Way Too Early Trade Deadline Targets

[Ozzy]

I know some of you guys fault Kane, but he was far from the main problem.  He had 6 points in the series with the Devils.

 

Let's look inside the window a quick second......Ahhhh, there it is!!!  The boil on our asses!!  LOL

 

[RangersIn7]

I don’t put it on Kane or the fact that they added him, knowing full well that he wasn’t healthy and had to have major surgery.

And even having said that, I don’t blame Drury for rolling the dice and bringing him in. It was worth the shot.

 

It didn’t work. Move on.

 

I put it on GG for making no adjustments or doing anything that resembles modern coaching.

And I put it on the players as a whole.

Too many of them didn’t get it done when they had to. 
 

 

[BreakawayMachine]

It wont happen but Tarasenko in our current system in place of Wheeler would be absolutely killer.

[Albatrosss]

7 minutes ago, RangersIn7 said:

I don’t put it on Kane or the fact that they added him, knowing full well that he wasn’t healthy and had to have major surgery.

And even having said that, I don’t blame Drury for rolling the dice and bringing him in. It was worth the shot.

 

It didn’t work. Move on.

 

I put it on GG for making no adjustments or doing anything that resembles modern coaching.

And I put it on the players as a whole.

Too many of them didn’t get it done when they had to. 
 

 

you cant blame every single problem on coaching.  There's a lot more than coaching in success or failure of a team.  Drury fell for another shiny object in Kane, rather than get something that the team needed, like a hard nosed forward type.

[RangersIn7]

1 minute ago, Albatrosss said:

you cant blame every single problem on coaching.  There's a lot more than coaching in success or failure of a team.  Drury fell for another shiny object in Kane, rather than get something that the team needed, like a hard nosed forward type.

I don’t blame it all on coaching. As said, a number of key guys didn’t get it done as well. 
 

I’ll totally acknowledge though that they could’ve gotten someone more suitable than Kane.

 

But it’s all moot at this point anyway. 

[Ozzy]

53 minutes ago, Albatrosss said:

you cant blame every single problem on coaching.  There's a lot more than coaching in success or failure of a team.  Drury fell for another shiny object in Kane, rather than get something that the team needed, like a hard nosed forward type.

 

...only MOST of it! 

[The Dude]

3 hours ago, Pete said:

Why not just trade for a legit RW? You'd have to think Tarasenko will be available.

 

I just don't see why you would trade for anybody with term and not send somebody with term back the other way.

 

Like I don't actively want ROR, but if you're getting him it's gotta be Chytil who goes the other way. 

 

Because Chytil is made of glass. I'd like an ace up my sleeve for when he or another center gets hurt. I've explained this. O'Reilly has the versatility to play both wing and center in any capacity in the top 9. 

 

I'm sending Goodrow away to clear cap space and clear some term as their deals line up.  Not sure your disconnect on both issues. 

 

I've said Tarasenko is also an option that I'm fine with. But I'd rather have a guy that can play both center and wing. Much like how we agreed Domi was a good fit at the deadline last season. 

 

Shit...  Is Domi sucking again? Maybe he's available for cheap.  

 

 

[The Dude]

On 11/13/2023 at 9:08 AM, Pete said:

Your dislike of Goodrow is outsized so you're using any excuse to remove him. We don't need ROR at center for 3 more years unless Chytil is out.

No we need him as a RW and a  legit person to slide in as a top 9 C WHEN l injuries happen.  He can play RW.  Said all of this. Sorry it doesn't compute for you. 

 

This is all just spit balling. Getting ideas and philosophies of what the team needs or should target. 

 

You disagree and see it differently. Cool. I'm done repeating myself as to why I think he fits, or why Goodrow sucks and is the obvious choice to move, to create cap space for who ever is brought in. 

 

Let's just move it along to another name then. 

Edited November 14, 2023 by The Dude

[The Dude]

On 11/13/2023 at 9:13 AM, Ozzy said:

Is there something wrong with me?  ...other than the obvious!!  LOL

 

I like Goodrow's game.  What's so bad about him?  Dude's a grinder that is hardly ever on the ice when the other team scores.  He hits, wins faceoffs, plays multiple forward positions/roles, and has some pretty decent stats/metrics.

 

Why are we trading him again?

 

What happens with a guy like this is as soon as we trade him, we start the need for grittier players.  No way I trade this guy! 

Because Pitlick does that for league minimum.  Goodrow makes 3.6 and isn't even a top PKer.

 

He's in the conversation because he's vastly overpaid and is the obvious choice to move to clear a decent chunk of cap space. If the Rangers want to do something different by not bringing in the stop gap RW with 15 games left in the season  (AGAIN), they're going to have to move sooner and will need instant cap space. Not accrued cap space at the deadline. 

 

I don't mind Goodrow. He finally had a good game the other night. He's just not more important than what's needed in the top 6/9.

 

He was supposed to be a 3rd liner+.  He's not even the regular 4C. Old and slow Bonino has that job nailed down. He hasn't been slid up the lineup after the Chytil injury that pushed Trocheck up the lineup. Bonino is the 3C. It's just really not working here and that sucks. When Goodrow is fiesty and "on" he's entertaining as fuck to watch. He's rarely that guy. Wish I could say different,  but it's true.  

Edited November 14, 2023 by The Dude

[The Dude]

4 hours ago, phillyb said:

 

I had to look up previous trade: Tarasenko at 50% and Mikkola for 1st, 4th, Blais, Skinner. 

OTT's got new ownership - maybe they'd make a bad deal that doesn't include a 1st going back, but I doubt it. What does OTT want in return for Tarasenko?

To recoup the 1st rounder they had to surrender for that botched trade last year. 

[Pete]

1 hour ago, The Dude said:

Because Chytil is made of glass. I'd like an ace up my sleeve for when he or another center gets hurt. I've explained this. O'Reilly has the versatility to play both wing and center in any capacity in the top 9. 

 

I'm sending Goodrow away to clear cap space and clear some term as their deals line up.  Not sure your disconnect on both issues. 

 

I've said Tarasenko is also an option that I'm fine with. But I'd rather have a guy that can play both center and wing. Much like how we agreed Domi was a good fit at the deadline last season. 

 

Shit...  Is Domi sucking again? Maybe he's available for cheap.  

 

 

You don't want to move Chytil because he's injury-prone? And I'm the one with a disconnect? Lol, K.

 

I'm not going to keep repeating my position so that you can keep repeating yours. We don't have to agree. 

[The Dude]

1 hour ago, Pete said:

You don't want to move Chytil because he's injury-prone? And I'm the one with a disconnect? Lol, K.

 

I'm not going to keep repeating my position so that you can keep repeating yours. We don't have to agree. 

Wtf are you talking about man?

 

That's not what I said.

 

I don't want to move Chytil because he's young, good and on a decent contract. He has a role now as 2nd line center. But he's often injured so far. It's something he may overcome. He's a top 6 talent. 

 

Seems like you'll do anything to hold onto Goodrow for some reason. That includes trading Chytil.

 

Chytil > than Goodrow, no matter how you slice it. Injury prone or not. Its not even debatable. 

 

You move Goodrow for cap space. NOT Chytil.....  I mean,  do we seriously have to even discuss this?  I have to say that? Really?

[Pete]

7 minutes ago, The Dude said:

Wtf are you talking about man?

 

That's not what I said.

 

I don't want to move Chytil because he's young, good and on a decent contract. He has a role now as 2nd line center. But he's often injured so far. It's something he may overcome. He's a top 6 talent. 

 

Seems like you'll do anything to hold onto Goodrow for some reason. That includes trading Chytil.

 

Chytil > than Goodrow, no matter how you slice it. Injury prone or not. Its not even debatable. 

 

You move Goodrow for cap space. NOT Chytil.....  I mean,  do we seriously have to even discuss this?  I have to say that? Really?

You want to trade for a center when the Rangers have no room at center. And then you want to move him to Wing. Just because a guy has played wing every now and then doesn't make him a winger. Everywhere ROR has played, he's been a center. 

 

You disproportionately dislike Goodrow, And he doesn't give you the cap space to acquire ROR. So right off the bat this never made sense, but we've entertained it for like 2 days for whatever reason.

 

I don't need to entertain it anymore, it doesn't make any sense, and it didn't make any sense 2 days ago.

[The Dude]

1 minute ago, Pete said:

You want to trade for a center when the Rangers have no room at center. And then you want to move him to Wing. Just because a guy has played wing every now and then doesn't make him a winger. Everywhere ROR has played, he's been a center. 

 

You disproportionately dislike Goodrow, And he doesn't give you the cap space to acquire ROR. So right off the bat this never made sense, but we've entertained it for like 2 days for whatever reason.

 

I don't need to entertain it anymore, it doesn't make any sense, and it didn't make any sense 2 days ago.

ROR played wing last year. It's not a giant move. He's listed in various places as C/RW. It's not some shit I made up.  

 

The difference in cap is roughly 900k.  Holy fuck. There's no way that could work with a current 650k of cap space. 

 

I get it. You want to trade Chytil  (talk about disproportionately dislike of a player...) and think the world of Goodrow. 

 

I'll move on. Sorry to drag it on. 

 

 

 

[BrooksBurner]

Chytil has played in 337 out of a possible 395 games in his career. 85% availability, which is a 70 games a year average.

 

He needs to be a bit better positioning himself for contact, but this isn't an egregious amount of time missed. There are a number of players who missed far more time in their early 20s, only to stabilize pretty well for the rest of their career.

[Pete]

10 minutes ago, The Dude said:

ROR played wing last year. It's not a giant move. He's listed in various places as C/RW. It's not some shit I made up.  

 

The difference in cap is roughly 900k.  Holy fuck. There's no way that could work with a current 650k of cap space. 

 

I get it. You want to trade Chytil  (talk about disproportionately dislike of a player...) and think the world of Goodrow. 

 

I'll move on. Sorry to drag it on. 

 

 

 

I'm sorry I have to keep explaining to this to you, but if you trade goody for ROR, you need to find a place to play Chytil. And you have not done that. I've also offered up moving Chytil to RW. 

 

ROR actually hasn't played much wing, at all. Because whenever he goes there, it doesn't work out well. He is the center who has played Wing, where it has never worked out. 

 

But if you remove Goodrow and add ROR It's not 650k because you still need to replace Goodrow in the bottom six, so it's actually closer to more than a million dollars to add a player that we don't need.

 

Jesus fucking Christ I didn't think it needed to be more clear. 

Edited November 15, 2023 by Pete

[Pete]

7 minutes ago, BrooksBurner said:

Chytil has played in 337 out of a possible 395 games in his career. 85% availability, which is a 70 games a year average.

 

He needs to be a bit better positioning himself for contact, but this isn't an egregious amount of time missed. There are a number of players who missed far more time in their early 20s, only to stabilize pretty well for the rest of their career.

Correct. So why are we trying to add a center?

[BrooksBurner]

1 minute ago, Pete said:

Correct. So why are we trying to add a center?

 

I mean if ROR can be ruled out from playing wing entirely, then yeah, don't bother. but I think they should be pretty big on center depth.

 

I think they should still be looking at a C/W for depth. Someone who can play wing when the lineup is fully healthy, and fill out center when required. They can't be an injury away from seeing Bonino and Brodzinski across the bottom 6.

 

I'll be pounding the Elias Lindholm drum all year probably.

[Pete]

10 minutes ago, BrooksBurner said:

 

I mean if ROR can be ruled out from playing wing entirely, then yeah, don't bother. but I think they should be pretty big on center depth.

 

I think they should still be looking at a C/W for depth. Someone who can play wing when the lineup is fully healthy, and fill out center when required. They can't be an injury away from seeing Bonino and Brodzinski across the bottom 6.

 

I'll be pounding the Elias Lindholm drum all year probably.

I totally get to thinking, but not around a guy that old with that much term. And I totally get adding center depth, but it can't be a guy of that profile if you want to put Chytil back.

 

It's like you hear an interesting name, and you think it might make sense, until you think about it for more than 10 minutes and realize that it actually doesn't. 

Edited November 15, 2023 by Pete

[Keirik]

40 minutes ago, Pete said:

I totally get to thinking, but not around a guy that old with that much term. And I totally get adding center depth, but it can't be a guy of that profile if you want to put Chytil back.

 

It's like you hear an interesting name, and you think it might make sense, until you think about it for more than 10 minutes and realize that it actually doesn't. 

I also don't buy into this idea that this team specifically needs more leadership. Not that it's necessarily bad to have more, but this teams problem wasn't the leader in the locker room and on the ice. It was that the coach didn't even bother spending any time in said dressing room or coaching on the ice.  We addressed that with Laviolette, who just so happens, has also actually won. Our core is fine. 
 

Look, ROR is a good player. He's won one cup. Let's not act like he's been the missing piece everywhere he's went though. He's been out of the second round once in his career, on a team that caught magic in a bottle. He was a huge reason they caught that magic, but so were a lot of guys that year. And, he's a center, not a RWer. He needs to play 18-20 minutes per game. Nevermind that he just signed his deal in the first place where he was sought after by Nashville in the first place and he agreed to go knowing they were retooling. Let them pay him at 35 to be their 1c. 

[Pete]

25 minutes ago, Keirik said:

I also don't buy into this idea that this team specifically needs more leadership. Not that it's necessarily bad to have more, but this teams problem wasn't the leader in the locker room and on the ice. It was that the coach didn't even bother spending any time in said dressing room or coaching on the ice.  We addressed that with Laviolette, who just so happens, has also actually won. Our core is fine. 
 

Look, ROR is a good player. He's won one cup. Let's not act like he's been the missing piece everywhere he's went though. He's been out of the second round once in his career, on a team that caught magic in a bottle. He was a huge reason they caught that magic, but so were a lot of guys that year. And, he's a center, not a RWer. He needs to play 18-20 minutes per game. Nevermind that he just signed his deal in the first place where he was sought after by Nashville in the first place and he agreed to go knowing they were retooling. Let them pay him at 35 to be their 1c. 

Pretty much agree with the last piece, Toronto thought they were adding him for the same reasons. Didn't work out. 

[The Dude]

6 hours ago, Pete said:

I'm sorry I have to keep explaining to this to you, but if you trade goody for ROR, you need to find a place to play Chytil. And you have not done that. I've also offered up moving Chytil to RW. 

 

ROR actually hasn't played much wing, at all. Because whenever he goes there, it doesn't work out well. He is the center who has played Wing, where it has never worked out. 

 

But if you remove Goodrow and add ROR It's not 650k because you still need to replace Goodrow in the bottom six, so it's actually closer to more than a million dollars to add a player that we don't need.

 

Jesus fucking Christ I didn't think it needed to be more clear. 

The Rangers carry 13 forwards.  Replace Goodrow with Pitlick.  

 

You're ok with taking on Tarasenkos contract..... But not RORs who is actually cheaper.  You seem to move the goal posts for that scenario.  Cool . Nice work. 

 

But, point taken that when he does play wing, his teams didn't win.  Because you know, every team he goes to should have won. 

 

ROR can't play wing on a really solid team. Got it. Thanks. 

 

 

 

[Pete]

2 hours ago, The Dude said:

The Rangers carry 13 forwards.  Replace Goodrow with Pitlick.  

 

You're ok with taking on Tarasenkos contract..... But not RORs who is actually cheaper.  You seem to move the goal posts for that scenario.  Cool . Nice work. 

 

But, point taken that when he does play wing, his teams didn't win.  Because you know, every team he goes to should have won. 

 

ROR can't play wing on a really solid team. Got it. Thanks. 

 

 

 

Tarasenko doesn't have term. This is simple. I don't want ROR for 3 more years. 

 

I didn't say teams don't win, I said it doesn't work out. See the difference? 

[fletch]

On 11/13/2023 at 12:01 PM, Ozzy said:

 

Matteau

Noonan

Larmer

Tikannen

MacTavish

Anderson

 

I think that's all of them....

That 1993-1997 stretch with Messier and the ex-Oilers, has continued to be a beacon to Rangers GMs.  If you add the right veterans, you can win a Cup.

 

Almost always, the franchises that have won multiple cups in five year stretches have acquired elite players (I'm thinking Kane-Toews for Chicago, Kucherov-Stamkos for Tampa).   Lafreniere-Kakko developing into elite players would be the gateway to multiple cups, but so far it doesn't look like either player has that ceiling.

 

On-the-fly changes (one year plans) rather than long-term planning (3+ year plans) will keep NYR as a solid playoff team with a puncher's chance to win a Cup, rather than putting us on a path to sustained 5 year success.

 

It's a boring take, but adding another Wheeler at the deadline, as a 35+ year-old veteran in the sunset of his NHL career, to attempt to maximize 1 year success, isn't going to help the long-term trajectory.  If we add the first cup since 1994, then we can all celebrate.  And hope it isn't another 30 years until our next title, because of how our GMs handle roster construction - developing young players versus acquiring veterans.

[Br4d]

12 minutes ago, fletch said:

 

On-the-fly changes (one year plans) rather than long-term planning (3+ year plans) will keep NYR as a solid playoff team with a puncher's chance to win a Cup, rather than putting us on a path to sustained 5 year success.

 

It's a boring take, but adding another Wheeler at the deadline, as a 35+ year-old veteran in the sunset of his NHL career, to attempt to maximize 1 year success, isn't going to help the long-term trajectory.  If we add the first cup since 1994, then we can all celebrate.  And hope it isn't another 30 years until our next title, because of how our GMs handle roster construction - developing young players versus acquiring veterans.

 

 

This is how I see it also.  The rentals do not allow the player to mesh well with the team.  He might get it on the first try, like Vatrano did, or he might take awhile to really mesh.

 

Renting under those circumstances is just flipping a coin and that's not what a contender wants to do.

 

In the long-term as you are assembling the team you want a coherent plan that holds up this season, next season and so on and so on.  If you keep adding pieces that are with the team for 2 years or less you are just robbing the team 3 years up for the team on the ice now.  And I mean really robbing them because you gave up something then for something right now.

 

Wimpy always wants a hamburger today for which he'll gladly pay you on Tuesday.  Then on Tuesday he's back to needing a hamburger today because his hamburger money for today paid for the last hamburger.