Nash for Picks in the 2018 Draft?

[Future]

And to take it one step further, those teams are top heavy from consecutive YEARS of sucking and lucking into generational talent. Not from being sellers at the deadline for a couple extra picks in the 20's in one draft....

Bingo.

[Fatfrancesa]

I dont know what you are looking at, but the entire ranking of the prospect pool is crap.

The rangers have had the worst prospect pool since 1928. It didnt seem to stop them from being one of the best teams in the league over the last decade, even though they havent won a cup. Who cares if you have 13 forwards that might make the AHL. What matters is game-breaking prospect... which are usually NHL players. fuck prospect pools.

 

Pittsburgh has been ranked the worst prospect pool since Crosby came...

 

there is litterally zero correlation between prospect pools and future success.

 

You couldn’t be more wrong. It’s actually funny. Prospects are rated based upon potential. Having guys who don’t have high upsides according to those who actually scout players doesn’t bold well for your future.

As far as the rangers not having a top prospect pool since 1928. Again you are so wrong you should probably stop posting.

The years leading up to you know the beginning of the 90’s when some good things happened the rangers had a massive amount of highly rated prospects. Um richter kovalev leetch amonte weight marchant zubov nemchinov katpotsev etc. they were very highly rated and they were the foundation for what was to come. Some stayed some were traded for pivotal pieces.

Same thing with the past run of excellence. The rangers did it through the draft or prospect pool. They again were ranked extremely high. Callahan Dubi arty Staal Girardi hank etc. The rangers did not make rash moves they built up with the draft. And they were ranked very high as far as their future.

 

Every good team started with a great prospect pool. They might have been bad at the time but if you pay attention you know which teams are going to be good in the years to come.

Your whole premise of it not mattering what talent is in your system shouldn’t have to be explained why it’s important.

[Fatfrancesa]

No team wins a Cup without UFAs - most are buyers at the deadline and sell futures for a Cup run. If you are perpetually trading your vets to get assets, you will constantly have a lot of assets and never win dick.

 

The cap actually means that you have to trade for good players at the deadline because you can't afford to keep all of your young talent. Let's say the Rangers trade Nash for Puljujarvi and Grabner for, say, Honka. What happens when Pulj, Honka, Buch, and Skjei are all all stars, need to be re-signed in two offseasons, and you can't fit them under the cap? You trade one of them? The cap means that you can't just build a massive stock of young players, because when their ELCs expired, you've got to dump good players. It's exactly what's happened to Chicago.

 

Perpetually trading our vets. You’re funny. The rangers can go five years without a number 1 pick until last year and that’s your statement? The only perpetual thing going on here is that the rangers never sell and they always buy to appease what they must believe is a less than smart fan base. This team has done the exact thing you are again asking them to do again for almost 100 years. They have actually built up depth in their prospect pool on two occasions that I can think of and in both cases they enjoyed all the success this team has ever had. Yet you have no patience. It doesn’t mean you can’t go for it when the time is right because that is what results in cups including our lone one. But this is not that team.

They haven’t played more than 20 minutes a night ever. They get outshot by 20 every night. They are horrible on the blue line and worse down the middle. By the grace of hank they are again in the mix. Hank can be Fucking god and he’s not enough. This is not the same team as 14 it’s not even close.

[josh]

You couldn’t be more wrong. It’s actually funny. Prospects are rated based upon potential. Having guys who don’t have high upsides according to those who actually scout players doesn’t bold well for your future.

As far as the rangers not having a top prospect pool since 1928. Again you are so wrong you should probably stop posting.

The years leading up to you know the beginning of the 90’s when some good things happened the rangers had a massive amount of highly rated prospects. Um richter kovalev leetch amonte weight marchant zubov nemchinov katpotsev etc. they were very highly rated and they were the foundation for what was to come. Some stayed some were traded for pivotal pieces.

Same thing with the past run of excellence. The rangers did it through the draft or prospect pool. They again were ranked extremely high. Callahan Dubi arty Staal Girardi hank etc. The rangers did not make rash moves they built up with the draft. And they were ranked very high as far as their future.

 

Every good team started with a great prospect pool. They might have been bad at the time but if you pay attention you know which teams are going to be good in the years to come.

Your whole premise of it not mattering what talent is in your system shouldn’t have to be explained why it’s important.

 

 

 

Richter - 2nd round pick

kovalev - 15th overall

leetch - 9th overall

amonte - 4th round pick, traded

weight - 2nd round pick, traded

marchant - 7th round, traded

zubov - 5th round pick

nemchinov - 12th round

katpotsev - 8th round

 

Wow, you are right, Its all about rebuilding.

 

 

Henrik, Staal, Zuccarello, Kreider, Miller, Hayes, Skjei, McDonagh, Fast, Boo, Letteiri, Vesey, Buchnevich. 66% of the team made up of draft picks and prospect pool.

[Long live the King]

Same thing with the past run of excellence. The rangers did it through the draft or prospect pool. They again were ranked extremely high. Callahan Dubi arty Staal Girardi hank etc. The rangers did not make rash moves they built up with the draft. And they were ranked very high as far as their future.

 

So you say josh should stop posting, and then go on to list a group of players that A) never won a cup and B) includes only 1 first round pick and thats supposed to back up your argument for being sellers?

 

I'll take Miller, Kreider, Buch, Zib, Hayes, Vesey, and Skjei over every single one of those guys you mentioned.

[Fatfrancesa]

Hawks. Kane and towed were top picks. Keith and seabrook crawford Saad hjarlmasson we’re picked in spots you are so quickly dismissing

 

Kings. Doughty top pick. Every other guy was not.

Pens Crosby Malkin fleury top picks

Letang sherry Murray guetntzel orpik everyone else same as before

 

Nashville

Weber Josi ekholm ellis all in your dismissed positions. Even their top offensive talent forsberg was acquired by trading erat at the deadline which is one example of what a contending team over pays.

 

Tampa Stamkos and hedman top picks

Kucherov point vaseliski nemestikov kilorn palat dismissed

[Fatfrancesa]

Who said anything about rebuilding? There is no point is holding onto valuable players who are ufas when you don’t have a chance to win. You have decided that 1st and 2nd round picks have no value or apparently prospects either. I disagree. Trading those two does nothing in the chances of this team they already have none. I agree they have a decent core to build upon which does not include the two we are discussing. The rangers have spent years dismissing their farm. It’s why Carey and Lettieri and Holden play. Who comes up after Lettieri? There is nothing there. Yes Anderson and chytil are good prospects but you can’t have enough.

And I’ll take richter leetch zubov kovalev weight and amonte any day. We are seriously arguing which group is better? I’m guessing you weren’t alive to see these guys play?

[Fatfrancesa]

The argument is that you can’t get a good player with the picks you get for Grabner or Nash? I don’t get it. The only guarantee of not getting a good player is not having the picks at all. They are gone anyway most likely why would you throw away those draft picks. It only makes you stronger and at worse deepens your pool in which to add when you should be adding.

Does anyone think this team can win the cup? Is the goal to win a round? If it is then that is pathetic. Sadly it has been the case for so long that apparently the fan base is ok with that.

[Long live the King]

Hawks. Kane and towed were top picks. Keith and seabrook crawford Saad hjarlmasson we’re picked in spots you are so quickly dismissing

 

Kings. Doughty top pick. Every other guy was not.

Pens Crosby Malkin fleury top picks

Letang sherry Murray guetntzel orpik everyone else same as before

 

Nashville

Weber Josi ekholm ellis all in your dismissed positions. Even their top offensive talent forsberg was acquired by trading erat at the deadline which is one example of what a contending team over pays.

 

Tampa Stamkos and hedman top picks

Kucherov point vaseliski nemestikov kilorn palat dismissed

 

Ok, here it is again since apparently you missed it earlier...

 

Chicago first won in 2009-2010. Prior to that, from 1997 to 2008 (12 years) they absolutely sucked. Record of 343 - 414 - 145. 7th fewest wins in the league. Between 1997 and 2005, they had 8 top 15 draft picks and they still sucked enough to draft Toews #3 in 2006 and Kane #1 in 2007. Is that what you want the Rangers to do? Suck miserably until they luck into drafting a Toews and a Kane?

 

Pittsburgh first won in 2008-2009. Prior to that, from 2001 to 2006 they had the FEWEST wins in the NHL. 100 - 178 - 50. During those 5 years they drafted #5, #1, #2, #1, #2. They were lucky enough to draft two players better than Toews and Kane in Malkin and Crosby. They got lucky that there was generational talent available to coincide with the beginning of their suckiness.

 

They both sucked for a looooong time before drafting Kane/Toews and Crosby/Malkin who by the way are all exceptional players that make everyone else better.

 

Nashville, hasn't won shit. Tampa, hasn't won shit.

 

Let's do another. The Kings, only other team you mentioned that won a cup. From 2002/2003 through 2008/2009 they won the SECOND FEWEST GAMES IN THE LEAGUE OVER 7 YEARS. Here are their picks in that time: 2003 - 13, 26, 27 (still sucked); 2004 - 11 (still sucked); 2005 - 11 {Kopitar} (still sucked); 2006 - 11, 17 (still sucked); 2007 - 4 (still sucked); 2008 - 2 {Doughty}, 13 (still sucked); 2009 - 5 Finally won in 2011

[Long live the King]

Who said anything about rebuilding? There is no point is holding onto valuable players who are ufas when you don’t have a chance to win. You have decided that 1st and 2nd round picks have no value or apparently prospects either. I disagree. Trading those two does nothing in the chances of this team they already have none. I agree they have a decent core to build upon which does not include the two we are discussing. The rangers have spent years dismissing their farm. It’s why Carey and Lettieri and Holden play. Who comes up after Lettieri? There is nothing there. Yes Anderson and chytil are good prospects but you can’t have enough.

And I’ll take richter leetch zubov kovalev weight and amonte any day. We are seriously arguing which group is better? I’m guessing you weren’t alive to see these guys play?

 

No team is going to trade themselves out of the playoffs. That would be an incompetent GM. Anyone watching almighty Tampa? Vasilevsky has given up 15 goals in his last 3 starts and Hedman got hurt in a knee on knee collision and had to be helped into the locker room tonight, but yea they're totally untouchable everyone else should just give up. Lot of competitive spirit there.

[Long live the King]

The argument is that you can’t get a good player with the picks you get for Grabner or Nash? I don’t get it. The only guarantee of not getting a good player is not having the picks at all. They are gone anyway most likely why would you throw away those draft picks. It only makes you stronger and at worse deepens your pool in which to add when you should be adding.

Does anyone think this team can win the cup? Is the goal to win a round? If it is then that is pathetic. Sadly it has been the case for so long that apparently the fan base is ok with that.

 

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.

[Fatfrancesa]

Is that what it means? So having draft picks guarantees you being terrible? How is that? Having no picks would guarantee you not getting a good player. It’s not hard to understand but I’ll try one last time.

The higher the draft pick the better odds at drafting a good player. The more of those said high draft picks the better the odds at drafting a good player. Now when a players contract runs out they do not play for you anymore unless you resign them. That player is free to go wherever he wants. If your goal is to win you will want to maximize the talent on your team. Having no players would guarantee your team sucks

[josh]

If you are expecting to draft some magical player to turn your franchise into a winning team for 20 seasons, your best bet is being shitty for over a decade in hopes to land 2 generational players.

[Mike]

Ok, found it .... Here's a list of teams that were in contention at the deadline, sold players because they didn't really think they had a chance that year, and then won a cup with the picks used from those trades a few seasons later:

[Future]

I'll just go down the list here...

Perpetually trading our vets. You’re funny. The rangers can go five years without a number 1 pick until last year and that’s your statement? The only perpetual thing going on here is that the rangers never sell and they always buy to appease what they must believe is a less than smart fan base. This team has done the exact thing you are again asking them to do again for almost 100 years. They have actually built up depth in their prospect pool on two occasions that I can think of and in both cases they enjoyed all the success this team has ever had. Yet you have no patience. It doesn’t mean you can’t go for it when the time is right because that is what results in cups including our lone one. But this is not that team.

I never said the Rangers have been sellers. I said teams who are perpetually selling never win.

Who said anything about rebuilding? There is no point is holding onto valuable players who are ufas when you don’t have a chance to win. You have decided that 1st and 2nd round picks have no value or apparently prospects either. I disagree. Trading those two does nothing in the chances of this team they already have none. I agree they have a decent core to build upon which does not include the two we are discussing. The rangers have spent years dismissing their farm. It’s why Carey and Lettieri and Holden play. Who comes up after Lettieri? There is nothing there. Yes Anderson and chytil are good prospects but you can’t have enough.

And I’ll take richter leetch zubov kovalev weight and amonte any day. We are seriously arguing which group is better? I’m guessing you weren’t alive to see these guys play?

Selling UFAs at the deadline, especially when you are in the playoffs, is rebuilding. Nobody has said that picks have no value.

 

The 94 team was a buyer at the deadline, they traded Amonte.

The argument is that you can’t get a good player with the picks you get for Grabner or Nash? I don’t get it. The only guarantee of not getting a good player is not having the picks at all. They are gone anyway most likely why would you throw away those draft picks. It only makes you stronger and at worse deepens your pool in which to add when you should be adding.

Does anyone think this team can win the cup? Is the goal to win a round? If it is then that is pathetic. Sadly it has been the case for so long that apparently the fan base is ok with that.

Nobody is making that argument. The argument is that forfeiting any opportunity to win now for a late-first or second-round pick isn't a smart move. Those players have as good a shot as never making the NHL as they do of becoming impact players.

Hawks. Kane and towed were top picks. Keith and seabrook crawford Saad hjarlmasson we’re picked in spots you are so quickly dismissing

 

Kings. Doughty top pick. Every other guy was not.

Pens Crosby Malkin fleury top picks

Letang sherry Murray guetntzel orpik everyone else same as before

 

Nashville

Weber Josi ekholm ellis all in your dismissed positions. Even their top offensive talent forsberg was acquired by trading erat at the deadline which is one example of what a contending team over pays.

 

Tampa Stamkos and hedman top picks

Kucherov point vaseliski nemestikov kilorn palat dismissed

The fact that you are referencing teams who A) tanked completely to get top 5 picks or B) haven't won a cup is odd, since neither are any sort of template for the Rangers. That's not to mention the fact that the Blackhawks have traded a number of prospects and first-round picks over the years and the Kings are largely built around Doughty and a bunch of guys they traded picks and prospects for. Those two are the benchmark for being buyers, at the deadline and otherwise.

 

You're referencing Top 5 picks, which is something the Rangers haven't been bad enough to get. So either you're arguing for a tank (which is a rebuild) or you don't understand that a top-5 pick isn't the same as a pick in the 20s.

[Long live the King]

Is that what it means? So having draft picks guarantees you being terrible? How is that? Having no picks would guarantee you not getting a good player. It’s not hard to understand but I’ll try one last time.

The higher the draft pick the better odds at drafting a good player. The more of those said high draft picks the better the odds at drafting a good player. Now when a players contract runs out they do not play for you anymore unless you resign them. That player is free to go wherever he wants. If your goal is to win you will want to maximize the talent on your team. Having no players would guarantee your team sucks

 

Does not having draft picks guarantee you not getting a good player? Vesey, Hayes, and Zucc say hi. Current prospects Lettieri and Pionk say hi too. Here's a question you seem to be ignoring, if you trade half your team for draft picks, who do you put on the ice? You think those draft picks step in year one and replace what Nash and Grabner, or even DD and Holden, do for the team? You think a team of rookies will win games because some of these draft picks may turn out to be good players 2, 3, 4 years down the road?

[Fatfrancesa]

Who said that? If you are expecting that in keeping Nash and Grabner means you are contending you are dreaming. So then what? You guys want to stand pat in hopes of extending the season a week? They are probably gone maybe Grabner stays at a massive raise but we’ll see. You give no thought in getting something for them when you will get a good return instead of losing them for nothing? There is no argument in that other than a misguided prayer that they will be key parts to a championship this year. Do you really think they have a good chance at winning?

If you do trade them You are guaranteed to get a raise in your prospect pool. It doesn’t mean they will be stars or anything. But it does give you assets in which you either try and develop or could flip down the line to improve your team. A first round draft pick this summer will keep their value for at least a couple of years. You never know what will become of 17-18 year old kids but being able to select as high as possible will give you a better chance. The more of those chances you have the better chance you have at hitting on something. You have scouts for a reason. You hire them because you think they can identify talent. For once let them do their jobs. The only guarantee here is by doing nothing you don’t win a cup and your roster next year will be weaker and you cap situation in future years will be worse off than if you had traded them. Having cheap young talent is the best currency in this league now. Nobody can argue that that is not the case. Getting that kind of talent only comes from building a deep prospect pool. Having more high end picks gives you a better chance of developing that.

Nobody is saying have a fire sale. The only thing being said is you need to trade the players who have high value who aren’t going to be here anyway. They made this same mistake with Yandle. Everybody knew he was a goner but they held onto him for a false hope at glory. 5 predictable games later they were golfing and instead of getting a high return for him the rangers got a 5th round pick. That whole situation was insane and yet you guys are proposing the same thing now. That decision on Yandle is effecting this team this season. Maybe if the correct decision was made then this team would be better situated to actually do what you are proposing. We’ll never know. What we do know is that the rangers aren’t getting closer to a cup each year with this team. You can’t go for it every year.

[josh]

if you trade them when you are in a playoff spot, for random picks, thats horrible.

 

You arent getting a great pick or prospect for either player.

 

If this team is playing shitty hockey, 10th/11th place just going through the motions, I dont think youll see too many people complain about UFA getting moved... but we are not at that point.

 

The issue with your comments, stem from your willingness to trade off UFA, at below market value, when the team is in a solid spot to make the playoffs. And honestly, no team in the East is unbeatable.

[Fatfrancesa]

Trading two ufa players is not trading half your team. Both of those players are more than likely not here anyway and if they are it’s at the cost of other roster players because they have to get paid too. You guys are all ridiculous and I thought when people like bob McKenzie says that the rangers market and fan base won’t allow them to make shrewd moves like think about more than right now he was wrong. I guess not. The beat goes on and that cup will have to last a lifetime. They way this team has operated has resulted in 1 cup in almost 80 years. You would think that would be enough for any of you to even consider trying doing something different but I guess not.

Anybody want to bet the rangers don’t get out of the first round this year? I have 4 tickets to all Stanley cup final home games for the rangers this year. Anybody care to wager for them?

[Future]

Trading two ufa players is not trading half your team. Both of those players are more than likely not here anyway and if they are it’s at the cost of other roster players because they have to get paid too. You guys are all ridiculous and I thought when people like bob McKenzie says that the rangers market and fan base won’t allow them to make shrewd moves like think about more than right now he was wrong. I guess not. The beat goes on and that cup will have to last a lifetime. They way this team has operated has resulted in 1 cup in almost 80 years. You would think that would be enough for any of you to even consider trying doing something different but I guess not.

Anybody want to bet the rangers don’t get out of the first round this year? I have 4 tickets to all Stanley cup final home games for the rangers this year. Anybody care to wager for them?

What other roster player?

 

You just said the Rangers have nobody in the pipeline.

[Long live the King]

No one is saying we don't want or value picks. We're saying that no team, in any sport, trades away players for futures when they are in the playoffs. That's a sure fire way to have the players still on your team quit on you and want to go elsewhere to win. Good luck attracting free agents when you give up playoff opportunities because you quit trying. But I get get it, you're a pessimist, been that way for years.

[josh]

Trading two ufa players is not trading half your team. Both of those players are more than likely not here anyway and if they are it’s at the cost of other roster players because they have to get paid too. You guys are all ridiculous and I thought when people like bob McKenzie says that the rangers market and fan base won’t allow them to make shrewd moves like think about more than right now he was wrong. I guess not. The beat goes on and that cup will have to last a lifetime. They way this team has operated has resulted in 1 cup in almost 80 years. You would think that would be enough for any of you to even consider trying doing something different but I guess not.

Anybody want to bet the rangers don’t get out of the first round this year? I have 4 tickets to all Stanley cup final tickets for the rangers this year. Anybody care to wager for them?

 

So, when the team is competitive, you want to trade these guys, for picks. Develop those picks, then trade those prospects for a Nash/Grabner type player at the deadline when this team is on the bubble in a few years.

 

 

And seriously... there is no sense bringing up how this team was "run" prior to the lockout. That's completely irrelevant. The Rangers have been one of the most successful teams ... you know, on-ice success, which is a lot closer to a cup than a few draft picks in 2019.

[Long live the King]

Trading two ufa players is not trading half your team. Both of those players are more than likely not here anyway and if they are it’s at the cost of other roster players because they have to get paid too. You guys are all ridiculous and I thought when people like bob McKenzie says that the rangers market and fan base won’t allow them to make shrewd moves like think about more than right now he was wrong. I guess not. The beat goes on and that cup will have to last a lifetime. They way this team has operated has resulted in 1 cup in almost 80 years. You would think that would be enough for any of you to even consider trying doing something different but I guess not.

Anybody want to bet the rangers don’t get out of the first round this year? I have 4 tickets to all Stanley cup final home games for the rangers this year. Anybody care to wager for them?

 

If you're trading Nash and Grabner, then why are you keeping Holden and DD? So who are replacing one of your top 4 D and 3 of your top 9 forwards with next year?

[josh]

If you're trading Nash and Grabner, then why are you keeping Holden and DD? So who are replacing one of your top 4 D and 3 of your top 9 forwards with next year?

 

He doesnt care. He doesnt want the team to win, or be competitive.

 

Its a "why work to save for money when you might win on a lottery scratch off" mentality.

[Fatfrancesa]

You don’t know that. So is chytil a shitty prospect because he was a Kate first round pick. How about Buchnevich is he horrible? That’s just two. When was skeij picked? Do we really need to do this? The rangers aren’t getting a generational talent for them no shit. But the just the rangers roster is loaded with guys picked mid to late in the first two rounds. Could we use another miller? Is that player enough to win them a cup, no. But they sure could use more of players of that caliber especially when a player of that caliber is making peanuts for three years.

 

You guys just can’t wait the two or three years for that player to be here at the expense of a week longer season today. That’s fine but