[friedman] Rangers Should Look at Options on UFAs, May Be Willing to Listen on Zucc, McD

[Dunny]

They have their picks this year and just drafted twice in the 1st round. At this point, both Chytil and Andersson are virtual locks to be productive NHL'ers.

 

Not many teams have better depth than the Rangers, that's how they've managed to continue to win without a game breaker to be seen.

[Future]

It’s actually not true. Everyone points to the generational player and having to pick in the top 1 or 2 to get that player. There are tons of examples of game changing players that were drafted later. Also all those teams who won cups did so with more than just one player. And in a lot of cases trades were made with quality prospects or high draft picks to obtain what they needed. In almost every case those trades weren’t made as a rental but as a long term investment. The rangers too frequently have traded their picks for somebody who wasn’t going to be here long. That is the problem now. It’s not that they traded the picks and prospects it’s tgat what they traded for is gone as well.

 

La doesn’t just have Doughty. Quick, carter, kopitar, Muzzin, Brown were all part of the core as well

Chicago had Keith seabrook hjarlmason saad Sharp as well

Pitt added kessel with young assets. Letang hornqvist murray maata and a whole slew of role players like guentzel rust sheery etc

The Detroit years are littered with savy draft picks. The entire team actually

Tampa now sure stamkos and hedman sure but what about kucherov vasielisky point kilorn palat Johnson and on and on.

 

Point is it’s hard to build a championship team. It’s even harder when you lose valuable assets for nothing. Of course there as many teams who have fucked it up and keep losing no matter the picks. You have to trust that your gm can draft and can identify talent. People say the rangers have done well without their picks restocking the pipeline under the circumstances. They aren’t wrong but why not give those same guys the ability of picking from the entire draft crop instead of 90th hoping to hit in the leftovers?

 

There are no guarantees but what they have now isn’t good enough. I don’t know how anybody expects it to improve without a strong reinforcement of young talent. They just don’t have it right now. The rangers have the money to have the largest best scouting staff in the league, that’s not capped. Scout and develop is the only way to get ahead in this league. There will be misses but the better picks you have and the more you have the better chance you have to finding those core players. It’s not rocket science it’s patience

You're off on those teams you reference because you're not accounting for the fact that all of the supplemental guys you list are able to do that BECAUSE of the high draft picks. Anze Kopitar doesn't have to be your best player when Doughty is there. Keith doesn't when Kane is there. Kessel doesn't with Crosby, etc. etc. The Rangers haven't had that top-5 pick to lean on to allow all of their core players - Kreider, JT, Zucc, Stepan - to be supplemental.

 

Detroit won cups in 2002 and 2008. They did not have first round picks in 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2006, 2008, 2009, 2011, 2012. They got lucky to get Lidstrom, Datsyuk and Zetterberg as late as they did, otherwise, they're a horrible franchise through the 2000s. They're basically the benchmark for what it is to be perpetual sellers, and they turned it into 2 Cups.

[NYR2711]

The Rangers don't really care about UFAs unless they are rookies.

 

Who even was the last big money UFA we signed...Redden?

 

 

We had Boyle, St Louis, Richards, Frolov, Kotalik, Higgins and Naslund.

[Flynn]

What helps more over the next 3 years. Nash/Grabner/Zucc/Mac or 3 or 4 first round draft picks and younger talent (Mac and or Zucc gets you picks plus a player)? .... Mother nature is undefeated, have to go with option B in my book. Losing in the first round of the playoffs gives you nothing but 2 or 3 more home games.

[josh]

It?s actually not true. Everyone points to the generational player and having to pick in the top 1 or 2 to get that player. There are tons of examples of game changing players that were drafted later. Also all those teams who won cups did so with more than just one player. And in a lot of cases trades were made with quality prospects or high draft picks to obtain what they needed. In almost every case those trades weren?t made as a rental but as a long term investment. The rangers too frequently have traded their picks for somebody who wasn?t going to be here long. That is the problem now. It?s not that they traded the picks and prospects it?s tgat what they traded for is gone as well.

 

La doesn?t just have Doughty. Quick, carter, kopitar, Muzzin, Brown were all part of the core as well

Chicago had Keith seabrook hjarlmason saad Sharp as well

Pitt added kessel with young assets. Letang hornqvist murray maata and a whole slew of role players like guentzel rust sheery etc

The Detroit years are littered with savy draft picks. The entire team actually

Tampa now sure stamkos and hedman sure but what about kucherov vasielisky point kilorn palat Johnson and on and on.

 

Point is it?s hard to build a championship team. It?s even harder when you lose valuable assets for nothing. Of course there as many teams who have fucked it up and keep losing no matter the picks. You have to trust that your gm can draft and can identify talent. People say the rangers have done well without their picks restocking the pipeline under the circumstances. They aren?t wrong but why not give those same guys the ability of picking from the entire draft crop instead of 90th hoping to hit in the leftovers?

 

There are no guarantees but what they have now isn?t good enough. I don?t know how anybody expects it to improve without a strong reinforcement of young talent. They just don?t have it right now. The rangers have the money to have the largest best scouting staff in the league, that?s not capped. Scout and develop is the only way to get ahead in this league. There will be misses but the better picks you have and the more you have the better chance you have to finding those core players. It?s not rocket science it?s patience

 

We have the support players, we need the game-breaker.

As Sod pointed out, you arent getting that with a late first round pick.

[Dunny]

I just find calling them "1st round picks" is a bit misleading.

 

You're going to get a handful of picks between the 17th-50th slots. You could then bundle some of them to move up in the 3 to 8 slots.

 

McD is a little different again. You could probably get a killing for him, but then you're waiving the flag. The rest you can trade and re-tool, in theory.

[NYR2711]

Dolan would never let this team do a complete rebuild. He knows that he will lose money if the team totally sucks because no one will go and watch, especially at the prices they charge.

[Future]

We had Boyle, St Louis, Richards, Frolov, Kotalik, Higgins and Naslund.

Richards, yea. But we traded for St. Louis, and the rest were just middling contracts, at most.

[Fatfrancesa]

They must have signed Shattenkirk as a college ufa.

 

Yeah Duncan Keith draft 54th a two time Norris winner ,two time 1st team nhl all star, 4 time all star other than that and conn Smythe winner and top 100 player all time as just put out by the nhl owes everything to Kane and towes He?d be Nick Holden otherwise.

 

So why would anyone want Ryan McDonagh he was drafted 12th. Obviously he can?t be good.

 

Kopitar is/was as important as drew Doughty as is/was quick. To think otherwise is laughable.

 

Regardless what you are basically saying is that the rangers cannot win unless they obtain a generational player. Yet arguing to stay the course because making the playoffs is better than trying to win and maybe turning into buffalo. Even the best case in your scenario is that teams like Pitt and Chicago had to be terrible for 7-8 years in order to win multiple cups 7-8 years later and be the toast of the nhl for better than a decade. That sounds terrible.

[Phil]

Yes, I know that.

 

I'm just wondering why frustrated fans want to get rid of this team, hopefully do the same thing over again, and hopefully have an identical team in 5 years.

You cant name off Chicago, Washington, Pittsburgh, but then settle for late round picks, as we have done. If you want to change the team, you have to change the way you draft. Either trade up for a top pick, or trade for roster players. More middling picks isnt going to randomly make the team better. We dont need more middle 6 forwards. We need a game-breaker. The focus should be on getting one, not another JT Miller or Michael Del Zotto.

 

They tried to package their firsts last summer to get the third overall pick (Makar). Maybe they do the same again this Draft?

 

 

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

[josh]

They must have signed Shattenkirk as a college ufa.

 

Yeah Duncan Keith draft 54th a two time Norris winner ,two time 1st team nhl all star, 4 time all star other than that and conn Smythe winner and top 100 player all time as just put out by the nhl owes everything to Kane and towes He’d be Nick Holden otherwise.

 

So why would anyone want Ryan McDonagh he was drafted 12th. Obviously he can’t be good.

 

Kopitar is/was as important as drew Doughty as is/was quick. To think otherwise is laughable.

 

Regardless what you are basically saying is that the rangers cannot win unless they obtain a generational player. Yet arguing to stay the course because making the playoffs is better than trying to win and maybe turning into buffalo. Even the best case in your scenario is that teams like Pitt and Chicago had to be terrible for 7-8 years in order to win multiple cups 7-8 years later and be the toast of the nhl for better than a decade. That sounds terrible.

 

Pretty much.

And we've posted statistics on where the majority of generational talent is drafted - its the top few picks, and not ever draft. Changing from 15th to 18th in the draft, and seeing some extra games - sure. We've got a better chance winning the cup this season than we do drafting a generational talent at 15.

 

To me, trading Nash and Grabner for more late 1sts and 2nds is just going to get us next era's Kreider, Staal, Miller, Hayes etc - and we have that. Makes no sense to ditch what you have to hopefully get back to where you are now, in the future.

[ThirtyONE]

They tried to package their firsts last summer to get the third overall pick (Makar). Maybe they do the same again this Draft?

 

 

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

 

If Brady Tkchuck going to be available the Rangers must make an attempt. New young skilled American with an edge as the face of the team moving forward.

[Phil]

I want Brady badly.

 

 

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

[Dunny]

Me too, I just don't see how that happens no matter how many pieces they move at the deadline.

[Long live the King]

Did you? Sorry. Mind posting again, or linking me? The way I see it, the numbers favor numerous first-rounders. PIT, CHI, LAK, CBJ, TBL, TOR, and WPG have all turned into winning clubs. Colorado might have hit a couple ruts but appear to be on the verge of being good again, too.

 

Ok, this post may come out long, but bare with me. I feel like there are 2 parts to the arguments going on in multiple threads. Whether/when so become sellers is up for debate. This here is specifically about the perception of the draft.

 

First, the winners:

 

Chicago - first won the cup in 2009-2010. Prior to that, from 1997 to 2008 (12 years) record of 343 - 414 - 145 for the 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.

 

Pittsburgh - first won in the cup 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 extremely lucky to have Malkin and Crosby available to draft coinciding with the beginning of their suckiness.

 

LA - first won in the cup in 2011-20012. Prior to that, from 2003 through 2009 they won the SECOND FEWEST games in the league over a 7 year span. They had 11 first round picks during that time 6 picks in the top 11. Got lucky to draft Kopitar at 11, Doughty at 2 was the turning point.

 

Now, the counter argument. The shit teams:

 

Trashers/Jets - Since their inception in 1998/99 to 2015/16 they went 518 - 593 - 167. That's 2nd worst in the league for 17 years. They had 2 #1 picks; 3 #2 picks; 1 each #3, #4, #7, and #10; 2 each #8 and #9. That's 13 top 10 picks with an overall playoff record of 0 - 8.

 

Arizona - Since 2002/03 - present (15 years), they have 489 wins. 3rd worst in the league. In that time they've had 20 first round picks (not include the #7 they traded to us last year). Those 20 picks include 7 top 8 picks (#'s - 5, 8, 3, 8, 6, 3, 7). They have 3 playoff appearances in those 15 years.

 

Florida - Since 2000/01 - present (17 years), they have 530 wins. Worst in the league. In that time they've had 21 first round picks. Those 21 picks include 11 top 10 picks. 6 of those are in the top 3. They have 2 playoff appearances in those 17 years.

 

Edmonton - Since 2006/07 - present (12 years), they have 366 wins. Worst in the league. In that time they've had 14 first round picks. Those 14 picks include 9 top 10 picks. 4 of those are #1 overall. They made the playoffs once in those 12 years, only after drafting McDavid. (Back to third worst team in the West this year)

 

Buffalo - Since 2001/02 - present (16 years), they have 555 wins. 7th worst in the league. In that time they've had 19 first round picks. Those 19 picks include 12 top 13 picks. They have 4 playoff appearances in those 16 years. In the last 5 years they drafted 8, 2, 2, 8, 8. (They are currently the worst team in the East)

 

Carolina - Since (the year after they won the cup) 2006/07 - present (12 years), they have 413 wins. 6th worst in the league. In that time they've had 11 first round picks. 9 of those 11 picks are top 15. Since they won the cup they have one playoff appearance in 12 years. ***Pause for a question in response to the Rangers having 1 cup in 80 years. Carolina won the cup in 2006 (12 years more recently then the Rangers), they also have the longest current playoff drought at 8 years. Is Carolina in a more favorable spot/view due to that cup win?***

 

Islanders - In the last 23 years, they have won 1 playoff series. A playoff record of 15-26 in 7 appearances. In the those drafts they had 30 first rounders. 18 of them were in the top 10. 12 of them were in the top 5 (3 #1's). Yes, you read that right, 12 top 5 picks. 1 playoff series win.

 

Columbus - Since entering the league in 2000/01 (17 years), they have the 3rd fewest wins in the league. Although, playing well in the Torts era, they've never won a playoff series and have a playoff record of 3-12 in 3 appearances. They've picked in the 1st round 19 times. 13 of those in the top 10. 9 in the top 6.

 

Colorado - Since 2006/07 - present (12 years), they've had 11 first rounders. 7 of those are the top 11. They have 3 playoff appearances in those 12 years. 7-16 record, only making it to the second round once.

 

Toronto - Since 2005/06 - present (13 years), they've had 12 first rounders. 6 of those are the top 10. Lucky enough to get the #1 in Matthews' draft year. They have 2 playoff appearances in those 13 years, haven't made it out of the first round.

 

 

 

Now yes, some of these teams are on the up tick. But while all these teams were scooping up the sexy prospects, with their fingers crossed hoping for a better future, the Rangers were busy playing playoff hockey 12 out of the last 13 years (the one miss coming down to the last game of the year). In that time they played 129 playoff games, second only to the Pens. Their 61 playoff wins ranks them 6th in the league.

 

 

Would I like to have a couple extra first rounders this summer? Sure, who wouldn't. But I'd rather keep watching playoff hockey...

[Phil]

Me too, I just don't see how that happens no matter how many pieces they move at the deadline.

 

A mixture of picks and someone like Miller to move up to take him?

[Long live the King]

They must have signed Shattenkirk as a college ufa.

 

Yeah Duncan Keith draft 54th a two time Norris winner ,two time 1st team nhl all star, 4 time all star other than that and conn Smythe winner and top 100 player all time as just put out by the nhl owes everything to Kane and towes He’d be Nick Holden otherwise.

 

So why would anyone want Ryan McDonagh he was drafted 12th. Obviously he can’t be good.

 

Kopitar is/was as important as drew Doughty as is/was quick. To think otherwise is laughable.

 

Regardless what you are basically saying is that the rangers cannot win unless they obtain a generational player. Yet arguing to stay the course because making the playoffs is better than trying to win and maybe turning into buffalo. Even the best case in your scenario is that teams like Pitt and Chicago had to be terrible for 7-8 years in order to win multiple cups 7-8 years later and be the toast of the nhl for better than a decade. That sounds terrible.

 

This exemplifies the point. So Keith was picked number 54. That doesn't mean we should trade for a bunch of 2nd rounders. It means Chicago got real lucky with a second round pick. With 123 points in 127 playoff games over the last 13 years. Kane is one of the best playoff scorers of this generation. Toews is arguably the best leader, two way center, and faceoff man in the game. He has 110 points in 128 playoff games. Without them Chicago doesn't win and Duncan Keith is in the saem boat as Eric Karlsson.

 

And all those Penguin role players you brought up... Crosby has 164 in 148 playoff games and Malkin 157 in 149. The only two players to appear in more than 20 games and average more than a point per game.

 

 

Its not they had to be terrible for x amount of years. Its the only thing that got them out of the basement was lucking into multiple generational talents at the same time.

[Fatfrancesa]

Missing from your post is the bedrock to why this rangers team has had its success. That’s Henrik, without him this would have been an ordinary team. Hank is what 36? What happens to this core when time catches up to him? Even with him they couldn’t get it done and the past couple of years they really weren’t close. This team right now would already be dead in the water without him.

 

I still don’t see what this has to do with trading Grabner and Nash? The counter argument is that the rangers can’t win without generational talent yet go for it and hold onto your ufas even when you admittedly don’t have those generational players.

 

So the rangers should not trade them because while they might get good prospects or low first round picks those assets are worthless because they are not top 3 picks? I don’t understand that kind of thinking. I get liking the core that’s here going forward. I also get not wanting to be terrible for years. However this core couldn’t stand to get more quality like talented players added to the mix? That instead of losing guys for nothing?

 

This summer Nathan MacKinnion was rumored to be on the block. The rangers were interested but reportedly didn’t have the pieces to trade for such a player. Is it at all possible that if the rangers had a group of wanted prospects and picks tgat maybe he’d be a ranger right now? Point is you cant say for sure what will come of the returns for Nash and Grabner. What is a guarantee is that if they hit ufa they will cost a lot of money to return and for this team to remain status quo which isn’t good enough now. If they don’t resign you lose good players for nothing. As far as the picks and prospects they nay never play here. They maybe traded for important pieces, maybe another MacKinnion situation pops up. Or maybe they turn into another skeij or Kreider or Buchnevich alongside the Skeij Buchnevich and Kreider who’s already here. I don’t see what the harm is here.

 

You need generational talent, fine. How are you getting it? By doing nothing? If you can’t draft it you need to trade for it if that player becomes available. That takes assets. Unless you’re banking on a ufa generational player signing here. Even if that happens you’re going to need good cheap players to fill out your roster because that player is going to cost 12-14m a year.

[Fatfrancesa]

This exemplifies the point. So Keith was picked number 54. That doesn't mean we should trade for a bunch of 2nd rounders. It means Chicago got real lucky with a second round pick. With 123 points in 127 playoff games over the last 13 years. Kane is one of the best playoff scorers of this generation. Toews is arguably the best leader, two way center, and faceoff man in the game. He has 110 points in 128 playoff games. Without them Chicago doesn't win and Duncan Keith is in the saem boat as Eric Karlsson.

 

And all those Penguin role players you brought up... Crosby has 164 in 148 playoff games and Malkin 157 in 149. The only two players to appear in more than 20 games and average more than a point per game.

 

 

Its not they had to be terrible for x amount of years. Its the only thing that got them out of the basement was lucking into multiple generational talents at the same time.

 

Of course it will take good fortune to draft a player like that not picking in the top 3 in the right year but the more picks you have and the better those picks are gives you a better chance.

 

Speaking of Karlsson he’s another not picked in the top of the draft

[Ozzy]

Yes, I know that.

 

I'm just wondering why frustrated fans want to get rid of this team, hopefully do the same thing over again, and hopefully have an identical team in 5 years.

You cant name off Chicago, Washington, Pittsburgh, but then settle for late round picks, as we have done. If you want to change the team, you have to change the way you draft. Either trade up for a top pick, or trade for roster players. More middling picks isnt going to randomly make the team better. We dont need more middle 6 forwards. We need a game-breaker. The focus should be on getting one, not another JT Miller or Michael Del Zotto.

 

Good question Josh. I'll give you my perspective, man:

 

It's not that I want to "get rid of this team", per se. It needs to be re-vamped. I think that this coach has taken this band of players as far as he's going to, and now it's going backwards. We have some "assets" that are getting to their 30's now, and not that that's the end of the rope for them, but I can't see the Rangers investing in them at this point.

 

Grabner, as good a season as he is having is at an all time high right now, and his trade value is fairly significant.

Nash could be a top scorer for any playoff team, and his ability to be a very good 2 way player makes him also very valuable.

 

There are a few other players that can be made a case to move as well, but my main reason to be a seller this season is simply because I think this team doesn't have what it takes to win a cup. Again this is my opinion from watching all season. They lack in many areas that are very difficult to overcome in the playoffs. I know what both you and Future are saying that it's anybody's chance in the playoffs, but I don't really feel it with this team. I just don't; We're too thin at center, too banged up with injuries, and also I can't see us being consistent enough to win 16 games at that crunch time part of the year. Plus I don't think this team is nearly close to physical enough.

 

Which brings me to the point of the coaching staff: I've seen enough. I believe he's lost this team a while back, and it looks to me like he won't play the kids unless he absolutely has to....like now through injury. I would do the same thing as well if my job was on the line and I HAD to win now. The thing is, his so called STYLE of play in my opinion is pure dog shit. That pass first, and no physicality is just boring to watch. Add in the fact that it's not working even against shitty teams right now.

 

I almost peed myself when the gloves got dropped last night. I can't remember when the last time a Ranger went at it and fought, or stood up for a teammate. In my eyes, this all stems from behind the bench, and this guy is not the guy I want steering this new bunch of talent we have/get into the future.

 

Again, this is my view point. But I hate that fucking stubborn bastard. He won't change his game plan or adjust to shit. He'll just "roll his 4 lines". To me? I watched him get out coached yet again last night and he made ZERO adjustments to LA stopping the East-West shit they were getting killed on, and when LA revved up the rough housing, we had no answer but retaliate improperly, and in the worst possible way, taking penalties which cost us 2 points. Again, Discipline = Zero

 

As far as I'm concerned, there's no better time to see what the kids have for the rest of the year and focus on what this team can be 2 years down the pike. Who knows? We may have more in the pipe than what we think! Add in what assets we may get back for a Grabner, Nash and whomever and we might even be able to contend next season.

 

We're not far off. We need some new blood and BADLY need a new philosophy behind the bench. This team as it stands now is a tough watch on TV....and for some of us fans.

[Future]

Its not they had to be terrible for x amount of years. Its the only thing that got them out of the basement was lucking into multiple generational talents at the same time.

Well, a lot of it was being terrible for a long time, but, really, They picked #5 (Whitney), #1 (MAF), #2 (Malkin), #1 (Crosby), #2 (Staal). They had 5 straight top-5 picks.

 

But again, they drafted a bunch of junk outside of those picks. Dating back to 2000, their other 1st rounders are Orpik (18), Colby Armstrong (21), Angelo Esposito (20), Simon Despres (30), Beau Bennett (20), Joseph Morrow (23), Olli Maatta (22), Derrick Pouliot (8), Kasperia Kapanen (22). So in 9 picks you got, what, 1 top-9 forward and two top-6 defensemen?

[Dunny]

A mixture of picks and someone like Miller to move up to take him?

 

That would probably get it done, yeah, if the right team(s) is sitting in that #3-#5 slot after the lottery.

 

I guess it depends if you want to cleave one of our value pieces to get up in that area.

 

Who knows, if they shut it down after figuring out they're screwed at the deadline the Rangers could conceivably be in that #8 to #12 area pretty easily. You could likely move up from there.

[Future]

A mixture of picks and someone like Miller to move up to take him?

How does replacing Miller with Tkachuk make you any better? Especially when you're also losing any opportunity on another 1st rounder?

[Long live the King]

I'm not saying you need. I'm saying that's the only thing that got those teams out of the basement. Let's look at the other cup winners recently.

 

Boston. They weren't lead by first rounders. They in fact traded all their high picks (Thornton, Kessel, Seguin). They were lead by two 2nd and a 3rd rounder, with a hot Tim Thomas.

 

Detroit. Lidstrom was a 3rd rounder, Datsyuk a 6th, and Zetterberg a 7th. Between the 1997 and 2007 drafts they only had 4 first rounders with the highest pick being #19.

[AliveIn94]

Miller was a first rounder, corrext me if I'm wrong, maybe 15, but still talent there, young too. Take him to late twenties w contract at worst we have a top 6 wing that can play center to replace Zucc/Nash for a while until we get draft picks.

 

Sent from my [device_name] using http://Blueshirts Brotherhood mobile app powered by Tapatalk