Fatfrancesa Posted January 20, 2018 Posted January 20, 2018 A hockey trade for somebody that has a future I have no problem with. I might not love the trade but I can at least understand it and give it a chance. Trading anything for a 40 year old I have zero stomach for unless that something is Mark Staal. And only then because the trade is for cap relief.
The Dude Posted January 20, 2018 Posted January 20, 2018 He also has multiple years left. Fuck that. Sent from my iPhone using Blueshirts Brotherhood mobile app powered by Tapatalk Just next season.
The Dude Posted January 20, 2018 Posted January 20, 2018 Enough of you. My post is directed at how the rangers have run their team forever. I’m all for ideas in improving the team. I’m all for trades that have an outlook beyond this season. Yes I don’t want washed up over The Hill players at the expense of anything. Because yes that is the ranger thing to do. How about keeping your posts about the topic instead of about me? Talking about spezza, zetterburg, or the sedins is not some new concept. This franchise has long been the place to go to retire. Sorry you hate hearing the truth. This team could use some veteran players. Not every move has to be done for the future. This team hasn't given up anything that has set them back in 20+ years. This concept of youth or nothing is just a dull concept for those who have missed their precious Rubinstein have clung to the last few years This team IS YOUNG. Nothing wrong with adding a potential difference maker at the cost of a mid round pick or a guy the coaching staff has little faith in. Im sure you will point to the Eric Staal trade. Guy had a 65 point season last year. Numbers that are better than the Rangers point leader of last season at 59.He was said to be old and washed up too. They sure could use him now.... But God forbid anyone brought in isn't 22 years old.
Phil Posted January 20, 2018 Posted January 20, 2018 Just next season. That's still a lot to swallow with what the Rangers have on the books, and who they need to re-sign (assuming one of those key RFAs isn't dealt). Spezza makes $7M or more.
Giacomin Posted January 20, 2018 Posted January 20, 2018 This team could use some veteran players. Not every move has to be done for the future. This team hasn't given up anything that has set them back in 20+ years. This concept of youth or nothing is just a dull concept for those who have missed their precious Rubinstein have clung to the last few years This team IS YOUNG. Nothing wrong with adding a potential difference maker at the cost of a mid round pick or a guy the coaching staff has little faith in. Im sure you will point to the Eric Staal trade. Guy had a 65 point season last year. Numbers that are better than the Rangers point leader of last season at 59.He was said to be old and washed up too. They sure could use him now.... But God forbid anyone brought in isn't 22 years old. Dude, the time is right to bring in players who will be here for a bit. They don't have to be 18 to 22 or even picks. I'll take a guy like Trochek, who is locked up for 4.5 more years on a reasonable contract. Here's the deal though. We just do not want to give up valuable assets (like 2nd rounders +, good prospects and fulltime roster players) for guys past their prime. Nightmares of washed up former greats that littered the dark ages of this franchise. Now that was unwatchable. Given the salaries of over-the-hill stars, those players have little value. Often negative value in a league getting younger and faster. Besides, look at our needs. A 2C or at least high quality 3C, or both. A top RHD. These are short, medium and long term needs. Do we have a top RHD on the team or prospective one in the system? Mgmt needs to stay focussed. The only 30 y/o we should think about is Grabner, at a reasonable Cogliano type contract.
Fatfrancesa Posted January 20, 2018 Posted January 20, 2018 That's still a lot to swallow with what the Rangers have on the books, and who they need to re-sign (assuming one of those key RFAs isn't dealt). Spezza makes $7M or more. It’s just a Hard cap, who cares? The team should be run like I have 4 months to live. Next year we can have the same discussion and the year after too.
Fatfrancesa Posted January 20, 2018 Posted January 20, 2018 Needs: talent that is not overpaid for in free agency.
The Dude Posted January 20, 2018 Posted January 20, 2018 That's still a lot to swallow with what the Rangers have on the books, and who they need to re-sign (assuming one of those key RFAs isn't dealt). Spezza makes $7M or more. Well that's why I said throw in something extra to get Dallas to eat some salary. Spezza at 5 mill or less could be a fit. Meh, just throwing it out there. Not much else out there in terms of what people want to give up. That Reinhardt idea is intriguing as fuck though. Let's make that grow legs.
Phil Posted January 20, 2018 Posted January 20, 2018 I'd sign Backlund as a UFA this summer if Reinhart isn't possible. Sent from my iPhone using Blueshirts Brotherhood mobile app powered by Tapatalk
The Dude Posted January 20, 2018 Posted January 20, 2018 Dude, the time is right to bring in players who will be here for a bit. They don't have to be 18 to 22 or even picks. I'll take a guy like Trochek, who is locked up for 4.5 more years on a reasonable contract. Here's the deal though. We just do not want to give up valuable assets (like 2nd rounders +, good prospects and fulltime roster players) for guys past their prime. Nightmares of washed up former greats that littered the dark ages of this franchise. Now that was unwatchable. Given the salaries of over-the-hill stars, those players have little value. Often negative value in a league getting younger and faster. Besides, look at our needs. A 2C or at least high quality 3C, or both. A top RHD. These are short, medium and long term needs. Do we have a top RHD on the team or prospective one in the system? Mgmt needs to stay focussed. The only 30 y/o we should think about is Grabner, at a reasonable Cogliano type contract. But there is no way they can get the type of player you are demanding without giving up youth from the roster, 1st round picks And top prospects. So, no matter what they can't please anybody. You are willing to give up a huge chunk for a 2nd line center that is young, but not 1/4 the price for a stop gap who has produced at extremely high levels I recent past, because he is over 30? Did Shattenkirk die? Isn't he the teams top RHD? Is that even a huge deal? They need Dmen. I don't feel their handedness really matters, nor does the need for them to be a top pairing guy... They have D'Angelo, Pionk and few other D men in the system. What team doesn't have these depth problems? Nobody loses a guy like Shattenkirk or Kreider and has their replacement on hand. This urge to do nothing but add more and more youth and never add anyone over 30, is far fetched and it practical. Especially in a playoff race. I'm still thinking about this season. I feel they are a 2C (of course or better), and an NHL worthy D man not Kampfer away from being a tough team to beat in the east. And that's good enough for me to be in buy mode. Im down for bringing fucking Jagr back. He's 1,000. Call Iginla! Joe Thornton is 568 years old and has the same amount of points as the Rangers leader. This team needs a guy that can and has performed, and to get them without giving up big pieces of this team or its future. Nothing wrong with stop gaps Shanahan was a stop gap. Jagr was a stop gap. These types can be used as pieces that bring a locker room together. If the Rangers can get one of these needs by dealing Miller I'm fine with that. Young or old. As long as they are a definite improvement of the needs (I didn't suggest Miller for Spezza, so don't go there)., They CAN afford to trade mid round picks and lower level prospects for a stop gap.
The Dude Posted January 20, 2018 Posted January 20, 2018 I'd sign Backlund as a UFA this summer if Reinhart isn't possible. Sent from my iPhone using Blueshirts Brotherhood mobile app powered by Tapatalk Yeah, but there's still THIS year.
Phil Posted January 20, 2018 Posted January 20, 2018 Not really. I'm not at all convinced the moves required to complete (for the Cup, not just a playoff berth) are attainable in season. Sent from my iPhone using Blueshirts Brotherhood mobile app powered by Tapatalk
Fatfrancesa Posted January 20, 2018 Posted January 20, 2018 But there is no way they can get the type of player you are demanding without giving up youth from the roster, 1st round picks And top prospects. So, no matter what they can't please anybody. You are willing to give up a huge chunk for a 2nd line center that is young, but not 1/4 the price for a stop gap who has produced at extremely high levels I recent past, because he is over 30? Did Shattenkirk die? Isn't he the teams top RHD? Is that even a huge deal? They need Dmen. I don't feel their handedness really matters, nor does the need for them to be a top pairing guy... They have D'Angelo, Pionk and few other D men in the system. What team doesn't have these depth problems? Nobody loses a guy like Shattenkirk or Kreider and has their replacement on hand. This urge to do nothing but add more and more youth and never add anyone over 30, is far fetched and it practical. Especially in a playoff race. I'm still thinking about this season. I feel they are a 2C (of course or better), and an NHL worthy D man not Kampfer away from being a tough team to beat in the east. And that's good enough for me to be in buy mode. Im down for bringing fucking Jagr back. He's 1,000. Call Iginla! Joe Thornton is 568 years old and has the same amount of points as the Rangers leader. This team needs a guy that can and has performed, and to get them without giving up big pieces of this team or its future. Nothing wrong with stop gaps Shanahan was a stop gap. Jagr was a stop gap. These types can be used as pieces that bring a locker room together. If the Rangers can get one of these needs by dealing Miller I'm fine with that. Young or old. As long as they are a definite improvement of the needs (I didn't suggest Miller for Spezza, so don't go there)., They CAN afford to trade mid round picks and lower level prospects for a stop gap. If that’s your opinion that’s fine. Not sure why it makes you angry that somebody would disagree with that idea though? The idea of bringing in 40+ year olds to contribute anything is the exact opposite what the league is doing Spezza scratches Sedins playing 10-12 minutes a night. Coach admittedly would rather not have them Iginla unsigned Jags not wanted Gianta unsigned The league is going young and you want to go old. I know just a stop gap and just one vet. This team alrwady has plenty of vets that they need to buy out.
Puck Head Posted January 21, 2018 Posted January 21, 2018 Having the picks doesn't guarantee a good player, it doesn't even guarantee a marginal player. The goal is to win as much as possible. Putting all your eggs in the draft pick basket means losing for YEARS and waiting for Kane/Toews, Crosby/Malkin, or Doughty/Kopitar to fall into your lap. As a fan, I'm not okay with losing for 10 years with my finger crossed that we land the next magic combo. The goal isn?t to win as much as possible at any cost. Would you be willing to trade the next 10 1st round picks for a number 2 defenseman? It?s about management of assets and long term healthy of organization also. Sent from my iPhone using Blueshirts Brotherhood mobile app powered by Tapatalk
Long live the King Posted January 21, 2018 Posted January 21, 2018 The goal isn’t to win as much as possible at any cost. Would you be willing to trade the next 10 1st round picks for a number 2 defenseman? It’s about management of assets and long term healthy of organization also. Sent from my iPhone using Blueshirts Brotherhood mobile app powered by Tapatalk Is that a serious question? How is trading 10 firsts rounders for one player, ANY player, even remotely close to not trading yourself out of the playoffs?
Fatfrancesa Posted January 21, 2018 Posted January 21, 2018 When you trade your first round picks for five straight years and leave yourself embarrassingly thin of prospects is how you lose for the next ten years. People age and with the cap they also price themselves off your team. Having depth as an organization of young talent to replace those players is how you sustain long term success. The rangers posture of buying the past 5-6 years while maybe not unwise has to addressed at some point so you don’t turn into a black hole. In my opinion those trades in the past press the issue demanding recouping some of those assets lost. Like you said for the health of the organization.
Fatfrancesa Posted January 21, 2018 Posted January 21, 2018 We are seeing right now how thin the depth is. Three forwards are out and two defenseman. If they lose Nash and Grabner to ufa what do they have? Relying on chytil and Anderson to replace 40-50 goals in your lineup not to mention two top penalty killers isn’t happening. This team is already thin in depth losing those two for nothing makes it worse. I know there will be the argument that their money could be used to bring in guys. However. Hayes miller Vesey and skeij are all going to take a large piece if not all of it. Even if they don’t looking for multiple players via free agency is how teams destroy their cap. It’s more than fair to say you are trading yourself out of the playoffs. However is this season worth next year and beyond? There is no guarantee for the future but investing in it can not hurt. Having as many assets possible can only help. Tomorrow is coming being unprepared for it is poor management.
Fatfrancesa Posted January 21, 2018 Posted January 21, 2018 If the rangers presume they are contenders and therefore are not trading their ufas, then shouldn’t they buy? The other teams contending will all surely be buying and theoretically get better by doing so. If the rangers don’t want that gap to grow who do they target if that’s the thought? Patches, Kane? So what do the rangers have to get that deal done? Chytil, Shesterkin, Anderson, and their future 1st round picks. Anybody giving even one of those up for a rental or patches no less a combo of that?
Mike Posted January 21, 2018 Posted January 21, 2018 When you trade your first round picks for five straight years and leave yourself embarrassingly thin of prospects is how you lose for the next ten years. People age and with the cap they also price themselves off your team. Having depth as an organization of young talent to replace those players is how you sustain long term success. The rangers posture of buying the past 5-6 years while maybe not unwise has to addressed at some point so you don’t turn into a black hole. In my opinion those trades in the past press the issue demanding recouping some of those assets lost. Like you said for the health of the organization. The Rangers have been a contender in all of those years since. The Rangers have the 3rd or 4th most playoff series victories only trailing the Pens, Hawks, and/or Kings (I'd have to look that up). There's no recipe for success as the 2 best teams in the past 8 years were lucky enough to be so bad for so long that they found themselves able to draft generational talentS. Look at Buffalo and Edmonton, they're the perfect example.
Fatfrancesa Posted January 21, 2018 Posted January 21, 2018 I agree. What that does for them right now or in the future?
Giacomin Posted January 21, 2018 Posted January 21, 2018 If the rangers presume they are contenders and therefore are not trading their ufas, then shouldn’t they buy? The other teams contending will all surely be buying and theoretically get better by doing so. If the rangers don’t want that gap to grow who do they target if that’s the thought? Patches, Kane? So what do the rangers have to get that deal done? Chytil, Shesterkin, Anderson, and their future 1st round picks. To the bolded question: No, not necessarily. There is a balance that must be struck. Consider: 1. As you mentioned, due to "buying' in the past, they must now protect their top tier prospects and top picks. They should only be traded for other assets that have long term value to the franchise. 2. Nash and Grabs are their rentals, if they keep them. So is Kreids and Shatty and any other player returning from injury for the playoffs. That is going to have to serve as their fuel for the playoffs, if they make it. 3. Past rentals for the Rangers have not adapted to AVs system fast enough. Smith got it together by the playoffs, but others did not. Not sure rentals have the potential impact teams hope. The examples are few. 4. We may not be good enough to gamble more futures, even if mgmt decides not to sell. 5. Maybe we look for something beyond a rental or a good role player who fills a need and isn't a marginal NHLer, but doesn't cost a top asset. 6. Not selling doesn't mean we have to buy.
josh Posted January 21, 2018 Posted January 21, 2018 blah. we've done fine with drafting. and adding to the prospect pool. The only thing that hasnt happened, is we havent bee rewarded with a 2nd generational player, ala Chicago and Pittsburgh. Drafting a Crosby or McDavid is an anomaly.
Mike Posted January 21, 2018 Posted January 21, 2018 I agree. What that does for them right now or in the future? The past few years was the future from 5-6 years ago. No one knows what the next 2-3 years could bring. You have to trust that they will be in contention. Until we see them fall for 1, 2, or 3 years, you gotta trust them. It's a rebuild on the fly, so the Rangers are doing it and still contending. How many other teams can say that, and are as consistent in doing so? I'd rather be the Rangers than the Panthers or Hurricanes, no ?
Long live the King Posted January 21, 2018 Posted January 21, 2018 We are seeing right now how thin the depth is. Three forwards are out and two defenseman. If they lose Nash and Grabner to ufa what do they have? Relying on chytil and Anderson to replace 40-50 goals in your lineup not to mention two top penalty killers isn’t happening. This team is already thin in depth losing those two for nothing makes it worse. Come on dude. We're seeing now how thin the depth is? Show me one other team that has to organizational depth to replace their top 2 goal scorers, their best defensive center, their PP QB who plays over 20 minutes per night, and another D that plays over 18 and have no drop off in play. That organization doesn't exist. I know there will be the argument that their money could be used to bring in guys. However. Hayes miller Vesey and skeij are all going to take a large piece if not all of it. Even if they don’t looking for multiple players via free agency is how teams destroy their cap. All those players, plus Zib are all 25 or younger. Adding a couple extra picks in the 20's is great, but doesn't improve the team unless we get lucky. It’s more than fair to say you are trading yourself out of the playoffs. However is this season worth next year and beyond? There is no guarantee for the future but investing in it can not hurt. Having as many assets possible can only help. Tomorrow is coming being unprepared for it is poor management. I don't know how you can look at everything Gorton has been doing recently and call it poor management. Trading Brassard for a younger player plus a pick, trading Stepan for a top 10 pick plus a prospect, adding at last year's deadline without trading their first. Nothing has to be done right now. As Giac says, keeping Nash and Grabner is their substitute for being buyers. If you're in the playoffs you pass up the opportunity. They can still trade Zuc and/or McD, or Hayes, or Miller at the draft to continue the rebuild on the fly. And you can bet they'll be in on Tavares and Carlson, which is quite different than years past because those guys are under 30 instead of late 30's. All that said, if they lose the rest of this road trip and struggle with the tough teams they play in the beginning of Feb, then fuck yea sell, sell, sell. As I've said from the start, the on ice results determine what Gorton does.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.