Staple A Way-too-early Trade List: 10 Forwards Who Could Help the New York Rangers

[Gravesy]

22 minutes ago, Br4d said:

Also, counting your ducks 3 years up is very risky.  It's why the Rangers have the problems at RW that they have right now.  You can generally look at 3 years up the road.  You do that by preserving your high picks and hoping the ones you already made work out.  That doesn't help with positionality or balance or any of that stuff because you never know who is going to make it and who is going to wash out.

It won't be a high pick. It's at best in the mid 20's. Whoever you pick there is basically a 50/50 proposition. 

You don't sit around and preserve that with a cup run staring you in the face, if it can be used on someone who gives you a better chance of getting you over the line. 

I completely agree that the Rangers have been far too quick to give up their high picks in general, but if they keep this up it's a special team, with a great coach and probably their best chance in a very long time. They should not let history get in the way of that.

[Pete]

4 minutes ago, Gravesy said:

It won't be a high pick. It's at best in the mid 20's. Whoever you pick there is basically a 50/50 proposition. 

You don't sit around and preserve that with a cup run staring you in the face, if it can be used on someone who gives you a better chance of getting you over the line. 

I completely agree that the Rangers have been far too quick to give up their high picks in general, but if they keep this up it's a special team, with a great coach and probably their best chance in a very long time. They should not let history get in the way of that.

The hole in this thinking is that the Rangers have traded away a good amount of mid-round picks as well, including second and third rounders.

 

So even if you're first rounder amounts to the quality player you would draft in a middle round, it's still valuable to the Rangers who essentially don't have a lot of picks especially in 2025. 

 

Someone here posted that a good strategy might be to fire sale for young players instead of draft picks, I don't see that as a successful strategy. You're not going to get any players that a team holds in high regard, you're probably going to get their Kakko. A draft pick is a lottery ticket. A young player has already given you a taste of what they are or what they aren't. 

 

That said, I also completely understand that your team can't be in a state of perpetual rebuild and at some point you have to go all in. I'm just not sure if a guy like Tarasenko is a guy you go all in for, because you essentially already gave up a boatload for him last season... I don't know that you give up two first rounders plus for essentially half a season of Tarasenko. 

[Gravesy]

10 minutes ago, Pete said:

The hole in this thinking is that the Rangers have traded away a good amount of mid-round picks as well, including second and third rounders.

 

So even if you're first rounder amounts to the quality player you would draft in a middle round, it's still valuable to the Rangers who essentially don't have a lot of picks especially in 2025. 

 

Someone here posted that a good strategy might be to fire sale for young players instead of draft picks, I don't see that as a successful strategy. You're not going to get any players that a team holds in high regard, you're probably going to get their Kakko. A draft pick is a lottery ticket. A young player has already given you a taste of what they are or what they aren't. 

 

That said, I also completely understand that your team can't be in a state of perpetual rebuild and at some point you have to go all in. I'm just not sure if a guy like Tarasenko is a guy you go all in for, because you essentially already gave up a boatload for him last season... I don't know that you give up two first rounders plus for essentially half a season of Tarasenko. 

I'm not sure I make that deal for Tarasenko either.

My point is, if you buy the idea that this is a special team with a great chance if they get some help at the deadline, you simply cannot allow yourself to be held hostage by your previous actions. Yes, the cupboard is bare and they've given away too many draft assets. But this is not the time to start thinking about the future.

I understand that the bill comes due at some point, but you simply have to go for it if what we've seen so far keeps up. Teams like this doesn't come around all that often. 

[Valriera]

Depth RW. Fin. Frankie V is sadly too expensive but that’s exactly it 
 

Team is elite as is and has won every kind of game possible and already battled through injury adversity. I will take my chances on that locker room, as is, before trying to make a big splash for the playoffs this year.  This team is excellent on paper and on the ice this year, so far. 

Edited December 8, 2023 by Valriera

[Pete]

1 hour ago, Gravesy said:

I'm not sure I make that deal for Tarasenko either.

My point is, if you buy the idea that this is a special team with a great chance if they get some help at the deadline, you simply cannot allow yourself to be held hostage by your previous actions. Yes, the cupboard is bare and they've given away too many draft assets. But this is not the time to start thinking about the future.

I understand that the bill comes due at some point, but you simply have to go for it if what we've seen so far keeps up. Teams like this doesn't come around all that often. 

I'm pretty much on board with this, as I said earlier they will recoup a lot when they start selling off players when the window closes. Frankly, you should get a haul for Shesty. He's pretty much a must trade because they can't be in a position where they're paying a goalie upwards of 8 million. 

[BrooksBurner]

Splitting up the best line on a team at the top of the league probably makes a lot of sense if you’ve eaten enough edibles. But back in the real world it doesn’t make any sense at all for a team trying to compete for the Cup.

[Br4d]

47 minutes ago, Pete said:

I'm pretty much on board with this, as I said earlier they will recoup a lot when they start selling off players when the window closes. Frankly, you should get a haul for Shesty. He's pretty much a must trade because they can't be in a position where they're paying a goalie upwards of 8 million. 

 

Nothing in the Ranger's organizational history suggests that they're going to trade Shesterkin instead of signing him for whatever the ticket is.

 

It's just not in the organization's DNA to give up a top 3 goalie at 28 for anything.

[Sharpshooter]

Tarasenko put on a good showcase for us last game. 

[BrooksBurner]

3 minutes ago, Br4d said:

 

Nothing in the Ranger's organizational history suggests that they're going to trade Shesterkin instead of signing him for whatever the ticket is.

 

It's just not in the organization's DNA to give up a top 3 goalie at 28 for anything.

Agreed. I’ll still push and hope for trading him if he’s in a position to command $10+, but if it’s more in the $8 range I’m ok keeping him anyway and so should the org. With the way he’s playing, he’s losing leverage.

[Ozzy]

1 minute ago, BrooksBurner said:

Agreed. I’ll still push and hope for trading him if he’s in a position to command $10+, but if it’s more in the $8 range I’m ok keeping him anyway and so should the org. With the way he’s playing, he’s losing leverage.

 

I agree with this.  I just think he's gonna command at least $10 million.  I don't know what Drury does at that point, but it's gonna be an interesting year next season as this whole thing unfolds.

[Sharpshooter]

Igor really needs to work on being more consistent. He's still very good overall, obviously. But it seems like more often than not he's almost good to give up three goals a game regularly. I know offense is up, but that's not going to cut it to make it worth giving him a massive deal like that.

[Pete]

25 minutes ago, Br4d said:

 

Nothing in the Ranger's organizational history suggests that they're going to trade Shesterkin instead of signing him for whatever the ticket is.

 

It's just not in the organization's DNA to give up a top 3 goalie at 28 for anything.

I don't know why you keep bringing up the history. History doesn't matter, there's a new GM in town. Bringing up shit that happened 5 10 15 years ago is irrelevant. 

[Pete]

28 minutes ago, BrooksBurner said:

Splitting up the best line on a team at the top of the league probably makes a lot of sense if you’ve eaten enough edibles. But back in the real world it doesn’t make any sense at all for a team trying to compete for the Cup.

It makes sense if you're thinking about the future and not coddling Lafreniere. If CK and MZ can be split up for a few games, anyone can. 

 

I get why you think it's a bad idea though. You rarely think things through. 

[Pete]

25 minutes ago, BrooksBurner said:

Agreed. I’ll still push and hope for trading him if he’s in a position to command $10+, but if it’s more in the $8 range I’m ok keeping him anyway and so should the org. With the way he’s playing, he’s losing leverage.

There you go, not thinking things through.

 

If your team is good enough you can win with a 4 to 5 million dollar goalie. How do you get your team good enough? By not overpaying the goalie. 

[Br4d]

1 minute ago, Pete said:

It makes sense if you're thinking about the future and not coddling Lafreniere. If CK and MZ can be split up for a few games, anyone can. 

 

I get why you think it's a bad idea though. You rarely think things through. 

 

It's actually a really bad idea at this point.

 

Why would you want to test the proposition that Laffy isn't worth much if Panarin's not on the same line?  If you're having that question running through your head then the logical thing to do is hope that Panarin puts him on a hot streak so you can sell high.

[Pete]

6 minutes ago, Br4d said:

 

It's actually a really bad idea at this point.

 

Why would you want to test the proposition that Laffy isn't worth much if Panarin's not on the same line?  If you're having that question running through your head then the logical thing to do is hope that Panarin puts him on a hot streak so you can sell high.

Because it's not about trading him. It's about figuring out if this hot streak is for real or if he's just being carried.

 

And I didn't mean you literally had to do it today, I meant you would want to find that out sooner rather than later. The fact is this team is going to rebuild or retool at the point he turns 25. They should start thinking about where he would slot into that.

 

Later in the season, if they're still far ahead in the playoff race, you lose nothing by seeing what they do separated. You also lengthen your lineup by not top-loading it the way they are now. The bottom six are not contributing anything in terms of offense right now, Cuylle goal the other day notwithstanding. 

Edited December 8, 2023 by Pete

[Br4d]

15 minutes ago, Pete said:

I don't know why you keep bringing up the history. History doesn't matter, there's a new GM in town. Bringing up shit that happened 5 10 15 years ago is irrelevant. 

 

As long as Dolan is the owner it does not matter who the GM is on decisions like this.

[Br4d]

7 minutes ago, Pete said:

Later in the season, if they're still far ahead in the playoff race, you lose nothing by seeing what they do separated. You also lengthen your lineup by not top-loading it the way they are now. The bottom six are not contributing anything in terms of offense right now, Cuylle goal the other day notwithstanding. 

 

So you're suggesting moving one of the good players on your only really productive line down to line 3 to diversify the scoring opportunities across the lineup?

 

Really?

 

This is the kind of move you make if 2 lines are clicking and you want to up the scoring chances for line 3 and you *know* that moving one of the guys from the top 6 won't slow things down for their current line.

 

The Rangers have one line that is clicking, not two, and we have no idea if the Panarin line will keep firing if Laffy gets moved off of it.

Edited December 8, 2023 by Br4d

[MuddyInTheMiddle]

35 minutes ago, BrooksBurner said:

Agreed. I’ll still push and hope for trading him if he’s in a position to command $10+, but if it’s more in the $8 range I’m ok keeping him anyway and so should the org. With the way he’s playing, he’s losing leverage.

 

Like most guys his age; the primary issue is not salary, but rather term. It's essentially Lundquist all over again, as he is going to be looking for max term which is 8 years. He will be 29 at the end of his current deal, which will take him to 37 years old on a max term contract.

 

Don't have as much of an issue with the price tag, even if it's in the $8-10 million range as he is truly an elite goaltender and has proven that he can win a playoff series by himself. With an increasing cap you make that work even against the prevailing wisdom of not having your goaltender eat up too high of a % of your salary cap. He truly is an exception in that regard imo.

 

5 years is the max I would give him, or that contract will certainly become the same albatross that Lundquist's was when his effectiveness starts to fall off and they are ready to move on to their next goalie.  

[Sharpshooter]

I would think Shesterkin's next contract will have a lot to do with how Garand is and how he's progressing. If he continues to play great in Hartford and develops into a true number one, it probably makes the Shesterkin decision a little easier. If he's truly ready to take over, I don't see them handing out eight years or whatever it will need to be to keep Igor.

[Pete]

2 minutes ago, Br4d said:

 

So you're suggesting moving one of the good players on your only really productive line down to line 3 to diversify the scoring opportunities across the lineup?

 

Really?

 

This is the kind of move you make if 2 lines are clicking and you want to up the scoring chances for line 3 and you *know* that moving one of the guys from the top 6 won't slow things down for their current line.

 

The Rangers have one line that is clicking, not two, and we have no idea if the Panarin line will keep firing if Laffy gets moved off of it.

I guess you didn't bother reading the part where I said "later in the season?" Or even early next season for that matter.

 

There's a handful of reasons to do it. Firstly you don't know if they're going to click all season long and they might need time away from each other. Maybe two or three games left and they have a big lead you want to give Othmann a taste of the NHL in a meaningful role and you slot him in on Panarin's right wing.

 

These are all things that have been done by other NHL teams in the past. I know you don't follow other teams, but it's not that far-fetched. 

 

You guys all freak out over line changes like they can't be switched back immediately. It's laughable. 

[Pete]

8 minutes ago, Br4d said:

 

As long as Dolan is the owner it does not matter who the GM is on decisions like this.

I don't really agree. But we'll see where it goes. 

[Br4d]

3 minutes ago, Pete said:

You guys all freak out over line changes like they can't be switched back immediately. It's laughable. 

 

Ok GG, whatever you say. 

[Pete]

5 minutes ago, Br4d said:

 

Ok GG, whatever you say. 

Except I'm not suggesting changing the lines everyday... But...

 

[BrooksBurner]

5 minutes ago, Pete said:

It makes sense if you're thinking about the future and not coddling Lafreniere. If CK and MZ can be split up for a few games, anyone can. 

 

I get why you think it's a bad idea though. You rarely think things through. 

The idea to truly find out what the team has in the youngsters as future core players was good several months and multiple key organizational decisions ago. I know because I pounded that drum all summer. It’s too late for that line of thinking. You don’t tamper with the best thing the team has at the moment. You’re behind the curve, as usual.