Brooks Lundkvist 'Blue Chip Most Likely to Be Played' at Deadline?

[Phil]

Quote

3. Even if this were all that Jeff Gorton left behind as general manager, you might want to give that man a standing ovation: Ryan Lindgren coming from Boston at the 2018 deadline as part of the Rick Nash return; trading up to select Miller 22nd overall at the 2018 draft; and trading up to select Schneider 19th overall in 2020.

 

Schneider’s ascension means that Nils Lundkvist becomes the blue chip most likely to be played approaching this year’s Mar. 21 deadline.

 

If the Rangers are looking to bulk up on the left side of their defense, perhaps a puck-mover who can beat a hard forecheck is preferable to adding size for size’s sake?

 

https://nypost.com/2022/02/02/rangers-mika-zibanejad-playing-at-an-elite-level-once-again/?utm_source=twitter_sitebuttons&utm_medium=site buttons&utm_campaign=site buttons

[Keirik]

I’m guessing the organization must be pretty low on NL right now. Once Fox went out, it would have been the perfect time to call him up for pp minutes. He hasn’t been doing anything in Hartford though at all. 

[Pete]

The rebuild that never was.

[Zuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuc]

I'm fine with it as long it's not for an old rental that will play 20 games here. A real 3C upgrade over Chytil? Go for it.

 

I'm not so interested in a LD tbh, but if they can find one to fit under the cap for more than just this season I guess it's fine. Ship out Nemeth and his 2.6m + Hajek and get in a defensively responsible veteran LD. Not really interested in another young LD when we have Lindgren, Miller, Jones.

[Cash or Czech]

With Trouba signed for five more years, and Fox signed for another seven, it makes sense. Schneider has come in and been the perfect third pairing defenseman. Some mistakes, as expected. But his size, pace, and physicality have fit in well. Lundkvist really doesn't have a place on this team, he won't get another chance to showcase his skills at the NHL level for a while with guys like Jones ahead of him even. Great time to package him and Kravtsov to fit a need.

[Zuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuc]

3 minutes ago, Pete said:

The rebuild that never was.

We all knew that some of these D-men had to be traded at some point tho. That was the point in stockpiling D-men with all the (high) picks we had.

[Phil]

1 minute ago, Zuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuc said:

I'm fine with it as long it's not for an old rental that will play 20 games here. A real 3C upgrade over Chytil? Go for it.

 

I'm not so interested in a LD tbh, but if they can find one to fit under the cap for more than just this season I guess it's fine. Ship out Nemeth and his 2.6m + Hajek and get in a defensively responsible veteran LD. Not really interested in another young LD when we have Lindgren, Miller, Jones.

 

OK, but why are these things mutually exclusive? Lundkvist can probably get you in on Pavelski, for example. For the same reasons as Giroux, he's an ideal target in that he can play both C and RW effectively, so he's either your answer at 3C (probably moving Chytil to wing, if he's not gone, too), or at 2RW, or both (alternating as needed).

 

@Pete basically suggested earlier you can probably rotate Pavelski/Goodrow at 2RW/3C as needed and never really skip a beat.

[Blue Heaven]

If Lundkvist is traded (which I am ok with), makes the signing of Nemeth even more of a boneheaded decision.  

[Zuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuc]

Just now, Phil said:

 

OK, but why are these things mutually exclusive? Lundkvist can probably get you in on Pavelski, for example. For the same reasons as Giroux, he's an ideal target in that he can play both C and RW effectively, so he's either your answer at 3C (probably moving Chytil to wing, if he's not gone, too), or at 2RW, or both (alternating as needed).

 

@Pete basically suggested earlier you can probably rotate Pavelski/Goodrow at 2RW/3C as needed and never really skip a beat.

I mean I don't want to use a 20 year old to acquire 20 games of a rental in a season we most likely won't win a cup. It's gonna be annoying as fuck to watch Lundkvist for 10+ years knowing we got 20 games of Pavelski out of him.

 

If we can get Miller or Chychrun (I don't like him personally, but he's atleast signed to a good contract) with retention by including him I'm all for it. But for 20-25 games of Pavelski or Giroux? I won't do it.

 

There's really no other team that can afford Pavelski or Giroux' cap hit, so there shouldn't be a crazy bidding war over them. I would do Kravtsov, 1st and maybe a little extra, but I'm not including any of our "blue chips" for a rental. Not right now.

[Phil]

"most likely won't win the Cup" is a doing a lot of heavy lifting. You can only play the hand you are dealt. There's absolutely no reason not to go all in this year.

[jsm7302]

We are going through some regular season adversity that is preparing this lineup for battle in the playoffs. We have playoff experience with some of older guys here. This could be a very special run. Here is to hoping.

[BlairBettsBlocksEverything]

I would certainly like to keep Nils. A lot of Dmen could use some time in the AHL and I wouldn't sour on him just yet. He still needs to get used to the NHL Sized rink, and there;s still loads of potential there. 

 

Definitely agree we should be all in this year, and I'd rather bring in pending UFAs over long term contracts. Gotta give to get, so while i'd rather give Kravstov and a pick for a good rental, that might not get the job done depending on the trade market. It won't be the end of the world to move Nils but if it could be avoided, I don't think we should be in a rush to move on from him.

[Phil]

16 minutes ago, BlairBettsBlocksEverything said:

I would certainly like to keep Nils. A lot of Dmen could use some time in the AHL and I wouldn't sour on him just yet. He still needs to get used to the NHL Sized rink, and there;s still loads of potential there. 

 

Definitely agree we should be all in this year, and I'd rather bring in pending UFAs over long term contracts. Gotta give to get, so while i'd rather give Kravstov and a pick for a good rental, that might not get the job done depending on the trade market. It won't be the end of the world to move Nils but if it could be avoided, I don't think we should be in a rush to move on from him.

 

It's not about souring, it's about recognizing that you've got multi-millions in available cap for the only time you're likely to for the next four to six years with a good, but flawed team that you can make measurably better by trading from an organizational surplus you're also not likely to have long-term.

 

This is the biggest problem I have with prospects. Everyone wants to horde them like the goal of the NHL is to have the best prospect ranking. It isn't; it's to win the Stanley Cup. I would trade ten Tony Amonte's all over again if it means a Cup, or even to have the best shot at a Cup. Because that's the goal. You miss 100% of the shots you don't take.

[SaveByRichter35]

-Wayne Gretzky

-Michael Scott

[BlairBettsBlocksEverything]

1 hour ago, Phil said:

 

It's not about souring, it's about recognizing that you've got multi-millions in available cap for the only time you're likely to for the next four to six years with a good, but flawed team that you can make measurably better by trading from an organizational surplus you're also not likely to have long-term.

 

This is the biggest problem I have with prospects. Everyone wants to horde them like the goal of the NHL is to have the best prospect ranking. It isn't; it's to win the Stanley Cup. I would trade ten Tony Amonte's all over again if it means a Cup, or even to have the best shot at a Cup. Because that's the goal. You miss 100% of the shots you don't take.

I don’t disagree with any of this. 
 

like I said, definitely would rather bring in UFAs and use the cap space now. With that said, what I mean is that hopefully the UFA rental we bring in doesn’t cost that much to where we have to move Lundkvist right now. 

[RJWantsTheCup]

Have to give a little to get something of any value.  Can’t just trade junk parts. 

[The Dude]

3 hours ago, Zuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuc said:

I mean I don't want to use a 20 year old to acquire 20 games of a rental in a season we most likely won't win a cup. It's gonna be annoying as fuck to watch Lundkvist for 10+ years knowing we got 20 games of Pavelski out of him.

 

If we can get Miller or Chychrun (I don't like him personally, but he's atleast signed to a good contract) with retention by including him I'm all for it. But for 20-25 games of Pavelski or Giroux? I won't do it.

 

There's really no other team that can afford Pavelski or Giroux' cap hit, so there shouldn't be a crazy bidding war over them. I would do Kravtsov, 1st and maybe a little extra, but I'm not including any of our "blue chips" for a rental. Not right now.

I understand your plight, but it's looking like a sell high while you can with Lundkvist. He has no spot here in the future,  and they don't seem to be thinking about giving him an opportunity with Fox out.  He's done nothing in Hartford and I sense a disgruntled prospect situation coming very soon with his situation.  

 

What else are they getting for him? There hasn't been many ideas floated around about young forwards to target in a "hockey trade" situation, where teams deal their young strengths for young needs. 

 

I said this in preseason. Some of these guys are going to go and the return is not going to be something we will likely be happy about in the near future.  I thought some kids would be going for overpriced grit options.

 

Instead they are looking for impact players to strengthen their weaknesses and use this small window to stack the team to go for it. With the right moves, the Rangers could definitely become more of a contender. 

 

You have to try while you can. This cap space and opportunity won't happen again for a long time. 

 

 

[Phil]

1 hour ago, BlairBettsBlocksEverything said:

I don’t disagree with any of this. 
 

like I said, definitely would rather bring in UFAs and use the cap space now. With that said, what I mean is that hopefully the UFA rental we bring in doesn’t cost that much to where we have to move Lundkvist right now. 

 

I mean, ideally, no, but my point is he's not untouchable, and shouldn't be. Be protective, but don't horde for the sake of hording.

[Sod16]

I'd prefer trading Nils at the summer meetings for a comparable forward prospect than in March for a rental.

[Albatrosss]

One would hope that high end prospects would get you other high end prospects in a trade, not rentals for a playoff run thats more than likely isnt going far 

[The Dude]

3 hours ago, CCCP said:

One would hope that high end prospects would get you other high end prospects in a trade, not rentals for a playoff run thats more than likely isnt going far 

Is Lundkvist high end after a  bland start to his NHL career as well as what looks like an even worse go at it in the AHL?

 

Even Hajek produced in his shirt stint down there. 1 assist in 8 games isn't looking too high end.  He's either very unhappy or very regular/not good. 

 

I deal him ASAP before the potential plummet in value. If he went to A and dominated, I'd agree with you. 

[Phil]

7 hours ago, CCCP said:

One would hope that high end prospects would get you other high end prospects in a trade, not rentals for a playoff run thats more than likely isnt going far 

 

Yeah, because that's what wins Cups deep in the playoffs every year -- someone else's unproven rookie.

[Blue Heaven]

Why wouldnt anyone want to give up Lundkvist for a "rental"?  East is open to make a run, what does one need to make a deep run?  A top notch/hot goalie (Shesterkin checks the box), an above average PP (Rangers check the box), some grit/nastiness (Rangers check the box).  By trading Lundqvist they can check more boxes (3rd line C?, 2nd line RW?, 6 or 7 D?, added depth?).  And quite possibly the "rental" would sign another contract (Giroux?) w/ the NYR.  Maybe the "rental" means more for the growth and experience.  Lundkvist isnt Makar/Fox, at this time he's a marginal defenseman where the Rangers have plenty of depth to make him expendable.  He shouldnt be the hang-up to making a move now.  

[Pete]

Schneider has already surpassed him and you've got Fox for 10 years and Trouba for 4 more, and likely an extension...and even so, what are you gonna do? Keep him in the AHL until he's 26 and Trouba is gone and he still will be 3rd pair with little PP time?

 

The D is set, especially on the right side, for years. There are even RD prospects behind Nils who are suited for 3rd pair. There's no spot for him.

 

I can't imagine why anyone would want to keep him just because. His role shouldn't be "AHL fodder, injury filler for bottom pair"...he's not that guy. 

[Phil]

10 minutes ago, Pete said:

Schneider has already surpassed him and you've got Fox for 10 years and Trouba for 4 more, and likely an extension...and even so, what are you gonna do? Keep him in the AHL until he's 26 and Trouba is gone and he still will be 3rd pair with little PP time?

 

The D is set, especially on the right side, for years. There are even RD prospects behind Nils who are suited for 3rd pair. There's no spot for him.

 

I can't imagine why anyone would want to keep him just because. His role shouldn't be "AHL fodder, injury filler for bottom pair"...he's not that guy. 

 

Exactly. He, more than anyone, should want more. I've no problem moving him, and I don't need another 20-year-old for him. Just need something useful.