New York Rangers Thread

[SixFeetDeep]

Hngggggggggg

[SixFeetDeep]

Thank you Canes/Whalers

[SixFeetDeep]

https://twitter.com/kylecannillo/status/1290838351407439878?s=21

Big Mood

[Johnny English]

I don't think it's impossible that the Rangers trade that pick. They're set long term at LW with Panarin and Kreider on crazy long contracts, they actually have more use for Byfield or Stutzle who are both centers.

[SixFeetDeep]

Hngggggggggg

gggggggggggg

[delavan]

I don't think it's impossible that the Rangers trade that pick. They're set long term at LW with Panarin and Kreider on crazy long contracts, they actually have more use for Byfield or Stutzle who are both centers.

Valid center-needy observation JE but Davidson and Gordon are (hopefully) looking beyond 2020-2021, i.e. not concerning themselves with merely getting into the playoffs but continuing the rebuild to perennial contender status by adding a cornerstone talent to the mix.  Rangers have a flock of young talent (plus the Cane's 1st round pick) and having Lafreniere on a rookie deal under a flat salary cap until 2023 enables the Rangers to go after veteran help at center and defense. 

edit: Gorton

[Johnny English]

Valid center-needy observation JE but Davidson and Gordon are (hopefully) looking beyond 2020-2021, i.e. not concerning themselves with merely getting into the playoffs but continuing the rebuild to perennial contender status by adding a cornerstone talent to the mix.  Rangers have a flock of young talent (plus the Cane's 1st round pick) and having Lafreniere on a rookie deal under a flat salary cap until 2023 enables the Rangers to go after veteran help at center and defense. 

edit: Gorton

Yes but what do you do with him? You can give him third line minutes as a rookie but you're still running into the whole problem of the size and length of the contracts that you already gave your top 2 LWs. I don't think they're bad contracts because they're both good players, even if Kreider is a dirty goalie-running freak and the contracts are both a little big, but you've got them both for the next 6 years and you're not moving either of them so how do you fit three talents into two spots?

I think that trading out of #1 to 2 or 3 and taking Stutzle or Byfield is the definition of looking beyond 20/21; your 2C is Ryan Strome who isn't great and only has a year left on his deal, and Byfield and Stutzle both project to be top centers. Byfield in particular is big, strong and skilled, he's still only 17 albeit for a few more days, I think that if you can trade #1 to LA for #2 and a good prospect then it makes sense in all sorts of ways.

[MBGreen]

Yes but what do you do with him? You can give him third line minutes as a rookie but you're still running into the whole problem of the size and length of the contracts that you already gave your top 2 LWs. I don't think they're bad contracts because they're both good players, even if Kreider is a dirty goalie-running freak and the contracts are both a little big, but you've got them both for the next 6 years and you're not moving either of them so how do you fit three talents into two spots?

I think that trading out of #1 to 2 or 3 and taking Stutzle or Byfield is the definition of looking beyond 20/21; your 2C is Ryan Strome who isn't great and only has a year left on his deal, and Byfield and Stutzle both project to be top centers. Byfield in particular is big, strong and skilled, he's still only 17 albeit for a few more days, I think that if you can trade #1 to LA for #2 and a good prospect then it makes sense in all sorts of ways.

trade Kreider for a Dman that can play in your top 4.  Problem solved.  Carolina has a glut of top defensmen.


You don't trade out of the top pick because you think you can't fit him into your top 6.....only a retard like Brian Burke would do something that stupid.

[Johnny English]

trade Kreider for a Dman that can play in your top 4.  Problem solved.  Carolina has a glut of top defensmen.

Why would Carolina give up a top 4 D for a $7M LW when they've got an elite young starter on the top line, a solid player on the second line and Kreider-lite playing on the third? They'd get much better value for their Dman elsewhere.

[Johnny English]

trade Kreider for a Dman that can play in your top 4.  Problem solved.  Carolina has a glut of top defensmen.


You don't trade out of the top pick because you think you can't fit him into your top 6.....only a retard like Brian Burke would do something that stupid.

Right you are Macc. The Rangers taking Lafreniere is the same mindset as the Jets continually picking DL because they're BPA and look how that's worked out for us - there's a reason that every year people bleat about trading out. I'm not talking about dropping to mid round, we're talking about dropping a spot or two to take a player who in many other years would be the concensus 1OA, who fits the Rangers long term model much better, and getting an additional player or pick into the bargain.

If they take Lafreniere it won't be a bad decision because he projects to be an incredible player, but I think that letting him go to LA and adding a player who fits their short, medium and long term needs better while also adding a piece that can help right now at the very least bears consideration.

[MBGreen]

Why would Carolina give up a top 4 D for a $7M LW when they've got an elite young starter on the top line, a solid player on the second line and Kreider-lite playing on the third? They'd get much better value for their Dman elsewhere.

they can trade from a position of strength/depth. For example,  their 3rd pairing Dmen could play on the top pairing for some franchises.

The point is, you don't trade away the chance to draft a generational talent like Lafreniere because "durrr, i can't find a spot for him in our top 6".

[MBGreen]

Right you are Macc. The Rangers taking Lafreniere is the same mindset as the Jets continually picking DL because they're BPA and look how that's worked out for us - there's a reason that every year people bleat about trading out. I'm not talking about dropping to mid round, we're talking about dropping a spot or two to take a player who in many other years would be the concensus 1OA, who fits the Rangers long term model much better, and getting an additional player or pick into the bargain.

If they take Lafreniere it won't be a bad decision because he projects to be an incredible player, but I think that letting him go to LA and adding a player who fits their short, medium and long term needs better while also adding a piece that can help right now at the very least bears consideration.

Let me squash right away what you're really trying to say.....the Rangers aren't trading the top pick to Ottawa.

[Johnny English]

they can trade from a position of strength/depth. For example,  their 3rd pairing Dmen could play on the top pairing for some franchises.

Sure. My point was that they probably don't really have much use for Kreider and his $7M a year.

The point is, you don't trade away the chance to draft a generational talent like Lafreniere because "durrr, i can't find a spot for him in our top 6".

I think that we have effectively proven that BPA is a poor drafting strategy for incomplete teams. The Rangers have the potential to become really good as a team really quickly if they do this right; I don't think that Lafreniere will move the needle for them. He'll look great alongside Zibanejad and he might even do well next to Strome next year, but that will make Kreider an expensive odd man out.

If the generational talent was a centre I might be inclined to agree because no team will ever have enough centres, but I can only think of one winger who has changed the face and fortunes of a franchise in the last 20 years and it still took him almost 15 years to drag his team to the Stanley Cup. Panarin is an elite talent but they're not winning a Cup because they've got the best 1-2 punch at LW in the league.

[Johnny English]

Let me squash right away what you're really trying to say.....the Rangers aren't trading the top pick to Ottawa.

LA makes a bunch more sense, because they can be sure of getting their preferred C at #2 and Lafreniere is out of the division. So I agree, they're probably not although our prospect pool would be attractive.

[MBGreen]

Sure. My point was that they probably don't really have much use for Kreider and his $7M a year.

I think that we have effectively proven that BPA is a poor drafting strategy for incomplete teams. The Rangers have the potential to become really good as a team really quickly if they do this right; I don't think that Lafreniere will move the needle for them. He'll look great alongside Zibanejad and he might even do well next to Strome next year, but that will make Kreider an expensive odd man out.

If the generational talent was a centre I might be inclined to agree because no team will ever have enough centres, but I can only think of one winger who has changed the face and fortunes of a franchise in the last 20 years and it still took him almost 15 years to drag his team to the Stanley Cup. Panarin is an elite talent but they're not winning a Cup because they've got the best 1-2 punch at LW in the league.

You're comparing BPA football drafting to hockey drafting.  Which isn't the same.

I don't care if Kreider is making 10m a year, you don't pass on Lafreniere.  And guess what, neither will the Rangers.