an encouraging sign.

 

We’ve seen plenty of guys over the years take into their 5th plus season to really find their ceiling

 

I’ll totally acknowledge that I could be wrong and that he may well be what is today long term. But I think there’s reasons to believe there is more there coming

 

Ok. I’m agreeing with you. What I’m not seeing is the reason why Calgary would want to deal him unless you are giving up assets I’m pretty sure no one wants to part with. He’s a very valuable player right now. He has all the upside you talk about and he’s relatively cheap and young. I’m totally on board to trying to get him. If I’m Calgary why am I trading him? What are you offering?

I don’t think they’ve soured on him at all. He won’t live up to the hype of where he was picked but he’s become an important player for that team. Obviously they would move him but it would cost.

Also, how does Winnipeg have cap problems? They are perfectly fine. They have 24 million to work with, plus however much the cap goes up. That's a lot more than the Rangers have. Even if the Jets give Laine a huge deal now they have plenty of room.

 

Conner, Myers, trouba, Tanev, chariot, and laine among others need new contracts.

Conner $6-7m a season

Trouba. $7-8m

Myers $6-7m

Laine $9-10m

Taney, chariot and Hayes walk. Even then laine, Conner, and Myers make up more than that. So yes they have cap problems

No, they don't have anything to do with each other when one has been injury free with way less miles and the other has already had a major surgery.

 

Thanks for playing, though.

 

Bird in the hand. Lol

They have cap issues. Doubt they make any move that doesn’t help address that.

One really has nothing to do with the other and I've stated my case hundreds of times, so I'm not really interested in doing it again.

 

They do when the point is players of this caliber never become ufas. How do we know another karlsson will be available three years from now? Bird in the hand. All he costs is money.

That’s my thought

He stays in SJ, he gets 8 years and maybe 100 million

On any 7 year deal, he’s getting at least what Doughty got, probably more, so you’re looking at 80 million or better on that

 

On a 5 year deal, even at 13 million per, he’s leaving st least 12-15 million and 2 years of guaranteed paychecks on the table.

 

I don't think they really need him.

 

I'd like them to get a RHD to settle Skjei. Stralman, Methot types. McIlrath is a UFA.

 

 

 

I agree 100%. However im just curious why you feel they can sign a stralman or methot instead of karlsson but they can’t pass on panarin for a lesser player or nobody at all? Or at the very least see the logic in doing that?

I have a hard enough time rationalizing panarin. Karlsson is a downright scary thought. It’s a matter of when he breaks down to me. Also the rangers defense needs a stabilizer if not two, in my opinion. That is not karlsson. He is as freelance as can be. Also the rangers have guys who play the same style and fox could be another. By no means am I comparing any with karlsson but ada, shattenkirk, pionk all play the same game. Signing karlsson makes at least two of them usesless. I know ada can stay and the other suck anyway. I’m just pointing out roster structure would need ig changes to make sense.

Signing panarin doesn’t fix the biggest problem which is the defense. Signing panarin doesn’t fix the second biggest problem, a center to play 2nd line minutes and matchups. Forcing the kids into that role can go great with somebody stepping up but it can Lso be a burden on them if it goes bad.

 

For the 100th time dzingel was brought up because others needed another person to sign if not one of the big 2. I’m perfectly fine with not signing anyone. That is not trying to lose. It’s trying to avoid the cap crunch that is coming in three years.

It's hard to even know what holes the Rangers have on their roster next year because there's a question mark at literally every position except for 1C. Is Chytil playing center or wing? Andersson? Howden? Nieves? Who are they shipping out on D? Anyone? I can't see a successful scenario in which they have Brendan Smith playing wing and a never ending rotation at D. Who's playing goal?

 

 

What? Haven’t you heard the rangers are one signing from being in the eastern conference finals.

Roope hintz

Depends on you definition of working. I can see them playing well here for a couple of years. To me this all hinges on years 4-7 though. Those are the years in which it’s realistic to expect contending. I will 100% honest I have no idea what panarin or ek will look like then. It’s possible they are better than today. It’s possible. I’m just not comfortable with making that gamble to me for no reason.

 

I’m not against signing ufas ever. I’m against long term deals at this point where this team stands today. Depending on how the team progresses that can change.

What’s worse is that you can’t even concede that there is any chance of it not working. The reason is because to admit that you must try and rationalize the effects a contract like that would have in those circumstances. It’s a waste a time to discuss this any further. I totally disagree with you. Take solace in that you will get your man. I look forward to the next guy they have to have. Something like St. Louis, yandle, Staal. Kind of like how we got here in the first place. Difference is those didn’t last a decade.

One more time for the people in the back...

 

A.

Bird.

In.

The.

Hand.

 

Wait and trade for someone... How do you know who will be available? And then you have to gut your team and system to get them.

 

Wait and sign a different UFA... Again how do we know who'll be available? Will they be 27? Will they want to come?

 

We're not at the beginning of a rebuild. We're about half way through after this draft with the amount of picks we've made last year and this year, even with the massive whiff on Lias.

 

Also regarding the Blackhawks, not sure where you're getting only Kane isn't a drain. Toews is a p/g player and Keith is $5.5 against the cap. Seabrook's deal is trash and they haven't drafted well, and they had no goaltending this year or they'd be in the playoffs.

 

And if next year's draft is as good as 2003 (link to that prediction?), you can grab a great player in the top 10, middle 10 or bottom 10. Suter went 7, Seabrook 14 and Burns 20. And that's just the D. I'd take Corey Perry at 28 all day.

 

A bird in the hand? The rangers are not ready to take that risk. While the quantities are known as far as this years ufas. Nobody knows what they are three years from now so while they are known today they aren’t when this team is ready to compete. What also isn’t known is what the rangers have. Right now it’s potential. By definition what they need to spend their money on depends on which prospects work out and which ones don’t. I’m not fearful of missing out. The reason is because this team isn’t ready to fish in those waters.

 

As far as a future trade. You don’t have to hit your team. In fact it’s your choice. Spending like others suggest actually could take that choice out of your hands because of the cap. Bottom line the opposing argument is a tired one for this franchise. The rangers have tried your way over and over and over again. I’m all for going for it but there is a time and a place and that time is not now.

 

The rangers are half way through a rebuild? By what metric? I’m not disagreeing. But the league is littered with teams that have been rebuilding forever. Kakko changes everything? Maybe. Do you think Edmonton maybe thought Mcdavid would change things. How about buffalo with Eichel and dahlin? The problems in both cities are vast but depth is certainly at the forefront. Not sure we willfully want to spend so much on two guys.

Well you can look at future free agents on Capfriendly. There are only a handful over the next 4 or 5 years (Hall? Gaudreau? Forsberg? Mackinnon?), and the chances of any of them hitting the market are slim to none. All would be almost 30 as well by the time they are even up. I think Panarin at 31-32 will still be better than what you will find available on the open UFA market, even considering potential regression. Karlsson I am less sure about.

 

But we are in the beginning of a rebuild. The rangers are adding asset after asset. The farm is starting to really be stocked. Why do they have to sign any big time ufa? When the time is right they will have the assets to trade from positional strength to solidify what they need. Look at the best teams, they all have become good through the draft with very little in terms of massive ufas. Toronto is the only one and they are going to lose one of their young guns because of Tavares but they are in year six or seven since their tear down. Even with Tavares though they have ignored their defense

And finally. Next year being in the lottery again would not be a bad place for this team. The 2020 draft is widely considered the best draft since 2003 and maybe the best ever. Another year of development without mortgaging the future would actually make a lot of sense. I know that’s hard to take but it’s the truth. This team should have its eyes on summer of 2020 to make the push you want. And that could all change very easily depending how things unfold but that should be the target.