Greg, I think the real question is how much better does this team get the next three years with Bergeron than with Stepan? I don't really know how much Bergeron increases the probability of the Rangers winning a Cup to know if the tradeoff of getting a worse player from 2019-2022 is worth the short-term benefit. I generally hate that short-term thinking, but do like Bergeron a lot. I'd be on the fence, but suspect the Rangers would theoretically have to add something extra.
probably true but while i guess its always good to keep options open... i dont think 2019-2022 holds much relevance to this group. Expecting to be a SC contender that far out you are betting on pretty much 20 straight playoff appearances without benefit of lottery picks that entire time.
Impossible? Just about. Focus on the next 3 year window.
No offense, but I'm kind of sick of hearing about windows
Throwing everything into a shortsighted attempt at salvaging a supposed window is how the Rangers turned into a disaster in the late '90s. It actually is possible to win games, and even playoff series, without Henrik Lundqvist.
Throwing everything into a shortsighted attempt at salvaging a supposed window is how the Rangers turned into a disaster in the late '90s. It actually is possible to win games, and even playoff series, without Henrik Lundqvist.
but Sather made that decision for us when he gave away 1st round picks and other assets the past few years for MSL, Yandle, etc.
It is what it is. Our guys expect to get paid going into free agency and I dont blame them. Nearly impossible to keep this group together much longer.
As far as late 90s rebuilds... the tight salary cap hurts you in good times, but it also protects you in bad ones... it wouldnt take nearly as long to rebuild now if done properly.
Hell... Boston is retooling now... you can argue about the quality of their draft picking if you like... but basically taking a 3 year timeout to get back to contending status by 2018. We may very well adopt that philosophy as soon as next offseason. If done properly, there's no shame in that.
Anyway... hopefully we can sign Stepan at $6mm per year. I think that's fair personally... 6.5mm starts to get tight but i'd still do it. I'm only suggesting explore trades at $7mm which IMO is too much for him.
You're out of your mind. Bergeron isn't close to Kopitar anymore. Neither is Stepan for that matter.
there's like 18 months separating Bergeron and Kopitar.
somehow Kopitar is on some massive upward swing, but Bergeron is broken down?
Datsyuk is in their class (and much better than Stepan) at 36 years old.
Hockey players all age, the bruins were a dumpster fire last year, and Bergeron was his usual self.
If I have a choice of Bergeron the next three years or Stepan it's not close and I don't think NHL GM's would disagree with me. Problem is Bergeron is signed for 6 years.
or was that as close to happening as Sather's make-believe Stamkos trade (you know... the one that didnt include the two most important decision makers from TBL being involved)
Jessiman was one of young Brett's scouting highlights. Called him a bust the second the Rangers drafted him (only because the Rangers drafted him).
I went to the draft party that year. Room died when they picked Jessiman. Such a high risk move when they had nothing in the system.
MAB, I remember those rumors - and also remember an HF thread that asked if you'd take Crosby or Prucha, and a not-so-small minority picked Prucha. Lulz.
Seabrook I know is considered to be a very fine prospect however I'm not sure (maybe I should say I don't know enough about him) I would want to part with Prucha for him.
So we can afford Stepan. Rangers owe qualifying offers to Miller, Fast, and Etem, and still have 7.6+ million left over. I would trade Klein, because better to do it a year early than a year late. We simply cannot afford the luxury of 6 dmen at $3-6 million AAV each.
We'll manage next year. Strip off Boyle (4.5), Klein (2.9) and if need by Yandle (~3?) and there is plenty of money to resign Kreider, Hayes (bridge), and back fill the roster. I cant really blame Sather for finally having a good team come due for contracts in the midst of a crash of oil prices which depress league revenues and hold the cap flat. Look at how no one is getting paid in UFA.
The notion that Sather has really mortgaged the future I think is overstated. The 4 #1s hurt, but they were late #1s. Sometimes you get top 6 guys in the late 20s, but usually not. Who here would take 4 very late #1s for a Stepan level talent (signed to a reasonable deal)? I probably wouldnt. Who are the prospects we've traded? Duclair! We'll see on him. Lots of speed/shot skill but we've seen it. Canada overmatched the WJCs and I dont think you can scount anyone from that. Who is the next best prospect he's traded for a vet in the last 5 years? Erixon, who hasnt panned out? Anyone else?
Putting aside picks, how many traded prospects/young players do you have any meaningful regret over? Too soon on Duclair -- people regret it because he COULD be somebody. Tyutin in 2008. Umberger I think was a weird situation (2004). Samuelsson (2003)? York (2002)? Johnsson (2001)? It's really slim pickings. Link - ( New Window )
that the one hit was career ending. He must have had a lot of head injuries prior to that.
Just hope history doesnt repeat itself with Zuccs here. We've had so much bad luck with head injuries this decade, nearly losing Hank to a neck too.
Of course as i've said before, most of this preventable and thus frustrating... but clearly the relative head injuries to what other franchises endure is really unbelievable.
that the one hit was career ending. He must have had a lot of head injuries prior to that.
Just hope history doesnt repeat itself with Zuccs here. We've had so much bad luck with head injuries this decade, nearly losing Hank to a neck too.
Of course as i've said before, most of this preventable and thus frustrating... but clearly the relative head injuries to what other franchises endure is really unbelievable.
Stevens ended Lindros's career. Samuelson impacted Neely's career significantly (I won't say ended it but he was never really the same after that).
Looking it up....it was the third of that season and the fifth in his career.
absolutely, how many concussions do you think the average athlete in hockey or football incurs? I think it's more than you think. Stevens was the coup de grace.
Putting aside picks, how many traded prospects/young players do you have any meaningful regret over? Too soon on Duclair -- people regret it because he COULD be somebody. Tyutin in 2008. Umberger I think was a weird situation (2004). Samuelsson (2003)? York (2002)? Johnsson (2001)? It's really slim pickings. Link - ( New Window )
Those players dont need to turn into stars. But those picks and prospects could come up as cheap 3rd/4th liners or 2nd/3rd pairings and combined with the mid 20s talent today due for big pay raises... keep us as contenders.
But instead we are virtually bare in the system with guys still due raises and tough decisions like Hagelin, Talbot, Stralman, etc.... next year Yandle vs one of the power forwards... must be made that will make us a bit weaker every offseason.
I'm not even saying our mgmt has done a bad job -- peaks and valleys are impossible to avoid. Rebuilds are inevitable -- just have a Plan and stick to it. I'd rather suck for a few years and build around a few lottery picks..... then do what Philly and Detroit have done the past few years.
Richter's career was ended by that shot he took to the head
I'm just saying that Sauer probably didn't have the accumulated head trauma Lindros had, that's all. It pretty much was just that one hit that ended his career.
no doubt those 4 #1s might provide decent, cheap depth down the line. On the flipside does a guy like Hayes sign here if we're knee-deep in #1s? He came here for playing time. I wouldnt trade him for 2 late #1s.
I might be a homer, but I think our crappy system will do fine filling the cheap roster spots. Buchnevich is a good a prospect as Kreider, Miller, and Hayes were before joining the team -- which is to say not a top 25 stud cornerstone prospect but really promising. Tambo has promise as a scoring PF-lite. Lindberg I think will be a fixture (better than Fast), and Nieves, Fogarty, and Iverson will probably yield at least one skate-hit-defend bottom 6er. Key is that our system is productive and we arent hard up for stars. Defensive group is thin though I am a huge Skjei fan.
Both Lindros boys were felled by concussions. The Sauer Brothers (Michael and Kurt in the NHL, and Craig in the NFL) all retired in their 20s in whole or part because of concussions.
no doubt those 4 #1s might provide decent, cheap depth down the line. On the flipside does a guy like Hayes sign here if we're knee-deep in #1s? He came here for playing time. I wouldnt trade him for 2 late #1s.
I might be a homer, but I think our crappy system will do fine filling the cheap roster spots. Buchnevich is a good a prospect as Kreider, Miller, and Hayes were before joining the team -- which is to say not a top 25 stud cornerstone prospect but really promising. Tambo has promise as a scoring PF-lite. Lindberg I think will be a fixture (better than Fast), and Nieves, Fogarty, and Iverson will probably yield at least one skate-hit-defend bottom 6er. Key is that our system is productive and we arent hard up for stars. Defensive group is thin though I am a huge Skjei fan.
Kevin Hayes was the 24th pick in his draft year, Krieder 19th, Miller 15th, and Skjei 28th. Buch, of course, was taken a bit later and this doesn't get into the skating core of which this team was built upon. Of Stepan, Cally, Staal, McD, Dubinsky, Anisimov, Girardi, etc the majority seem to have been taken in the vicinity of the draft in which the Rangers would have had the opportunity to select in recent years had they not have traded out of those spots. If the Rangers so harshly devalued any pick not deemed "premium" this team would have been devoid of talent long ago.
It just seems counterintuitive to discount late 1st round picks at such a degree while then championing the players that this range of picks have traditionally yielded.
The talent pool has grown deeper and the Rangers scouting has really improved imo. They aren't throw away picks. unfortunately in his greed for one final hurrah Sather treated them as such.
Kevin Hayes was the 24th pick in his draft year, Krieder 19th, Miller 15th, and Skjei 28th. Buch, of course, was taken a bit later and this doesn't get into the skating core of which this team was built upon. Of Stepan, Cally, Staal, McD, Dubinsky, Anisimov, Girardi, etc the majority seem to have been taken in the vicinity of the draft in which the Rangers would have had the opportunity to select in recent years had they not have traded out of those spots. If the Rangers so harshly devalued any pick not deemed "premium" this team would have been devoid of talent long ago.
It just seems counterintuitive to discount late 1st round picks at such a degree while then championing the players that this range of picks have traditionally yielded.
But the guys you're talking about werent late #1s, so it does disprove the reflexive "oh no, we traded late #1s". The only late #1s you list were Skjei (who hasnt done squat so far) and Hayes, who was someone else's #1 and fully developed before we signed him at age 21 (so some selection bias -- he could have been crap). My point is that a late late #1 cant be compared to a mid #1 which is where Miller came from and an early-mid #1 which is where McDonagh and Staal came from. Of course a #10 pick is a lot different from a #28 pick.
And then you get a listing of guys like Of Stepan (#51), Cally (#127), Dubinsky (#60), Anisimov (#54), Girardi (undrafted) -- none of them first rounders or even early 2nds. So my point that the people bemoaning the lack of firsts is even more valid -- it's not like you need late firsts to succeed. And it's not like we traded away 4 straight Staals or JT Millers, because those guys were taken in the top half of the first round. Of course late #1s have SOME value. It's just lazy to think of it as trading 4 #1s as if all #1s are the same. It's not as bad as the NBA, but there is just a world of difference at the top 10 and bottom 10 of the first round of the NHL draft.
partly because they have a good scouts and a system they believe in. Trading away picks as they have, has traded away from one of their big strengths which is making picks. Guys like McD, Lindberg, Hayes and now Etem were all guys their scouts liked and stayed on, for opportunities to acquire. So I think trading away 4 ones was trading away for something they've done well.
I'd posit that you're correct in that the marginal difference in talent and the certainty of that talent is much greater within picks 1-10 versus that of 25-50 (approximate). I don't know if the NHL employs any sort of point system to value draft picks (like the old NFL chart) but I'd imagine some sort of statistical analysis could attempt to quantify the incremental value of each pick given the historical data set, and I think the results would show that the late 1st and 2nd round don't have too much dispersion.
That being said, to me this simply represents even more of an opportunity for the Rangers to exploit their strong scouting department and manage their assets in such a manner as to acquire even more chances to select in that second or third grouping of players. Four 1st rounders, or could we have leveraged that into eight 2nd round picks? Would I rather have had a few more cracks at selecting some nice players in that second and third tier (along with Lindberg on the big club this year) or MSL scoring a couple of goals in the 2014 playoffs and being an absolute liability in the 2015 run?
In this salary cap era the wealthy teams have but a few clear inherent advantages remaining over the smaller market clubs and this includes their ability to spend and structure the finest scouting and talent development programs in the world. The Rangers have shown themselves adept at such and to trade away the opportunities to exploit this advantage is foolish, imho.
Oh, and fuck MSL...still waiting for my jersey, Brett!
when you dont have a core of generational talents (like Chicago or Pittsburgh) that you're better off taking your shots. Now late #1 picks obviously have value. Especially when you're on a run of good drafting/development success (though I think on ice NHL success breeds better player development). But I just dont see a problem trading 4 straight #1s, in the abstract. I dont think anyone can complain about the Nash trade. People bemoan the Yandle trade because of Duclair (I think it was a fine and fair trade). The problem with the MSL trade was mostly that it was an overpay. If it had been Stamkos no one would complain.
I lean towards BM's viewpoint. Most draft picks are busts, but it's hard to field a sustainable, competitive team without them. I didn't mind dealing it for Nash because he's an asset that will be with us for years. And maybe Yandle re-signs, in which case I have no real issue with that trade. But trading it away for guys who will only be with the team for a year or two is dumb to me. The MSL trade was silly because the probability of him being with the team for more than a year and three months was so low, and the risk of a sharp decline was heightened.
I agree with this line:
Quote:
(though I think on ice NHL success breeds better player development)
Much easier to have guys step in and be a fourth line winger and subsequently earning a top nine role than throwing them to the fire immediately (Fast is a good example).
of course if it were Stamkos no one would complain
even in his career year at age 38.... MSL wasnt nearly the player Stamkos is
I actually had no problem of Cally for MSL... i just didnt understand all the extra 1st rounders thrown in for fun... especially the part about making the ECF turning a 2nd into a 1st... who the fuck cares about making the ECF?
Three straight years with basically the same group is stale IMO. They need a face lift b/c they did not bury the Pens or Caps in the playoffs despite that Presidents Trophy.
The 1994 team would have blown those teams off the ice. This group struggled.
The 'contingent' seconds into firsts is so dumb to me.
Three straight years with basically the same group is stale IMO. They need a face lift b/c they did not bury the Pens or Caps in the playoffs despite that Presidents Trophy.
I dont know if i agree with this or not - has the core really stayed the same? Seems to me a lot of changes have been made, maybe even too many - and i assume you picked 3 years, not 4, because of Nash.
I was underwhelmed with the playoff run too, but its possible injuries played a big part. And when healthy against Pittsburgh... yes, ugly games, but they were one of what 2 teams to win in 5 or less games out of 8 series?
I do think we need to trade at least 1 if not 2 defenders for some more offense. Preferably in the mold you discussed, which would be a Lucic / Simmonds type.. scoring touch with toughness (obviously we wont get back that level of talent, but someone who can play that type of role maybe on the 3rd line).
I'm not crazy about waiting on Stepan before making that D- move... we might become desperate sellers like Boston with Boychuk last year.
I really felt like the Rangers controlled the play in the first two
Rounds. Both teams collapsed to limit scoring chances, but I thought the Rangers outplayed both teams the majority of the series despite the scores. I did not think they played to their full potential.
I'm with MAB on trading a guy before Stepan comes due. My first thought on the Klein stuff from Friedman was that the Rangers are playing the media to not look like forced sellers.
I'm no hockey guru but many of their key decisions seem to miss the mark.
Impossible? Just about. Focus on the next 3 year window.
from 2015 - 2018/9 Bergeron is on another level than Stepan.
I like Stepan (American player), but he's not the two way player Bergeron is yet.
Not many are. Datsyuk. Maybe Kopitar.
the past 6 seasons Bergeron has been top 5 in Selke, winning it 3 times.
he's so valuable even if you lessen his offensive impact.
I think he'd be better on the Rangers too.
from 2015 - 2018/9 Bergeron is on another level than Stepan.
I like Stepan (American player), but he's not the two way player Bergeron is yet.
Not many are. Datsyuk. Maybe Kopitar.
the past 6 seasons Bergeron has been top 5 in Selke, winning it 3 times.
he's so valuable even if you lessen his offensive impact.
I think he'd be better on the Rangers too.
I think you're severely underrating Derek Stepan defensively.
LOL, don't read my reply
but Sather made that decision for us when he gave away 1st round picks and other assets the past few years for MSL, Yandle, etc.
It is what it is. Our guys expect to get paid going into free agency and I dont blame them. Nearly impossible to keep this group together much longer.
As far as late 90s rebuilds... the tight salary cap hurts you in good times, but it also protects you in bad ones... it wouldnt take nearly as long to rebuild now if done properly.
Hell... Boston is retooling now... you can argue about the quality of their draft picking if you like... but basically taking a 3 year timeout to get back to contending status by 2018. We may very well adopt that philosophy as soon as next offseason. If done properly, there's no shame in that.
Anyway... hopefully we can sign Stepan at $6mm per year. I think that's fair personally... 6.5mm starts to get tight but i'd still do it. I'm only suggesting explore trades at $7mm which IMO is too much for him.
there's like 18 months separating Bergeron and Kopitar.
somehow Kopitar is on some massive upward swing, but Bergeron is broken down?
Datsyuk is in their class (and much better than Stepan) at 36 years old.
Hockey players all age, the bruins were a dumpster fire last year, and Bergeron was his usual self.
If I have a choice of Bergeron the next three years or Stepan it's not close and I don't think NHL GM's would disagree with me. Problem is Bergeron is signed for 6 years.
Time for an upgrade.
or was that as close to happening as Sather's make-believe Stamkos trade (you know... the one that didnt include the two most important decision makers from TBL being involved)
I went to the draft party that year. Room died when they picked Jessiman. Such a high risk move when they had nothing in the system.
MAB, I remember those rumors - and also remember an HF thread that asked if you'd take Crosby or Prucha, and a not-so-small minority picked Prucha. Lulz.
lol
HF - ( New Window )
We'll manage next year. Strip off Boyle (4.5), Klein (2.9) and if need by Yandle (~3?) and there is plenty of money to resign Kreider, Hayes (bridge), and back fill the roster. I cant really blame Sather for finally having a good team come due for contracts in the midst of a crash of oil prices which depress league revenues and hold the cap flat. Look at how no one is getting paid in UFA.
The notion that Sather has really mortgaged the future I think is overstated. The 4 #1s hurt, but they were late #1s. Sometimes you get top 6 guys in the late 20s, but usually not. Who here would take 4 very late #1s for a Stepan level talent (signed to a reasonable deal)? I probably wouldnt. Who are the prospects we've traded? Duclair! We'll see on him. Lots of speed/shot skill but we've seen it. Canada overmatched the WJCs and I dont think you can scount anyone from that. Who is the next best prospect he's traded for a vet in the last 5 years? Erixon, who hasnt panned out? Anyone else?
Losing Sauer still sucks three years later.
Link - ( New Window )
Just hope history doesnt repeat itself with Zuccs here. We've had so much bad luck with head injuries this decade, nearly losing Hank to a neck too.
Of course as i've said before, most of this preventable and thus frustrating... but clearly the relative head injuries to what other franchises endure is really unbelievable.
Just hope history doesnt repeat itself with Zuccs here. We've had so much bad luck with head injuries this decade, nearly losing Hank to a neck too.
Of course as i've said before, most of this preventable and thus frustrating... but clearly the relative head injuries to what other franchises endure is really unbelievable.
Stevens ended Lindros's career. Samuelson impacted Neely's career significantly (I won't say ended it but he was never really the same after that).
absolutely, how many concussions do you think the average athlete in hockey or football incurs? I think it's more than you think. Stevens was the coup de grace.
Those players dont need to turn into stars. But those picks and prospects could come up as cheap 3rd/4th liners or 2nd/3rd pairings and combined with the mid 20s talent today due for big pay raises... keep us as contenders.
But instead we are virtually bare in the system with guys still due raises and tough decisions like Hagelin, Talbot, Stralman, etc.... next year Yandle vs one of the power forwards... must be made that will make us a bit weaker every offseason.
I'm not even saying our mgmt has done a bad job -- peaks and valleys are impossible to avoid. Rebuilds are inevitable -- just have a Plan and stick to it. I'd rather suck for a few years and build around a few lottery picks..... then do what Philly and Detroit have done the past few years.
I might be a homer, but I think our crappy system will do fine filling the cheap roster spots. Buchnevich is a good a prospect as Kreider, Miller, and Hayes were before joining the team -- which is to say not a top 25 stud cornerstone prospect but really promising. Tambo has promise as a scoring PF-lite. Lindberg I think will be a fixture (better than Fast), and Nieves, Fogarty, and Iverson will probably yield at least one skate-hit-defend bottom 6er. Key is that our system is productive and we arent hard up for stars. Defensive group is thin though I am a huge Skjei fan.
I might be a homer, but I think our crappy system will do fine filling the cheap roster spots. Buchnevich is a good a prospect as Kreider, Miller, and Hayes were before joining the team -- which is to say not a top 25 stud cornerstone prospect but really promising. Tambo has promise as a scoring PF-lite. Lindberg I think will be a fixture (better than Fast), and Nieves, Fogarty, and Iverson will probably yield at least one skate-hit-defend bottom 6er. Key is that our system is productive and we arent hard up for stars. Defensive group is thin though I am a huge Skjei fan.
Kevin Hayes was the 24th pick in his draft year, Krieder 19th, Miller 15th, and Skjei 28th. Buch, of course, was taken a bit later and this doesn't get into the skating core of which this team was built upon. Of Stepan, Cally, Staal, McD, Dubinsky, Anisimov, Girardi, etc the majority seem to have been taken in the vicinity of the draft in which the Rangers would have had the opportunity to select in recent years had they not have traded out of those spots. If the Rangers so harshly devalued any pick not deemed "premium" this team would have been devoid of talent long ago.
It just seems counterintuitive to discount late 1st round picks at such a degree while then championing the players that this range of picks have traditionally yielded.
Kevin Hayes was the 24th pick in his draft year, Krieder 19th, Miller 15th, and Skjei 28th. Buch, of course, was taken a bit later and this doesn't get into the skating core of which this team was built upon. Of Stepan, Cally, Staal, McD, Dubinsky, Anisimov, Girardi, etc the majority seem to have been taken in the vicinity of the draft in which the Rangers would have had the opportunity to select in recent years had they not have traded out of those spots. If the Rangers so harshly devalued any pick not deemed "premium" this team would have been devoid of talent long ago.
It just seems counterintuitive to discount late 1st round picks at such a degree while then championing the players that this range of picks have traditionally yielded.
But the guys you're talking about werent late #1s, so it does disprove the reflexive "oh no, we traded late #1s". The only late #1s you list were Skjei (who hasnt done squat so far) and Hayes, who was someone else's #1 and fully developed before we signed him at age 21 (so some selection bias -- he could have been crap). My point is that a late late #1 cant be compared to a mid #1 which is where Miller came from and an early-mid #1 which is where McDonagh and Staal came from. Of course a #10 pick is a lot different from a #28 pick.
And then you get a listing of guys like Of Stepan (#51), Cally (#127), Dubinsky (#60), Anisimov (#54), Girardi (undrafted) -- none of them first rounders or even early 2nds. So my point that the people bemoaning the lack of firsts is even more valid -- it's not like you need late firsts to succeed. And it's not like we traded away 4 straight Staals or JT Millers, because those guys were taken in the top half of the first round. Of course late #1s have SOME value. It's just lazy to think of it as trading 4 #1s as if all #1s are the same. It's not as bad as the NBA, but there is just a world of difference at the top 10 and bottom 10 of the first round of the NHL draft.
That being said, to me this simply represents even more of an opportunity for the Rangers to exploit their strong scouting department and manage their assets in such a manner as to acquire even more chances to select in that second or third grouping of players. Four 1st rounders, or could we have leveraged that into eight 2nd round picks? Would I rather have had a few more cracks at selecting some nice players in that second and third tier (along with Lindberg on the big club this year) or MSL scoring a couple of goals in the 2014 playoffs and being an absolute liability in the 2015 run?
In this salary cap era the wealthy teams have but a few clear inherent advantages remaining over the smaller market clubs and this includes their ability to spend and structure the finest scouting and talent development programs in the world. The Rangers have shown themselves adept at such and to trade away the opportunities to exploit this advantage is foolish, imho.
Oh, and fuck MSL...still waiting for my jersey, Brett!
I agree with this line:
Much easier to have guys step in and be a fourth line winger and subsequently earning a top nine role than throwing them to the fire immediately (Fast is a good example).
I actually had no problem of Cally for MSL... i just didnt understand all the extra 1st rounders thrown in for fun... especially the part about making the ECF turning a 2nd into a 1st... who the fuck cares about making the ECF?
Three straight years with basically the same group is stale IMO. They need a face lift b/c they did not bury the Pens or Caps in the playoffs despite that Presidents Trophy.
The 1994 team would have blown those teams off the ice. This group struggled.
Three straight years with basically the same group is stale IMO. They need a face lift b/c they did not bury the Pens or Caps in the playoffs despite that Presidents Trophy.
I dont know if i agree with this or not - has the core really stayed the same? Seems to me a lot of changes have been made, maybe even too many - and i assume you picked 3 years, not 4, because of Nash.
I was underwhelmed with the playoff run too, but its possible injuries played a big part. And when healthy against Pittsburgh... yes, ugly games, but they were one of what 2 teams to win in 5 or less games out of 8 series?
I do think we need to trade at least 1 if not 2 defenders for some more offense. Preferably in the mold you discussed, which would be a Lucic / Simmonds type.. scoring touch with toughness (obviously we wont get back that level of talent, but someone who can play that type of role maybe on the 3rd line).
I'm not crazy about waiting on Stepan before making that D- move... we might become desperate sellers like Boston with Boychuk last year.
I'm with MAB on trading a guy before Stepan comes due. My first thought on the Klein stuff from Friedman was that the Rangers are playing the media to not look like forced sellers.