Brooks Why Rangers Should Consider Even More Thrifty Roster Additions

[Phil]

Quote

I don’t think this forward roster has enough hard edges to it. I don’t envision the Rangers being pushed around, but I don’t see much physical presence there. I don’t see a forward who would give pause to the opposition. I don’t see players who would arrive with — what did Fred Shero call it? — malice aforethought.

 

Zack Kassian is still out there. Austin Watson, flaws and all, is, too. So are the more skilled Anders Bjork and Colin White. Max Comtois is also available, though there are mixed reports about the 24-year-old who was not qualified by Anaheim at $2.55 million.

 

Quote

The team is set on the right side of the defense with Adam Fox, Jacob Trouba and Braden Schneider, but there is no organizational depth of which to speak behind that trio. Ty Emberson and Mac Holloway are the next two righties in line unless the team would move Zac Jones to his off side in case of an emergency.

 

So if Ethan Bear and/or Cal Foote is still without a contract early next month, it would not be the worst idea to attempt to sign either.

 

https://nypost.com/2023/08/08/why-rangers-should-consider-these-bargain-free-agent-additions/

[Sod16]

What cap space do we have for such a signing after LaF is inked?

 

"Malice aforethought"?  That's legal terminology for common law first degree murder.  Are there any murderers out there available on the cheap?

[Phil]

If they sign PTOs that would presumably convert to league minimum salaries it's possible depending on exactly who you carry as an extra.

[LindG1000]

It's really hard to envision a defender coming in on a PTO and knocking anyone out of their spot. Gustafsson is a Laviolette darling and he's probably the most likely "victim" short of Zac Jones getting traded - which he'd need to since there's zero chance of him getting through waivers. That feels less likely.

 

Forwards, however? I'd take a PTO flyer on most of those guys. I'd like a forcing function for Othmann and Cuylle to make the team - not just "we need them" but "they earned it". That leaves Pitlick and Belzile competing for 12th and 13th forward spots; I'd expect that any name Brooks dropped should give significant competition to our 4th line battles and frankly, I'd expect Comtois to beat out either of those two. 

[Phil]

I don't think Othmann stands a chance at making this roster yet, namely because if he did, he'd be buried on the fourth line or potentially the team's 13th forward. That's brutal for a kid who should be continuing to develop and build his pro-level game in the AHL on a Wolf Pack team that, on paper, finally looks good.

 

Cuylle is the only "kid" who I think has any shot, Jones notwithstanding.

[RangersIn7]

Signing a depth RD, like Bear or Foote, for an emergency is a good idea.

If they can get a guy like that on the cheap, maybe on a 2-way, and stash him in Hartford just in case, do it. 

[Phil]

1 minute ago, RangersIn7 said:

Signing a depth RD, like Bear or Foote, for an emergency is a good idea.

If they can get a guy like that on the cheap, maybe on a 2-way, and stash him in Hartford just in case, do it. 

 

Why would either of them sign a two-way deal? Neither can be stashed in HFD without waivers — my guess is if they're signing a depth defenseman, it's to be the 7th or 8th on the big club for the year. It probably also means Jones is getting traded.

[Sod16]

PTO = Ryan Malone = fogettaboutit.

[Jdog99]

Adding a gritty player or two won't turn the tide on overall toughness if it doesn't get built in to the overall team's culture and style of play.

[Phil]

4 minutes ago, Jdog99 said:

Adding a gritty player or two won't turn the tide on overall toughness if it doesn't get built in to the overall team's culture and style of play.

 

Agreed, or more specifically: higher in the lineup. It starts (and ends ) with the top-six.

[Br4d]

44 minutes ago, Jdog99 said:

Adding a gritty player or two won't turn the tide on overall toughness if it doesn't get built in to the overall team's culture and style of play.

 

One of the big dilemmas the Rangers face is that 4 of the likely top 6 players are either contact reluctant by play style or preference or injury prone or both.

 

Panarin and Zibanejad just do not like contact.  They defend ok, very well in Zib's case, with their skates and sticks but they do not take the body often.  Kreider has become more and more contact shy as he has gotten older and others areas of his game have picked up.  I no longer expect him to ride somebody in the corner and make his presence known.  He's much more likely to pull up and concentrate on the puck and come play-off time that's a pretty weak play style.  Chytil's a big dude but when he makes contact with somebody he's usually the guy on the ice afterwards taking time to get up.

 

That leaves Kakko and Lafreniere to actually muscle people in the corner and neither of them has the bully gene you need to do that consistently.  The reason it works for them now when it works is they play on the same line so there is a consistency of approach when they are on the ice.

 

This why GG showed the Rangers video of the kid line on the ice and said that was the way he wanted the team to play.

 

Add it all up and the Rangers are soft and we know it, the enemy knows it, everybody knows it at this point.

[Pete]

The Knights just won the Cup, the least penalized team in the NHL, 23rd in majors, 13th in hits.

 

The Panthers checked themselves right out of the series.

 

"Soft" is a non issue.

Edited August 8, 2023 by Pete

[Phil]

It's not an issue of "contact," or hits. It's an issue of will. Most of the players in the top-six grow roots along the walls and stay far to the outside, leaving only Kreider anywhere near the crease. It effectively eliminates third and fourth chance opportunities because whatever chaos does get created is quickly done away with.

 

That's not the case at all for the Knights or the Panthers. Marchessault is like 4'2 and is always a threat for these types of opportunities. The Panthers' entire second line lives for this style of play.

 

To borrow from Torts, it's about playing with "jam." The coach the Rangers hired is going to demand this of his guys. Hopefully they respond, but I think it's entirely reasonable to start from the default position that they may not because they really never have.

[Pete]

17 minutes ago, Phil said:

It's not an issue of "contact," or hits. It's an issue of will. Most of the players in the top-six grow roots along the walls and stay far to the outside, leaving only Kreider anywhere near the crease. It effectively eliminates third and fourth chance opportunities because whatever chaos does get created is quickly done away with.

 

That's not the case at all for the Knights or the Panthers. Marchessault is like 4'2 and is always a threat for these types of opportunities. The Panthers' entire second line lives for this style of play.

 

To borrow from Torts, it's about playing with "jam." The coach the Rangers hired is going to demand this of his guys. Hopefully they respond, but I think it's entirely reasonable to start from the default position that they may not because they really never have.

That's all well and good but the guys suggested by Brooks in the article are plugs. So yes, you want that in the top six, but that's not what Brooks is talking about. 

[RangersIn7]

3 hours ago, Phil said:

 

Why would either of them sign a two-way deal? Neither can be stashed in HFD without waivers — my guess is if they're signing a depth defenseman, it's to be the 7th or 8th on the big club for the year. It probably also means Jones is getting traded.

That’s why I said “maybe” Phil.

 

[Phil]

OK, but I still don't understand why either of them are signing a two-way deal. Two-way versus one-way has nothing to do with waivers. Players on two-way deals have two different salaries between the NHL and AHL where the AHL salary tends to be extremely conservative. I can think of a single viable NHL player who isn't on his last legs that's signed one.

[Phil]

2 minutes ago, Pete said:

That's all well and good but the guys suggested by Brooks in the article are plugs. So yes, you want that in the top six, but that's not what Brooks is talking about. 

 

Yup. If they want to sign Kassian or Watson, whatever, but they're barely gonna play, and when they do it's gonna be on the fourth line with limited minutes. Unless whoever they bring in can possibly play a more meaningful role (like maybe Comtois?), I don't see the point.

[BrooksBurner]

I know talking about “tough” depth is a boring topic, but it’s a decent take and I just had a long weekend in the Poconos while simultaneously needing to meet my quota for the Post.

[RangersIn7]

4 hours ago, Phil said:

OK, but I still don't understand why either of them are signing a two-way deal. Two-way versus one-way has nothing to do with waivers. Players on two-way deals have two different salaries between the NHL and AHL where the AHL salary tends to be extremely conservative. I can think of a single viable NHL player who isn't on his last legs that's signed one.

The article was saying if they have no deal, remain unsigned, without a contract, etc.

 

[Phil]

1 hour ago, RangersIn7 said:

The article was saying if they have no deal, remain unsigned, without a contract, etc.

 

I get that. I still don't see them accepting two-way deals. Or if they do, the disparity won't be significant. Use Riley Nash as an example. His deal is two-way with his minors salary dropping to $400K in year two. His base salary and his AHL salary are both $775K in year one.

[RangersIn7]

I was more concerned about the waivers aspect, honestly. And that’s on the extreme case hypothetical that it comes to that 

[RJWantsTheCup]

I would just start the year with a 4th line of Cuylle - Bonino - Vesey.  Only move I see left is signing donut hole.

[RangersIn7]

14 hours ago, Phil said:

 

I get that. I still don't see them accepting two-way deals. Or if they do, the disparity won't be significant. Use Riley Nash as an example. His deal is two-way with his minors salary dropping to $400K in year two. His base salary and his AHL salary are both $775K in year one.

I threw 2-way out there as a purely hypothetical and low percentage possibility given their limited cap space. 
Im well aware that guys who are extra pieces but still belong in the NHL are not too likely to sign a 2-way contract. But if they want to be in a place and that’s their only option, it’s possible, however improbable.

But I don’t see that as too much of a possibility.

Not sure why you’re harping on it.

[RichieNextel305]

He was one of the guys listed as a possibility in the article. Off to NJ. They’ve had a nice off-season, except for the fact they still have issues in net.

[Br4d]

I think their kid goalie is probably ok.

 

Ruff nearly threw the series by not starting him from game one.