Mercogliano Can the Rangers Win a Stanley Cup With Mika Zibanejad as Their Top Center?

[Pete]

3 minutes ago, Albatrosss said:

but it’s Tkachuk. I’d trade anyone on this team for him not named Laffreniere

And so would anyone. That's why people are giving Florida too much credit. They were getting the best player in the deal, but they had balls to take the best player? Nah.

 

They had some Kleidsdales who were great and took them far, but when someone calls and offers you a unicorn for your horse, who says no?

 

Thinking you are close doesn't mean you just keep what you have if someone offers you something better. And then even with making that deal, they had an IMMENSE amount of good fortune to get where they are right now.

 

The Rangers were close, they're going to keep what they have because they have to (most likely). But if someone offers them something better, they're going to take it. 

[Br4d]

1 minute ago, Albatrosss said:

Next window may not come for another 10 years. Or 30

 

The Rangers have a good coach who got excellent results out of them in the regular season.  The way that I see him failing here ultimately is if he is stuck with the choices the previous GM's made because the current GM is afraid to tamper with what has been a winning formula in the regular season.

 

Right now the Rangers are at a crossroads and the worst way to approach a crossroads is to try to go two directions at once.

 

Pick the road and take it and if you pick this year as the road be prepared to tear it all down under unfavorable conditions next.   If the pressure of convincing Panarin and somebody else to go this year is too great imagine what it will be like after next season.   At that point you don't have a year of building the new window under your belt.  You just have the reality that last year wasn't as good (President's Cup is going to be near impossible to repeat) and next year will be much worse.

[BrooksBurner]

9 minutes ago, Albatrosss said:

It was not as fortunate as you’re suggesting. The team won the Presidents trophy. The team was good. 
 

but it’s Tkachuk. I’d trade anyone on this team for him not named Laffreniere

You say that now about Tkachuk but nobody other than a minority were wanting the Rangers to make a big trade for him at the time after just coming off the ECF appearance. Kakko was in a stage where he was off limits for Eichel too remember lol

 

It was more justifiable back then to keep running with what we had. We just got back on the scene of competitive hockey. We know more about the youth we have now, and we know more about the vets in the playoffs. Every run has ended the same. Totally outclassed by another team rather than “tough one that unfortunately someone has to lose”. The devil is in the details.

 

I think we just have to see what names hit the rumor mill in the next few weeks

 

 

[RJWantsTheCup]

Just so I have this straight, the proposal to Drury is that he should dismantle the President’s Trophy winning team in the hopes that Lafraniere can carry this team to a Stanley Cup victory in 2-5 years?

[Br4d]

8 minutes ago, RJWantsTheCup said:

Just so I have this straight, the proposal to Drury is that he should dismantle the President’s Trophy winning team in the hopes that Lafraniere can carry this team to a Stanley Cup victory in 2-5 years?

 

The proposal to Drury is that he stop living with his predecessors successes and mistakes and start making ones of his own.

[BrooksBurner]

Dismantling = trading multiple players for picks and prospects. Nobody is suggesting that.

[Ozzy]

15 hours ago, Vodka Drunkenski said:

Zib deserves a chance to play away from Kreider for an extended period of time before making any decision on him.  He does so much more than just put up points.  The only concern is the length of contract and his age.

 

4 hours ago, Pete said:

Lots of people hung on on the wrong question.

 

Zib is without a doubt a 1C.

 

Can they win with him? If they get him a productive RW and a LW that's not a parasite, sure. 

 

\I'm late to this party fellas but I'm rolling with the above ideas.

 

I think Vodka's right here.  Kreider is a PP specialist and would probably still get most of his points that way playing with Mika on the PP1...fine.

 

I don't think we can win a Cup WITHOUT Mika.  He's still a fabulous player but his unselfishness is a major problem in the Offensive zone.  He needs to score more by shooting more.  There were countless times during the season where I kept finding myself screaming at him for passing up Grade A+ chances.  That shit's gotta stop if this team is gonna win it.

 

I know a lot of you guys either don't believe in him, or don't see him as a #1 center, but he is.  This was a down year and he still had what, 72 points in 81 games??  At a +15 for the year.  The issue I have with him is that I wish he would sometimes take a hit to make a play a little bit more.  That being said, I don't think it's "can we win with him, I think it's more  "we can't win without him" right now.

Edited June 14 by Ozzy

[RJWantsTheCup]

49 minutes ago, Br4d said:

 

The proposal to Drury is that he stop living with his predecessors successes and mistakes and start making ones of his own.

 

26 minutes ago, BrooksBurner said:

Dismantling = trading multiple players for picks and prospects. Nobody is suggesting that.

It's easy to say make changes, but what do you suggest that is plausible?  Don't just blurt a reply, but do a little homework and see if it works for both teams.  Does it work under the cap for both teams?  Are they players the other team is willing to trade?  Are players with no trade clauses going to want to go there?  There's lots of obstacles and factors in changing the team.  

[Br4d]

We need to find out the Kreider and Trouba lists.  That's step one.

 

I think Chicago is wide open as a potential trade partner this year for several reasons:

 

1.  They have a ton of cap space.

 

2.  They don't have much veteran talent.

 

3.  They just lived through an injury with Connor Bedard in his rookie season and the urgency of creating a competitive team with him has to be highlighted for them at this point.

[Albatrosss]

25 minutes ago, Br4d said:

We need to find out the Kreider and Trouba lists.  That's step one.

 

I think Chicago is wide open as a potential trade partner this year for several reasons:

 

1.  They have a ton of cap space.

 

2.  They don't have much veteran talent.

 

3.  They just lived through an injury with Connor Bedard in his rookie season and the urgency of creating a competitive team with him has to be highlighted for them at this point.

Fine. Zibby to chicago. For anything

[Br4d]

20 minutes ago, Albatrosss said:

Fine. Zibby to chicago. For anything

 

Kreider and Zibanejad to Chicago for Jason Dickinson and the Blackhawks #1 two years up, no protection.

[BrooksBurner]

3 hours ago, RJWantsTheCup said:

 

It's easy to say make changes, but what do you suggest that is plausible?  Don't just blurt a reply, but do a little homework and see if it works for both teams.  Does it work under the cap for both teams?  Are they players the other team is willing to trade?  Are players with no trade clauses going to want to go there?  There's lots of obstacles and factors in changing the team.  

 

Well there's two trains of thought. Drury can make moves that try and make the team a better overall playoff looking team, or he can make moves to start stacking up for 2-3 years from now. Personally, I lean the latter, but I'm going to have some fun for a minute trying to build a better "now" team for the playoffs since everyone seems to think it's impossible.

 

Trade Panarin scenario. I think he would waive for a team that has cap, is competitive, and is a good city / hockey city. I mentioned Boston in another thread. I think they check all of these boxes. Once they trade Ullmark, they will have 26 million in space with 10 forwards and 6 defenseman signed. Figure $6 million for Swayman knocks it down to $20 million to do what they want. Why would Boston do it? Unlike the Rangers being overloaded with perimeter talent and not enough grit, the Bruins are loaded with grit and not enough talent. They badly need more of it to complement Pastrnak. I don't really care who or what the Rangers get back, because the value in a Panarin trade is netting the cap space and gaining flexibility to adjust the roster.

 

In addition to freeing up $11.5M, the Rangers have about $3.3M in space assuming Lindgren at $4m and Schneider at $2m. It's ok if it's a little more than that, there's room. At those figures though, they would have $14.8M to work with. What could they do with that? Maybe you get a Bertuzzi ($6M?), who is very similar to Trocheck in terms of just being a pesky asshole and has talent. Maybe you also get a Marchessault ($7.5M?). That leaves you with over a million in space for overhead.

 

Example:

 

Lafreniere-Zibanejad-Bertuzzi

Kreider-Trocheck-Marchessault

Cuylle-Chytl-Kakko

Berard-Goodrow-Rempe

 

This team is absolutely not lacking talent just because they traded Panarin, but what they have gained is entirely altering their top 6 to be way more diverse. It took 1 trade and 2 signings, and zero prospects or picks leaving house.

Edited June 14 by BrooksBurner

[Pete]

11 minutes ago, BrooksBurner said:

 

Well there's two trains of thought. Drury can make moves that try and make the team a better overall playoff looking team, or he can make moves to start stacking up for 2-3 years from now. Personally, I lean the latter, but I'm going to have some fun for a minute trying to build a better "now" team for the playoffs since everyone seems to think it's impossible.

 

Trade Panarin scenario. I think he would waive for a team that has cap, is competitive, and is a good city / hockey city. I mentioned Boston in another thread. I think they check all of these boxes. Once they trade Ullmark, they will have 26 million in space with 10 forwards and 6 defenseman signed. Figure $6 million for Swayman knocks it down to $20 million to do what they want. Why would Boston do it? Unlike the Rangers being overloaded with perimeter talent and not enough grit, the Bruins are loaded with grit and not enough talent. They badly need more of it to complement Pastrnak. I don't really care who or what the Rangers get back, because the value in a Panarin trade is netting the cap space and gaining flexibility to adjust the roster.

 

In addition to freeing up $11.5M, the Rangers have about $3.3M in space assuming Lindgren at $4m and Schneider at $2m. It's ok if it's a little more than that, there's room. At those figures though, they would have $14.8M to work with. What could they do with that? Maybe you get a Bertuzzi ($6M?), who is very similar to Trocheck in terms of just being a pesky asshole and has talent. Maybe you also get a Marchessault ($7.5M?). That leaves you with over a million in space for overhead.

 

Example:

 

Lafreniere-Zibanejad-Bertuzzi

Kreider-Trocheck-Marchessault

Cuylle-Chytl-Kakko

Berard-Goodrow-Rempe

 

This team is absolutely not lacking talent just because they traded Panarin, but what they have gained is entirely altering their top 6 to be way more diverse. It took 1 trade and 2 signings, and zero prospects or picks leaving house.

There is zero chance that a team takes on a full 11.5 million hit without giving back significant dollars or retention. 

[BrooksBurner]

Just now, Pete said:

There is zero chance that a team takes on a full 11.5 million hit without giving back significant dollars or retention. 

I disagree, and even if you’re right, you can dump Goodrow, or dump Trouba with retainment. One extra move to fit whoever you get back from Boston. Whoever comes back would probably just be an upgrade in the bottom 6 anyway, so cool with me.

[Br4d]

2 minutes ago, Pete said:

There is zero chance that a team takes on a full 11.5 million hit without giving back significant dollars or retention. 

 

Bread had 49 goals and 120 pts last season.

 

I think the argument that his cap hit is too high to trade needs to be re-evaluated in that light.

[Br4d]

55 minutes ago, Br4d said:

 

Kreider and Zibanejad to Chicago for Jason Dickinson and the Blackhawks #1 two years up, no protection.

 

Rangers get 10M+ in cap reduction and the choice of the full 14 in 2 years.  I think this is the kind of deal they have to be open to making.

 

Trocheck 1C, Chytil 2C, Dickinson 3C, Goodrow 4C.

[Pete]

55 minutes ago, BrooksBurner said:

I disagree, and even if you’re right, you can dump Goodrow, or dump Trouba with retainment. One extra move to fit whoever you get back from Boston. Whoever comes back would probably just be an upgrade in the bottom 6 anyway, so cool with me.

 

55 minutes ago, Br4d said:

 

Bread had 49 goals and 120 pts last season.

 

I think the argument that his cap hit is too high to trade needs to be re-evaluated in that light.

Guys, You're not taking you to account the full picture. 

 

The teams he would be willing to waive for are not likely to be able to take on the full contract and give nothing at all back. You're talking about maybe two teams, maybe Chicago, and maybe one or two others. 

 

There are no competitive teams that can take that contract back with no retention or no money going the other way, not even Boston. 

 

That idea needs to be moved off of in a realistic conversation. If you want to talk about fantasyland, then sure. But @RJWantsTheCup asked for a realistic scenarios and it's not realistic to think you can move that and take $0 back. 

 

Just saying "I disagree!" Doesn't make it realistic. 

Edited June 14 by Pete

[Albatrosss]

 

32 minutes ago, Pete said:

 

Guys, You're not taking you to account the full picture. 

 

The teams he would be willing to waive for are not likely to be able to take on the full contract and give nothing at all back. You're talking about maybe two teams, maybe Chicago, and maybe one or two others. 

 

There are no competitive teams that can take that contract back with no retention or no money going the other way, not even Boston. 

 

That idea needs to be moved off of in a realistic conversation. If you want to talk about fantasyland, then sure. But @RJWantsTheCup asked for a realistic scenarios and it's not realistic to think you can move that and take $0 back. 

 

Just saying "I disagree!" Doesn't make it realistic. 

I disagree 

[Pete]

8 minutes ago, Albatrosss said:

 

I disagree 

no one ever accused you of being realistic. 

Edited June 14 by Pete

[Albatrosss]

5 minutes ago, Pete said:

Instead of no one ever accused you of being realistic. 

You agree with me on more topics than you give yourself credit for. 

[Pete]

2 minutes ago, Albatrosss said:

You agree with me on more topics than you give yourself credit for. 

It's true. 

 

But then I use facts and math to prove you wrong and you get all upset and we have to break up again. 

[BrooksBurner]

36 minutes ago, Pete said:

 

Guys, You're not taking you to account the full picture. 

 

The teams he would be willing to waive for are not likely to be able to take on the full contract and give nothing at all back. You're talking about maybe two teams, maybe Chicago, and maybe one or two others. 

 

There are no competitive teams that can take that contract back with no retention or no money going the other way, not even Boston. 

 

That idea needs to be moved off of in a realistic conversation. If you want to talk about fantasyland, then sure. But @RJWantsTheCup asked for a realistic scenarios and it's not realistic to think you can move that and take $0 back. 

 

Just saying "I disagree!" Doesn't make it realistic. 

Just saying “I disagree” doesn’t make it unrealistic either.

 

All you’ve done is say it can’t happen with zero logic.

 

The Bruins have no easier path to a high talent player like Panarin, and they have the cap. IMO, it’s a matter of Drury wanting to do it and Panarin being ok with it. Zero concern with Boston wanting it at full cap even.

 

Even if tou assume they don’t, then ok. Take Geekie, you can fit him. Or take Carlo or Peeke for the 3rd pair and move Trouba. These are easy solutions. It doesn’t prevent the concept from being very realistic.

[Pete]

2 minutes ago, BrooksBurner said:

Just saying “I disagree” doesn’t make it unrealistic either.

 

All you’ve done is say it can’t happen with zero logic.

 

The Bruins have no easier path to a high talent player like Panarin, and they have the cap. IMO, it’s a matter of Drury wanting to do it and Panarin being ok with it. Zero concern with Boston wanting it at full cap even.

 

Even if tou assume they don’t, then ok. Take Geekie, you can fit him. Or take Carlo or Peeke for the 3rd pair and move Trouba. These are easy solutions. It doesn’t prevent the concept from being very realistic.

My point is that as you try to replace Panarin's production with 2 other players who may come close, You keep saying you have 11.5 million to spend.

 

I'm just pointing out that you don't.

[BrooksBurner]

10 minutes ago, Pete said:

My point is that as you try to replace Panarin's production with 2 other players who may come close, You keep saying you have 11.5 million to spend.

 

I'm just pointing out that you don't.

Non issue

[Pete]

Just now, BrooksBurner said:

Non issue

It dismantles your whole lineup and cripples your thought process, but sure.