gdt: 2018 Off-Season Thread: #TradeSzn

[Giacomin]

I say no. Why would we want him? We need change. If I were him I'd sign wherever AV does. He's clearly a product of the system.

 

You watched him. He was a product of his defense, speed, hockey sense and effort. His goals did not come from long stretch passes or him sneakily hanging the wing. He caused turnovers, big time turnovers and converted on enough of them. Defense + speed + anticipation + physical specimen will work with any coach that leverages that role in the lineup. Good quiet example for the kids too.

 

I get this idea about getting the bad taste out of our mouth, but Grabs was consistent for us. He's tough in the playoffs, wants to be with a team that wants to be fast, excellent PKer/defender, slots up the lineup and now he's gonna be cheaper. Any other better FA forwards out there for say 2/3 years at 3.2mil?

 

It is not necessary to get any forwards in FA, but if we are bargain shopping and want to not ice guys like Holland and Carey....

[ThirtyONE]

You watched him. He was a product of his defense, speed, hockey sense and effort. His goals did not come from long stretch passes or him sneakily hanging the wing. He caused turnovers, big time turnovers and converted on enough of them. Defense + speed + anticipation + physical specimen will work with any coach that leverages that role in the lineup. Good quiet example for the kids too.

 

I get this idea about getting the bad taste out of our mouth, but Grabs was consistent for us. He's tough in the playoffs, wants to be with a team that wants to be fast, excellent PKer/defender, slots up the lineup and now he's gonna be cheaper. Any other better FA forwards out there for say 2/3 years at 3.2mil?

 

It is not necessary to get any forwards in FA, but if we are bargain shopping and want to not ice guys like Holland and Carey....

 

I get it. Realistically an argument can be made about any of the players and they have been made here: Zucc, Hayes, Vesey, Grabner, Nash, etc. Each brings something that’s “hard to come by” or is a “good leader” or can “teach the kids.” That group sucks. That group has won exactly 0. The team needs an overhaul and not just McDonagh and Miller. The entire roster.

[Fatfrancesa]

Grabners struggles has to be a concern. He was a great fit with av. He’s had no success otherwise and is now a healthy scratch. With a new coach coming in and hopefully bringing back structure it would make me pause in bringing him back.

[Ozzy]

I loved his effort here during his tenure, but I think it's time to move forward with new faces and a new attitude here....Nash included. I wanna see a whole new regime. ....again that's me. I'm tired of the same old crapola.

 

Out with the old, and in with the new...

[Gravesy]

I get it. Realistically an argument can be made about any of the players and they have been made here: Zucc, Hayes, Vesey, Grabner, Nash, etc. Each brings something that’s “hard to come by” or is a “good leader” or can “teach the kids.” That group sucks. That group has won exactly 0. The team needs an overhaul and not just McDonagh and Miller. The entire roster.

 

Agreed. You only have to watch the ongoing playoff series to appreciate how much of a reboot this organization needs. Could you imagine our current roster in any of these series? It would be utter carnage.

[Fatfrancesa]

We saw it two years ago. Last year we got a favorable draw against teams just like us. This team hasn’t been a legit contender for now three years. Better late than never but this has been needed for a long time

[Phil]

Ideally this would have begun after the embarrassing first round loss to Pittsburgh a few years ago.

 

 

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

[Giacomin]

Completely get where you all are coming from. Why bother with anyone carrying baggage? Even Nash has 'baggage' as our long-standing highest paid player, who did not meet playoff expectations. Love Nash, but understand if mgmt moves on.

 

However, Grabs has no baggage. He's not getting big $ or term. I'm not gonna die on this hill, but if the new coach/Gorton think he's the best value at wing in FA, who'd be unhappy bringing him back. People seem to think Grabs didn't do much in Toronto. Look at his linemates and role. Are any still in the NHL? Yet, Babcock praises Grabs as a strong positive influence who did everything asked, was underrated, and knew how to play D. IMO, he liked Grabs D skills, but loved that he always got back on D to disrupt and cover. He doesn't hang, hoping to be a beneficiary of a turnover. He showed he can handle a rebuild situation.

 

We are really slighting Grabs (and our own eyes) if we attribute his quiet presence in NJ, as he not being good or that he can only play AV's style successfully. There are a lot of reasons, but no need or time to write a book on it. Suffice that if Grabs gets to start camp with most any team, he will become a valuable contributor and at the very least a terrific 4th liner and Pker, with specialized attributes.

 

Grabs aside, we need not fear the same old. This is a major overhaul. The change in coaching, system and attitude will assure this. The new regime will bring a completely different approach and emphasis. Speed and character is the only thing we should expect. Mgmt will try and bring in more skill. The players who embrace the change and perform as the new staff expects, will become the new leadership group.

 

Only question so far is Ruff. He may be here because the new coach will likely be lacking NHL experience. Or just as someone for the new coach to interview, even if it is just to get personnel insight. Or maybe he'll be re-positioned. Regardless, all options portend out-of-the-box change.

 

For those still thinking it won't be different enough. G, Step, McD, Miller, Nash, Grabs, Holden, DD, Holland, Carey, McLoud, Pavelec and assorted crappy defenseman are gone or back in the A. There will be at least another roster player or two traded in the off season, likely forwards. Then we have to let the new coach make an example of a non-rookie who either does not improve or buy-in 100%. We'll weed out the weak as appropriate, while managing our assets. More personnel changes in front of us.

 

New kids are coming. Add de Haan on D. Kreids is a new man and finally figured it out, Zibs breaks out (if he stays healthy) and is poised to lead on-the-ice and Skjei bounces back. Hank and Georgie bring stability, so we can judge the D. It will be totally fresh. One good apple who busts ass and bolsters our bottom six will have zero negative impact.

[Fatfrancesa]

I really don’t care either way but all I’m saying is that if you are paying for him don’t expect the same production goal wise. Once he gets into a structured team his production falls, at least that was the case in Toronto and nj. Doesn’t guarantee it but it’s a red flag.

 

I’m also not sure how different this rebuild will be. Of course there are major changes in personnel and staff. However what scares me is the rumors of Karlsson and Tavares. Both are great players but both come from teams with more than the rangers have and they are terrible. Bringing them in makes headlines and drums up excitement but this team is so flawed it won’t make them anything more than mediocre at best. To me signing guys to massive long term deals will only stunt what needs to happen. The rangers need to build a foundation of quantity of quality young talent. Some will rise some will bust but much like 05 a foundation needs to be poured. Then when the time is right go find that leading man if you don’t get lucky enough to develop one.

 

My biggest fear is that people always think that the current star available will be the last. So of course they are willing to move heaven and earth to go get him. Both of those guys are great but they are not what is needed right now. Patience and stockpiles of young talent is the only way. To think we can but our way to contention is ludicrous in a hard cap world. Shit look how good it did us when there wasn’t a cap

[josh]

Are you getting Grabner for the price of a 4th liner, or at the cost of a guy coming off consecutive 27-goal seasons playing limited time? I really dont think we will be bidding on his services, which will probably be the 3-4m for 3-4 years.

[josh]

I really don’t care either way but all I’m saying is that if you are paying for him don’t expect the same production goal wise. Once he gets into a structured team his production falls, at least that was the case in Toronto and nj. Doesn’t guarantee it but it’s a red flag.

 

I’m also not sure how different this rebuild will be. Of course there are major changes in personnel and staff. However what scares me is the rumors of Karlsson and Tavares. Both are great players but both come from teams with more than the rangers have and they are terrible. Bringing them in makes headlines and drums up excitement but this team is so flawed it won’t make them anything more than mediocre at best. To me signing guys to massive long term deals will only stunt what needs to happen. The rangers need to build a foundation of quantity of quality young talent. Some will rise some will bust but much like 05 a foundation needs to be poured. Then when the time is right go find that leading man if you don’t get lucky enough to develop one.

 

My biggest fear is that people always think that the current star available will be the last. So of course they are willing to move heaven and earth to go get him. Both of those guys are great but they are not what is needed right now. Patience and stockpiles of young talent is the only way. To think we can but our way to contention is ludicrous in a hard cap world. Shit look how good it did us when there wasn’t a cap

 

I think its quite the stretch to say either team has more than the Rangers, whether its roster or pipeline. But neither comes close to the Rangers when it comes to organizational comparisons. Bring in a guy like Tavares, and you'll attract a lot more. Even guys willing to take huge pay cuts and cheaper contracts for a chance to win.

And no, he's not just "the next star", he's legitimately one of the elite centers in the game, and in his prime, and doesnt cost assets to acquire.

 

And then theres issue with Karlsson? Coming off his "horrible" season, the 2-time Norris winner and 131 Norris nominee still put up more points than any Rangers player has in years, and again, could potentially come at the cost of nothing.

 

This is much different than overpaying acquiring guys in their late 30s for high draft picks, when there is little to no prospect pool or future.

 

We wont get a modern Tavares or Karlsson, no matter how many picks you stock pile, or prospects you try to develop.

[Phil]

Are you getting Grabner for the price of a 4th liner, or at the cost of a guy coming off consecutive 27-goal seasons playing limited time? I really dont think we will be bidding on his services, which will probably be the 3-4m for 3-4 years.

 

Though I don't think they're directly comparable, Benoit Pouliot should be something of a cautionary tale here.

 

 

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

[Giacomin]

Are you getting Grabner for the price of a 4th liner, or at the cost of a guy coming off consecutive 27-goal seasons playing limited time? I really dont think we will be bidding on his services, which will probably be the 3-4m for 3-4 years.

 

I don't go more than 2 years (maybe 3 if mgmt thinks so) at about 3.3 mil max. That may be enough to lure him back and not test the market waiting for other bidders to miss on their first priorities. Grabs helps, up and down the lineup. A guy like him allows more offensive players to get less PK time and more O zone starts. He also adds competition and forces guys like Lettieri and Nieves to make the team as a scorer or go back down. That's better than just throwing them on the 4th line with their suspect D, just because there are massive holes there.

 

Add that the D needs help and the defenseman need a couple of vet forwards who really can help defend as a team and be trusted with a 1 goal lead, late.

[Giacomin]

I really don’t care either way but all I’m saying is that if you are paying for him don’t expect the same production goal wise. Once he gets into a structured team his production falls, at least that was the case in Toronto and nj. Doesn’t guarantee it but it’s a red flag.

 

I hear ya, fair enough. I'll be interested to see how he does no matter where. Doubt he goes to a team like the Ducks, Sharks or Kings where they might not leverage his strengths.

 

I’m also not sure how different this rebuild will be. Of course there are major changes in personnel and staff. However what scares me is the rumors of Karlsson and Tavares. Both are great players but both come from teams with more than the rangers have and they are terrible. Bringing them in makes headlines and drums up excitement but this team is so flawed it won’t make them anything more than mediocre at best. To me signing guys to massive long term deals will only stunt what needs to happen. The rangers need to build a foundation of quantity of quality young talent. Some will rise some will bust but much like 05 a foundation needs to be poured. Then when the time is right go find that leading man if you don’t get lucky enough to develop one.

 

My biggest fear is that people always think that the current star available will be the last. So of course they are willing to move heaven and earth to go get him. Both of those guys are great but they are not what is needed right now. Patience and stockpiles of young talent is the only way. To think we can but our way to contention is ludicrous in a hard cap world. Shit look how good it did us when there wasn’t a cap

 

I concur wholeheartedly. There is a big difference between signing Kovy to a 1 year 3.7 mil contract and 3 years at 15 - 18. We are underrating good scouting and drafting. Dahlen, Boqvist and Hughes are all dynamic offensive Dmen who could be the next stars of the league. One of them could be ours. Zadina, Svech and Wahlstrom look likely to be big time scorers and a possibility to be a Ranger. This isn't luck. Trade up a couple of spots if you have to. I'd rather do that than trade away a haul of picks and young assets for a Karlsson who may never be the same.

 

I get Tavares is tempting cause he is just cap. But how many years has he played already. How many more prime years left? He will sign for at least 7 more years. Risky. I'd rather add that guy once the core is more in place.

[Giacomin]

I think its quite the stretch to say either team has more than the Rangers, whether its roster or pipeline. But neither comes close to the Rangers when it comes to organizational comparisons. Bring in a guy like Tavares, and you'll attract a lot more. Even guys willing to take huge pay cuts and cheaper contracts for a chance to win.

And no, he's not just "the next star", he's legitimately one of the elite centers in the game, and in his prime, and doesnt cost assets to acquire.

 

And then theres issue with Karlsson? Coming off his "horrible" season, the 2-time Norris winner and 131 Norris nominee still put up more points than any Rangers player has in years, and again, could potentially come at the cost of nothing.

 

This is much different than overpaying acquiring guys in their late 30s for high draft picks, when there is little to no prospect pool or future.

 

We wont get a modern Tavares or Karlsson, no matter how many picks you stock pile, or prospects you try to develop.

 

Josh I can understand your stand on Tavares and your final sentiment. What doesn't jive is getting Karlsson for next to nothing. He'll cost the bulk of our premium picks, Buch or Lias or Chytil and the same type of salary as Tavares. His acquisition does not fit with where we are unless it is a total fire sale. It won't be.

[Giacomin]

Though I don't think they're directly comparable, Benoit Pouliot should be something of a cautionary tale here.

Benoit's expectations and salary/term were way too high in Edm. He also is not nearly as fast, can't play D and does not take care of his body the way Grabner does. Better hands, but not better hockey sense, nor does he have his intensity and dedication. Not the same risk at all, at the reasonable contract we'd expect.

[ThirtyONE]

I don't go more than 2 years (maybe 3 if mgmt thinks so) at about 3.3 mil max. That may be enough to lure him back and not test the market waiting for other bidders to miss on their first priorities. Grabs helps, up and down the lineup. A guy like him allows more offensive players to get less PK time and more O zone starts. He also adds competition and forces guys like Lettieri and Nieves to make the team as a scorer or go back down. That's better than just throwing them on the 4th line with their suspect D, just because there are massive holes there.

 

I just think there will be a multitude of players who can fill the role of "competition" for less than 3-4m for 3 years. He's been absolute dead weight on the Devils. He was dead weight on the Leafs. I don't want him back because in 2 years we might need that 3m.

[Ozzy]

I get where you're going with it Giac, but I'd rather the path be clear to bring up a younger player to let them grow, instead of bringing back Grabby to take that spot. Grabs is cool, I hear ya...and definitely a good player. I'm just accepting the fact that we're going to be rebuilding and I'd rather start with youth and go from there. The reason I think Kovalchuk may be a wise investment is because he'd be a great teacher to guys like Buch and the younger Russian kids coming up.

 

I see Grabby as a beneficiary of a system that needed to be changed long ago. On top of that, he had what I term a career type year. His speed, which I see as his greatest asset, isn't going to be increasing over time as well going forward, so I have a hard time giving him any term, while "blocking" the path of a youngster.

 

Same goes for Nash....I loved Nash while he was here...I thought the guy became a complete player here in NY, and was the flip side of what Grabby was; the "NON-Beneficiary" of the system employed by our former coach. I'll be rooting for Nash on another team though because I wanna see us get our own new "Nash" one day.....who know's? We may just draft our new Nash this year! ;)

[josh]

Josh I can understand your stand on Tavares and your final sentiment. What doesn't jive is getting Karlsson for next to nothing. He'll cost the bulk of our premium picks, Buch or Lias or Chytil and the same type of salary as Tavares. His acquisition does not fit with where we are unless it is a total fire sale. It won't be.

 

We have camp dumps

We have an abundance of early 2- RFAs that we can not re-sign all of

We have a plethora of draft picks

We have a cupboard filled with prospects, most of whom will never see the NHL ice

 

Or we can sign him next year and not give up assets.

[4EverRangerFrank]

I get where you're going with it Giac, but I'd rather the path be clear to bring up a younger player to let them grow, instead of bringing back Grabby to take that spot. Grabs is cool, I hear ya...and definitely a good player. I'm just accepting the fact that we're going to be rebuilding and I'd rather start with youth and go from there. The reason I think Kovalchuk may be a wise investment is because he'd be a great teacher to guys like Buch and the younger Russian kids coming up.

 

I see Grabby as a beneficiary of a system that needed to be changed long ago. On top of that, he had what I term a career type year. His speed, which I see as his greatest asset, isn't going to be increasing over time as well going forward, so I have a hard time giving him any term, while "blocking" the path of a youngster.

 

Same goes for Nash....I loved Nash while he was here...I thought the guy became a complete player here in NY, and was the flip side of what Grabby was; the "NON-Beneficiary" of the system employed by our former coach. I'll be rooting for Nash on another team though because I wanna see us get our own new "Nash" one day.....who know's? We may just draft our new Nash this year! ;)

 

I, too, originally wanted Grabner and Nash back. But now, I'm so, so sure - don't do it. I agree with making room for younger guys and rebuilding from within. Kovy would appear to be the lone exception at the right price/term staying in line with our objectives as a team. Keeping plenty of dollars for when we need to re-sign or extend a proven homegrown player. (My Red Bulls soccer team is proving this point to the fullest. We've become a young, fun, exciting team to watch at a cost that allows mgmt to acquire pieces from South America or abroad who are bonafide additions not just gate boosters.) Stay the course Gorton, we'll be patient.

[josh]

Other than Skjei this season, and Buchnevich next offseason, we dont have much to worry about for cap space. We dont have anyone else coming off the books looking for any significant increase, and if we bridge Skjei and Buch, their nexts jumps will be tolerable.

 

In 3 seasons, you have Henrik, Staal, Smith, Shattenkirk, Beleskey, and Zuccarello all off the books. During those years, you have Fast and Kreider to re-sign. Combined they shouldnt go up more than 2m.

 

The only cap issue we might have is this summer, hence the talk about moving a RFA for picks, prospects, upgrades, team needs, anything.

 

 

 

 

For years, I've said cap issues are created by overpaying everyguy by 1m, as NY loves to do. It hurts much more than spending top dollars on top talent.

[Fatfrancesa]

Doughty is available as a ufa next summer as is eol. I’d much rather have doughty and he would cost nothing. What we don’t know is where this team will be a year from now. No matter how it is spun Karlsson makes no sense right now when it costs many of the picks and prospects we just gutted our team to acquire. If Karlsson is still a ufa next summer then sign him then if that’s the play.

 

So Tavares is s center but next summer there are a bunch of stars hitting ufa. I believe seguin and coulture as well.

[josh]

I understand the cost of trading for a guy like Karlsson.

 

I also know the odds that one of our picks ornprospects will deliver what Karlsson will for the next several seasons is slim to none.

 

I’m not a huge Karlsson fan, and think it’s just a fun be off season convo, but you can’t dismiss the idea of at least kicking the tires

[Fatfrancesa]

Kick the tires just under don’t teade anything of value for him.

 

You maybe right about nobody developing into a star but right now the rangers need to build a core going forward. That is something that is attainable. Three years down the road then go ahead and trade for a Karlsson type that fills the hole you haven’t been able to develop and take your young foundation to the next step. Sure none of this guarantees anything as far as the ultimate success. However building strong depth organizationally sets you up to dictate your path forward with better leverage and knowledge of what you need. It also comes with little risk as your not tied into a long term deal while having limited your ability to take advantage of cap strapped teams going forward.

 

Right now flexibility with the cap, stockpiling young talent, and developing that talent should be the main focus. Trading for Karlsson hurts all those things. Tavares makes more sense but still hurts your flexibility and we aren’t ready to win anyway.

[Gravesy]

Well that’s the problem isn’t it.

You’re not getting Karlsson without giving up pieces of value.

And I can’t see Ottawa letting him go for anything other than a big part of our future. The price will be based on picks and prospects, not roster players most of us could take or leave.