The Kids Are Alright?

[Sod16]

You can look at players who were very high picks but meh after 3-4 years and find a few, like Zib, who blossomed.  The majority in that category, however, do not become studs and pretty much remain what they were at the end of year 3-4.  The question is whether you want to opt for the 20% chance that they will become studs or get a pretty good return now (which you won't get later). 

 

Chytil has shown more in the way of flashes and is a center, which is harder to find.

 

The one good thing about LaF and Kak has been a good attitude, where many high picks who are underachieving sulk.

[Pete]

7 hours ago, RangersIn7 said:

Totally fair.

 

But I think you’ll see LaFreniere at 27 and it’s very possible you’ll say, that’s a really good hockey player and I’d like him on my team.

And that’s still 5-6 years from now.

Buchnevich who? The cap is what it is. 

[BrooksBurner]

2 hours ago, Pete said:

Buchnevich who? The cap is what it is. 

They’ve been trying to replace Buchnevich for 2 years now. Going on 3 years because Kakko hasn’t taken it.

[RJWantsTheCup]

Can we trade all 3 of them for the #1 overall pick and re-sign Tarasenko?

[Pete]

1 hour ago, BrooksBurner said:

They’ve been trying to replace Buchnevich for 2 years now. Going on 3 years because Kakko hasn’t taken it.

You're completely missing the point. No one cares about what Buchnevich is doing on a terrible team in St Louis because the Rangers are a good team without him.

 

So I don't really care what Lafreniere does much the same way I don't care what Nils does because he was never going to do it here.

 

I'd also argue that they don't miss the player and have done fine filling the role at low cost. They got Vatrano for nothing and went to ECF. Yeah they had to give up a first for Tank, but they got a first from Dallas so it fine.

 

I'm not going to sit here and dissect this, the point being is you can't be afraid to walk away from players because of what they might do for another team in 5 years. 

Edited March 25, 2023 by Pete

[Albatrosss]

5 minutes ago, Pete said:

You're completely missing the point. No one cares about what Buchnevich is doing on a terrible team in St Louis because the Rangers are a good team without him.

 

So I don't really care what Lafreniere does much the same way I don't care what Nils does because he was never going to do it here.

 

I'd also argue that they don't miss the player and have done fine filling the role at low cost. They got Vatrano for nothing and went to ECF. Yeah they had to give up a first for Tank, but they got a first from Dallas so it fine.

 

I'm not going to sit here and dissect this, the point being is you can't be afraid to walk away from players because of what they might do for another team in 5 years. 

But its very shortsighted to walk away from a 21 year old 1OA just because he’s yet to live up to the billing.  This would be such a Rangers move and the reason there’s only one cup in 83 years. 

[BrooksBurner]

9 minutes ago, Pete said:

You're completely missing the point. No one cares about what Buchnevich is doing on a terrible team in St Louis because the Rangers are a good team without him.

 

So I don't really care what Lafreniere does much the same way I don't care what Nils does because he was never going to do it here.

 

I'd also argue that they don't miss the player and have done fine filling the role at low cost. They got Vatrano for nothing and went to ECF. Yeah they had to give up a first for Tank, but they got a first from Dallas so it fine.

 

I'm not going to sit here and dissect this, the point being is you can't be afraid to walk away from players because of what they might do for another team in 5 years. 

 

Maybe you don't care, since you were in the "get rid of Buch" boat and it turns out it was the wrong boat to be in, but the Rangers would have been a better team with Buchnevich on a contract like he's got. They got garbage for him and they've dumped how many assets filling the spot with rentals? If anything, your Buch example works against you way more than it works for you. Terrible analogy to pick on your part.

 

 

[BrooksBurner]

10 minutes ago, CCCP said:

But its very shortsighted to walk away from a 21 year old 1OA just because he’s yet to live up to the billing.  This would be such a Rangers move and the reason there’s only one cup in 83 years. 

 

I would definitely give Lafreniere a longer leash than Kakko. Kakko has had plenty of opportunity on the right side for pretty much his entire career, and he's not done enough. Last year and this year it's been wide, wide open to do major damage and he's done squat. Lafreniere has been legitimately blocked at his position.

[Albatrosss]

21 minutes ago, BrooksBurner said:

 

I would definitely give Lafreniere a longer leash than Kakko. Kakko has had plenty of opportunity on the right side for pretty much his entire career, and he's not done enough. Last year and this year it's been wide, wide open to do major damage and he's done squat. Lafreniere has been legitimately blocked at his position.

Whats the reason for wanting to trade Kakko?  He’s not a liability, he’s not blocking anyone. Even if he does not live up to the hype, he’s still a productive 3rd line possession driven checking forward. Teams need this type too. And he could be one of the best. 

[Pete]

40 minutes ago, CCCP said:

But its very shortsighted to walk away from a 21 year old 1OA just because he’s yet to live up to the billing.  This would be such a Rangers move and the reason there’s only one cup in 83 years. 

That's nothing more than a grandiose statement. It literally doesn't mean anything.

 

You can't hold on to players just because of where you drafted them. That's what Edmonton did with pool party, and they finally cut bait this year... How do you think he's doing in Carolina right now? Spoiler alert, 0 points in 7 games.

 

You can't look at it as replacing a first overall pick, you look at it as replacing a 40 point third line left wing which is very doable.

[Albatrosss]

2 minutes ago, Pete said:

That's nothing more than a grandiose statement. It literally doesn't mean anything.

 

You can't hold on to players just because of where you drafted them. That's what Edmonton did with pool party, and they finally cut bait this year... How do you think he's doing in Carolina right now? Spoiler alert, 0 points in 7 games.

 

You can't look at it as replacing a first overall pick, you look at it as replacing a 40 point third line left wing which is very doable.

It doesn’t mean anything until you look and see only one championship in 83 years and the reasons why. One of the reasons is trading your picks and prospects for a new shiny toy. 
 

who cares about Punjabi? Laf already is way better than Punjabi will ever be. 
 

and why wanting to trade Laf? So he’s not  a superstar as was expected. What are you gaining from trading him?

[BrooksBurner]

3 minutes ago, CCCP said:

Whats the reason for wanting to trade Kakko?  He’s not a liability, he’s not blocking anyone. Even if he does not live up to the hype, he’s still a productive 3rd line possession driven checking forward. Teams need this type too. And he could be one of the best. 

I was just saying I’d give Lafreniere a longer leash if the team were to consider trading either of them.

The problem I see with Kakko being a 3rd line player here is he probably has more market value because of draft pedigree and some teams thinking they can still develop a top line player out of him. The Rangers can leverage that value to help solve the top 6 RW problem while the team is actually good. What’s the vision for the team as Panarin/Zib decline and Kakko is a 3rd line player?

[Pete]

Just now, CCCP said:

It doesn’t mean anything until you look and see only one championship in 83 years and the reasons why. One of the reasons is trading your picks and prospects for a new shiny toy. 

Who cares? By this logic every move made is a bad move. Trading Brassard for Zib was  abad move! One Cup in 83 years! It's a pointless argument because one guy hasn't run the team for 83 years. It's just defeatist Ranger fans bullshit.

 

Quote

who cares about Punjabi? Laf already is way better than Punjabi will ever be. 

Like I already said, it's proof you don't keep guys just because of where you drafted them.

 

Quote

 

and why wanting to trade Laf? So he’s not  a superstar as was expected. What are you gaining from trading him?

I didn't say I want to. I said I would before Chytil or Kakko.

[Albatrosss]

4 minutes ago, BrooksBurner said:

I was just saying I’d give Lafreniere a longer leash if the team were to consider trading either of them.

The problem I see with Kakko being a 3rd line player here is he probably has more market value because of draft pedigree and some teams thinking they can still develop a top line player out of him. The Rangers can leverage that value to help solve the top 6 RW problem while the team is actually good. What’s the vision for the team as Panarin/Zib decline and Kakko is a 3rd line player?

The vision is certainly should not be trading away your future 

[RJWantsTheCup]

If Kakko only turns out to be a 3rd liner the team is in trouble.  They have zero right wings for next season already and very limited cap space.  We are looking at Kakko, Vesey and Goodrow as the top 3 RW's for next season.  Not sure the RW problem gets solved anytime soon.  Every year is going to be the same thing.  

[Pete]

47 minutes ago, BrooksBurner said:

Maybe you don't care, since you were in the "get rid of Buch" boat and it turns out it was the wrong boat to be in,

No one cares because no one brings him up the way they did last season. Why? Blues bad, Rangers playoffs. It's pretty simple. Also, you need to stop looking at everything as black and white, your right everyone else is wrong.

 

Trading Buch was not the wrong boat to be in. It needed to be done, and everyone knows it. The issue was never the trade, it was the return.

 

Quote

but the Rangers would have been a better team with Buchnevich on a contract like he's got. They got garbage for him and they've dumped how many assets filling the spot with rentals? If anything, your Buch example works against you way more than it works for you. Terrible analogy to pick on your part.

 

Well, luckily you aren't the arbiter of what's a good example or a bad one when you're not even understanding the point I'm making.

 

This is the point: You can't be worried about what a player will do after you trade him away. If GMs lived by that logic, trades would never happen. 

[BrooksBurner]

37 minutes ago, Pete said:

No one cares because no one brings him up the way they did last season. Why? Blues bad, Rangers playoffs. It's pretty simple.

Not at all the case. It doesn’t get brought up because there’s no need to purposely keep rehashing the same discussions until the end of time. It’s just a pointless attempt to characterize it as meaning anything.

 

Quote

Trading Buch was not the wrong boat to be in. It needed to be done, and everyone knows it.

You need to stop looking at everything as black and white, you’re right everyone else is wrong.

 

Quote

This is the point: You can't be worried about what a player will do after you trade him away. If GMs lived by that logic, trades would never happen.

Who cares? You’re not seeing the forest through the trees because you aren’t accounting for a GM properly evaluating what a player will do before they trade him away in the first place, which is the far more important point. You and Drury improperly valued Buchnevich.

[BrooksBurner]

1 hour ago, CCCP said:

The vision is certainly should not be trading away your future 

Kakko isn’t the future if he projects out as a 3rd line player.

[Pete]

38 minutes ago, BrooksBurner said:

Not at all the case. It doesn’t get brought up because there’s no need to purposely keep rehashing the same discussions until the end of time. It’s just a pointless attempt to characterize it as meaning anything.

 

You need to stop looking at everything as black and white, you’re right everyone else is wrong.

 

Who cares? You’re not seeing the forest through the trees because you aren’t accounting for a GM properly evaluating what a player will do before they trade him away in the first place, which is the far more important point. You and Drury improperly valued Buchnevich.

Kind of a silly thing to say when I just said the return was the issue. They could have gotten more. But he still had to be moved.

 

You can keep arguing with yourself. The point is, you can't worry about what a player will do after they leave your team. That's no way to operate.

[BrooksBurner]

Just now, Pete said:

Kind of a silly thing to say when I just said the return was the issue. They could have gotten more. But he still had to be moved.

 

You can keep arguing with yourself. The point is, you can't worry about what a player will do after they leave your team. That's no way to operate.

I meant improperly valued Buchnevich’s worth to the team. Which you did.

[Pete]

7 minutes ago, BrooksBurner said:

Kakko isn’t the future if he projects out as a 3rd line player.

Neither is Lafreniere. And the fact that you see something worth holding onto in Lafreniere and not Kakko is quite frankly baffling. You'd move Kakko who is already much better than Lafreniere, in the hopes of simply seeing anything out of Lafreniere, who shows nowhere near the value on the ice that Kakko does. So odd.

[Pete]

4 minutes ago, BrooksBurner said:

I meant improperly valued Buchnevich’s worth to the team. Which you did.

Nah. I just understand the cap and how it works, and how it doesn't matter what players do when you leave. I'm sure we aren't going to miss the 4th we gave up for Vatrano. I don't think we're going to miss Nils, and the point of stocking the cupboards is to fill holes like we did with Tarasenko because you can't keep all your prospects anyway.

 

There's more than one way to skin a cat, and just paying everyone what they are worth in a cap league isn't possible. Some guys will walk. The team hasn't missed him or had to give up anything of value trying to fill the role.

 

But maybe debate the point I made originally instead of chasing your own tail on the argument you want to have.

 

you can't worry about what a player will do after they leave your team.

 

 

Edited March 25, 2023 by Pete

[BrooksBurner]

20 minutes ago, Pete said:

Nah. I just understand the cap and how it works, and how it doesn't matter what players do when you leave. I'm sure we aren't going to miss the 4th we gave up for Vatrano. I don't think we're going to miss Nils, and the point of stocking the cupboards is to fill holes like we did with Tarasenko because you can't keep all your prospects anyway.

 

There's more than one way to skin a cat, and just paying everyone what they are worth in a cap league isn't possible. Some guys will walk. The team hasn't missed him or had to give up anything of value trying to fill the role.

 

But maybe debate the point I made originally instead of chasing your own tail on the argument you want to have.

 

you can't worry about what a player will do after they leave your team.

 

 

You haven’t debated the point until the first paragraph here. The point I originally made was they have been trying to replace Buch for two years, then you went in multiple different directions that didn’t address the point.

 

And with respect to your first paragraph, it’s funny you used Vatrano as part of the replacement cost and not Copp. Gee..wonder why. If you don’t want to be honest about it, there’s no point in continuing.
 

 

[BrooksBurner]

31 minutes ago, Pete said:

Neither is Lafreniere. And the fact that you see something worth holding onto in Lafreniere and not Kakko is quite frankly baffling. You'd move Kakko who is already much better than Lafreniere, in the hopes of simply seeing anything out of Lafreniere, who shows nowhere near the value on the ice that Kakko does. So odd.

Simple. Lafreniere has multiple facets to his game. He can score several different ways.  He hits. He’s not afraid of the middle of the ice or to be around the net. Second best net front presence after Kreider. Kakko is much more singularly faceted. He can possess the puck pretty well from time to time. Problem is, when he’s not doing it he’s invisible, and even when he is, there’s little production to go with it. Frankly, I don’t see how you could favor Kakko over Lafreniere, but I also don’t really care because they’re both close enough in disappointment that it’s like arguing who stinks less.

[The Dude]

1 hour ago, Pete said:

Kind of a silly thing to say when I just said the return was the issue. They could have gotten more. But he still had to be moved.

 

You can keep arguing with yourself. The point is, you can't worry about what a player will do after they leave your team. That's no way to operate.

I'm still confused on why they had to move him. Had they not signed Goodrow and Nemeth,  he fits nicely into the cap last session. Shit, I think if they don't sign Nemeth he would have fit. 

 

Why exactly did they have to trade a PPG, 2 way RW on a team that had zero RWs? 

 

The return stunk. The idea that they had to trade him stunk. The evaluation overall stunk. 

 

A year later we are talking about how easy it is to move on from Goodrow to sign any kind of RW.  They had one. A pretty good one. So, it's not like Goodrow was this must have. 

 

But I do agree with what you're saying about not worrying about what players do after you trade them. 

 

It's not like I'm checking the boxscore to see that Gauthier is a healthy scratch every other game for the shitty Sens or anything... 

Edited March 25, 2023 by The Dude