Thats why I think moving Pouliot and Pyatt for an agitator that throw his body around every shift would be perfect. Thats what we're missing. We go through long stretches where we control the puck (don't score) and the momentum changes and we play on our heels until we give up a goal. During those times, we need a player like an Avery type to get under the opponents skin and give us some momentum back.
- xcheckmajor

Roussel and Daley for Staal and Boyle.

Sign me up for that.

unless you draft said player, acquire him through free agency (that always works for the rangers....), or take a huge risk on a player with a lot of potential but a lot of question marks in a trade.
- rangerdanger94

Exactly, the Rangers aren't in a good spot.

They aren't good enough to be a true contender nor are they bad enough to ever draft a can't miss prospect.

Being in the middle is worse than being flat out terrible. In the long run being bad for a few seasons, unless you're Edmonton, starts to pay off and the team becomes formidable.

Being in the middle means you rarely get that can't miss player and you only give your fan base the illusion that one year, if things break right, your team can actually win it all.

The Rangers have been close once since the lockout. That is not a formula for a thriving on ice product.

i think the core of this team is really great in terms of all around depth. we have speed, we have defensive forwards, we have size, we have a superstar in nash, we have solid center depth in stepan - richards - brassard, we have a great goalie, and we have a very good defense (assuming they play up to this level).

what this team is missing is both grit and more high end talent in the top 6. this team, with the addition of a guy like patrick kane for example or phil kessel, without removing from the core, is all of a sudden an extremely dangerous team. the question in my opinion is how do we get that other gamebreaker without destroying what i think is a solid foundation/core.

a lineup of:
Kreider - Stepan - Nash
Kane - Richards - Callahan
Hagelin - Brassard - Zuccarello
Dorsett - Boyle - Cooke

i think something like that would be a team that can score, fight, hopefully defend leads, etc.
- rangerdanger94

Three scenarios:

Draft
Hope said player falls on dire circumstances and wants out bad (Nash, iginla)
Free agency, but then again, only very good players hit free agency, not cornerstone guys

Roussel and Daley for Staal and Boyle.

Sign me up for that.
- MidnightMarauder

Good chance that deal could have gotten done three weeks ago, I think Nil would like to have staal

Unfortunately robidas broke his leg bad and I don't think they are looking to swap dmen, only add

Neal with 5 games. he's one of the dirtier players in the league but I think 5 is fair and sends the message

Every good team has an edge to their collective game.

The Rabgers are very easy to play against. A bunch of nice guys that don't have any sort of nastiness to their game.

They really only have three feisty forwards: Kreider, Zuccarello and Dorsett.

Callahan has been a physical player, in the past, but rarely the type to get in an opponent's face.

Every other forward would sooner move out of the way, to avoid collision, than run into an opponent with a purpose.

The lack of scoring talent is their biggest downfall but not too far behind is their inability to push back, against teams, that get in their face.
- MidnightMarauder

I honestly think they have enough scoring, though any team could use more, but their biggest weakness is that they are weak. When a rookie like Kreider and a 5'7" hobbit are the two guys in the lineup that aren't afraid to mix it up then you have a problem.

Now credit to Nash for going back at Ovi and earlier for righting Hanzal. That's not his style and the Rangers don't need Nash fighting those type of battles too much.

The problem here isn't what the problem is; it's how to fix it. Aside from promoting a ready Dylan McIlrath, what move can they make to address team toughness. Ideally any player they add, be it by virtue of trade or promotion from Hartford, should be someone who can play a regular shift. Chris Neil and Steve Ott are two names brought up in this forum a lot but the Sens won't trade Neil and who knows about Ott. A lot of teams would like him so the price will be high. A John Scott, George Parros, one dimensional fighter is not what this team needs. They need a regular contributor that will play physically all the time and can fight the heavyweights in this league.

Now, what is odd to me is the makeup of this roster isn't much different from the teams that Torts had on the ice that we all applauded for their team toughness. Aside from losing Prust, this roster isn't that much different from the physically and mentally tough team that went to the ECF two seasons ago. Something else has changed and it isn't physically. It's mental.

Good chance that deal could have gotten done three weeks ago, I think Nil would like to have staal

Unfortunately robidas broke his leg bad and I don't think they are looking to swap dmen, only add
- FourFeathers773

definitely not add another defenseman who is currently hurt, playing with impaired vision in his eye already who may be concussed once again

Exactly, the Rangers aren't in a good spot.

They aren't good enough to be a true contender nor are they bad enough to ever draft a can't miss prospect.

Being in the middle is worse than being flat out terrible. In the long run being bad for a few seasons, unless you're Edmonton, starts to pay off and the team becomes formidable.

Being in the middle means you rarely get that can't miss player and you only give your fan base the illusion that one year, if thigns break right, your team can actually win it all.

The Rangers have been close once since the lockout. That is not a formula for a thriving on ice product.
- MidnightMarauder

the rangers aren't in THAT bad of a position imo for a few reasons.

obviously, any trade now similar to the nash trade would destroy our depth, but in a year when more prospects became NHL-ready, we have depth to replace those players as well as maybe even better bargaining chips once we see what these prospects are all about.

say ottawa decides they want to trade spezza and his large contract due to financial issues and strike a deal with us for stepan + hagelin + 2nd/1st. with this deal, we now have boyle, moore, pyatt all playing in the lineup every night...and that's assuming the rest of the lineup is healthy. an injury happens to a guy like kreider, and now we have those 3 plus asham or powe in the lineup.

but if this scenario happens in a year and a guy like fast or kristo or hrivik are nhl-ready and look like they can be really good NHL players, we have the depth to keep guys like boyle, moore, pyatt, asham, and powe out of the lineup and maybe even keep a guy like hagelin in the scenario in exchange for fast. all of a sudden, we have a dynamic bonafide 1st line center and solid scoring depth throughout the lineup.

obviously, this all depends on who's available but history shows that stars in this league like a spezza or an evander kane will take a really good player like stepan, a good player or prospect like hagelin/kristo, and a 1st round pick.

I honestly think they have enough scoring, though any team could use more, but their biggest weakness is that they are weak. When a rookie like Kreider and a 5'7" hobbit are the two guys in the lineup that aren't afraid to mix it up then you have a problem.

Now credit to Nash for going back at Ovi and earlier for righting Hanzal. That's not his style and the Rangers don't need Nash fighting those type of battles too much.

The problem here isn't what the problem is; it's how to fix it. Aside from promoting a ready Dylan McIlrath, what move can they make to address team toughness. Ideally any player they add, be it by virtue of trade or promotion from Hartford, should be someone who can play a regular shift. Chris Neil and Steve Ott are two names brought up in this forum a lot but the Sens won't trade Neil and who knows about Ott. A lot of teams would like him so the price will be high. A John Scott, George Parros, one dimensional fighter is not what this team needs. They need a regular contributor that will play physically all the time and can fight the heavyweights in this league.

Now, what is odd to me is the makeup of this roster isn't much different from the teams that Torts had on the ice that we all applauded for their team toughness. Aside from losing Prust, this roster isn't that much different from the physically and mentally tough team that went to the ECF two seasons ago. Something else has changed and it isn't physically. It's mental.
- gkmkiller

On your last point, and you know I never do this, you have to give credit to Dubinsky in the toughness department as well.

Losing two hard nosed players, like Prust and Dubinsky, hurts the toughness factor. Boyle was tougher back then too; influence of playing with a player, like Prust, that always had his back.

Stu Bickel is a bum but he was never afraid to drop the gloves and although Rupp lost a lot of fights he was never shy to drop the gloves.

The team lost a lot more than Prust, from that 2012 team, and never properly addressed it going forward.

I disagree on the fact they have enough scoring on this team.

They don't have nearly enough selfish, shoot first players, and that hurts the balance of the attack. Too many pass first players and players that don't have that nose for the net.

Kreider has it, Nash is elite and we all know that, Zuccarello has turned into a better than average NHL forward, Richards is a good player but is a setup man, Stepan never shoots, Brassard is a waste of top flight talent, Hagelin is a third line plug, Callahan is offensively slightly above average and the rest are interchangable depth players.

Put their best scorers up elite team's top offensive players and it doesn't stack up well for the Rangers.

the rangers aren't in THAT bad of a position imo for a few reasons.

obviously, any trade now similar to the nash trade would destroy our depth, but in a year when more prospects became NHL-ready, we have depth to replace those players as well as maybe even better bargaining chips once we see what these prospects are all about.

say ottawa decides they want to trade spezza and his large contract due to financial issues and strike a deal with us for stepan + hagelin + 2nd/1st. with this deal, we now have boyle, moore, pyatt all playing in the lineup every night...and that's assuming the rest of the lineup is healthy. an injury happens to a guy like kreider, and now we have those 3 plus asham or powe in the lineup.

but if this scenario happens in a year and a guy like fast or kristo or hrivik are nhl-ready and look like they can be really good NHL players, we have the depth to keep guys like boyle, moore, pyatt, asham, and powe out of the lineup and maybe even keep a guy like hagelin in the scenario in exchange for fast. all of a sudden, we have a dynamic bonafide 1st line center and solid scoring depth throughout the lineup.

obviously, this all depends on who's available but history shows that stars in this league like a spezza or an evander kane will take a really good player like stepan, a good player or prospect like hagelin/kristo, and a 1st round pick.
- rangerdanger94

Counting on a scenario, that is highly unlikely to happen, is not being in a good spot.

The team needs a borderline miracle to be able to address their woeful top line scoring issues.

definitely not add another defenseman who is currently hurt, playing with impaired vision in his eye already who may be concussed once again
- jimbro83

I was just hoping aloud.

Staal's career is going to be marred with injury related issues for the foreseeable future.

Counting on a scenario, that is highly unlikely to happen, is not being in a good spot.

The team needs a borderline miracle to be able to address their woeful top line scoring issues.
- MidnightMarauder

yea but my point is that the rangers have options. the team doesn't need to blow it up and trade everyone for lottery picks and then wait 5 years for the prospect to develop. we CAN go out there and acquire a superstar, once he becomes available, even if we overpay.

yea but my point is that the rangers have options. the team doesn't need to blow it up and trade everyone for lottery picks and then wait 5 years for the prospect to develop. we CAN go out there and acquire a superstar, once he becomes available, even if we overpay.
- rangerdanger94

I honestly don't think we have the assets to pull it off - both in having the actual players people want and having the players from within to fill the holes.

I honestly don't think we have the assets to pull it off - both in having the actual players people want and having the players from within to fill the holes.
- Mtlca66

we have prospects that seem like they'd be able to fill the holes but they are all 1-2 years away.

On your last point, and you know I never do this, you have to give credit to Dubinsky in the toughness department as well.

Losing two hard nosed players, like Prust and Dubinsky, hurts the toughness factor. Boyle was tougher back then too; influence of playing with a player, like Prust, that always had his back.

Stu Bickel is a bum but he was never afraid to drop the gloves and although Rupp lost a lot of fights he was never shy to drop the gloves.

The team lost a lot more than Prust, from that 2012 team, and never properly addressed it going forward.

I disagree on the fact they have enough scoring on this team.

They don't have nearly enough selfish, shoot first players, and that hurts the balance of the attack. Too many pass first players and players that don't have that nose for the net.

Kreider has it, Nash is elite and we all know that, Zuccarello has turned into a better than average NHL forward, Richards is a good player but is a setup man, Stepan never shoots, Brassard is a waste of top flight talent, Hagelin is a third line plug, Callahan is offensively slightly above average and the rest are interchangable depth players.

Put their best scorers up elite team's top offensive players and it doesn't stack up well for the Rangers.
- MidnightMarauder

You and I differ on Stepan. Yes, I'd love to see more shot attempts from him but he's averaging better than 2 per game, as he did a year ago, and placed 23rd among all pivots in total shot attempts last year.

One are where his game has dropped off, and probably predictably, is his conversion of shots on goal. Last year his shooting percentage was 16.7% and this year it's below 7%. His career average is closer to 12%. If he was converting at his career rate then he would have three or four more goals consequently putting him on a pace to net more than 20 this season. Not great but solid.

At the end of the day I see Stepan as a very good 2nd line center with the potential to become a solid #1 option. I'm not saying elite but the fact he can play in all phases of the game, 5v5, PK and PP, and succeed tells me he is a border line, good #1 on a cup contender and an excellent #2 on that same team.

I honestly don't think we have the assets to pull it off - both in having the actual players people want and having the players from within to fill the holes.
- Mtlca66

Agreed, the only way the Rangers can pull off a major trade is to deal away players or assets that will take away from the core of the team.

Their fringe players and prospects will get them squat. If they are serious about making a huge move a substantial piece, or pieces, will be going back the other way.

Larry Brooks ‏@NYP_Brooksie 1h
Marchand didn't deserve to be kicked in head by Neal anymore than Daniel Sedin deserved to be punched in head four times by Marchand.

I honestly don't think we have the assets to pull it off - both in having the actual players people want and having the players from within to fill the holes.
- Mtlca66

Oh we do, we just would be in a position worse than we were in terms of depth after the Nash deal.

The organization needs to figure out what roster building model they want to follow. Do they want to try to match teams like the Penguins and Kings with regards to top end talent? Or do they want to follow the Bruins model and build a physical team with lots of depth. We are in between the two.

We don't have enough high end talent to compete with Pittsburgh, Chicago and LA and while we have the depth the team just isn't nearly as physical as the Bruins.

Honestly, with where we are at now knowing that the opportunity to add more top shelf talent is small and the cost to do so would be huge, we need to focus on depth and being physical. But that may not mesh with AV's coaching style. Although I bet he could adapt. I think his system can work with the infusion of more toughness, so long as that toughness doesn't come in the form of guys like John Scott, etc.

I honestly don't think we have the assets to pull it off - both in having the actual players people want and having the players from within to fill the holes.
- Mtlca66

Any legit "superstar" trade would gut your roster

It would either take a handful of your top forwards and dmen, leaving you with much worse depth and secondary scorers

OR

Some combination of Nash or McDonough plus going out depending on the player in the scenario, and then I think you just went in a circle

You and I differ on Stepan. Yes, I'd love to see more shot attempts from him but he's averaging better than 2 per game, as he did a year ago, and placed 23rd among all pivots in total shot attempts last year.

One are where his game has dropped off, and probably predictably, is his conversion of shots on goal. Last year his shooting percentage was 16.7% and this year it's below 7%. His career average is closer to 12%. If he was converting at his career rate then he would have three or four more goals consequently putting him on a pace to net more than 20 this season. Not great but solid.

At the end of the day I see Stepan as a very good 2nd line center with the potential to become a solid #1 option. I'm not saying elite but the fact he can play in all phases of the game, 5v5, PK and PP, and succeed tells me he is a border line, good #1 on a cup contender and an excellent #2 on that same team.
- gkmkiller

I think Stepan is a very good second line center and nothing more. If he is your best option, up the middle, that is not getting it done.

He is a complimentary player; not a player that you build your offense around.

The Rangers would be in a great spot if they had a bonafide, in his prime, first line center with Stepan complimenting nicely on the second line.

The fact that they are rotating him and an aging Brad Richards leaves a lot to be desired in the center department. I like Richards, more than most, and he is having a decent season but he is not amongst the best centers in the league discussion either.

Again, I don't completely dislike Stepan and it's not his fault he is being given the repsonsibility of being the man up the middle, but I just don't think that is a scenario which he could thrive in.

Larry Brooks ‏@NYP_Brooksie 1h
Marchand didn't deserve to be kicked in head by Neal anymore than Daniel Sedin deserved to be punched in head four times by Marchand.
- jimbro83

As much as I abhor Neal's actions and don't mean for this to sound like a defense, Marchand is a dirty little rat of a player and what comes around goes around as they say.

I think Stepan is a very good second line center and nothing more. If he is your best option, up the middle, that is not getting it done.

He is a complimentary player; not a player that you build your offense around.

The Rangers would be in a great spot if they had a bonafide, in his prime, first line center with Stepan complimenting nicely on the second line.

The fact that they are rotating him and an aging Brad Richards leaves a lot to be desired in the center department. I like Richards, more than most, and he is having a decent season but he is not amongst the best centers in the league discussion either.

Again, I don't completely dislike Stepan and it's not his fault he is being given the repsonsibility of being the man up the middle, but I just don't think that is a scenario which he could thrive in.
- MidnightMarauder

Again, I will point to Boston here. I agree Step is not the traditional top line Center every team craves but realistically, there aren't enough of those guys to populate all 30 teams (i.e. 30 #1 centers for 30 teams). Boston gets it done with Krejci and Bergeron, two very good centers (particularly Bergeron) but neither a prototypical #1 in my book. Neither is a prolific enough scorer to be that.

With the Rangers, if we had another player along the lines of Step or even Richards in his prime we would be set. Richards is descending out of his prime and while a useful player isn't a bona fide #1 anymore. He'd fit best on a team with a true #1 as the second option. An example of that would be a team like Chicago (Toews) or LA (Kopitar).

I think Stepan is a very good second line center and nothing more. If he is your best option, up the middle, that is not getting it done.

He is a complimentary player; not a player that you build your offense around.

The Rangers would be in a great spot if they had a bonafide, in his prime, first line center with Stepan complimenting nicely on the second line.

The fact that they are rotating him and an aging Brad Richards leaves a lot to be desired in the center department. I like Richards, more than most, and he is having a decent season but he is not amongst the best centers in the league discussion either.

Again, I don't completely dislike Stepan and it's not his fault he is being given the repsonsibility of being the man up the middle, but I just don't think that is a scenario which he could thrive in.
- MidnightMarauder

stepan is a great 2nd line center that can pass as a 1st line center. he has the point production to be a reliable 60-80 point players through his career, but he doesn't have the speed, skating, or hands to really be that dynamic center like a duchene or a spezza or a couture or even bergeron.

Again, I will point to Boston here. I agree Step is not the traditional top line Center every team craves but realistically, there aren't enough of those guys to populate all 30 teams (i.e. 30 #1 centers for 30 teams). Boston gets it done with Krejci and Bergeron, two very good centers (particularly Bergeron) but neither a prototypical #1 in my book. Neither is a prolific enough scorer to be that.

With the Rangers, if we had another player along the lines of Step or even Richards in his prime we would be set. Richards is descending out of his prime and while a useful player isn't a bona fide #1 anymore. He'd fit best on a team with a true #1 as the second option. An example of that would be a team like Chicago (Toews) or LA (Kopitar).
- gkmkiller

Boston also has great forward depth and are extremely physical; as we Rangers should know full well.

Team toughness needs to be addressed and they have to up their skill, to a significant extent, as well.

Boston also has great forward depth and are extremely physical; as we Rangers should know full well.

Team toughness needs to be addressed and they have to up their skill, to a significant extent, as well.
- MidnightMarauder

i believe the year we made it to the ECF we led the league in fighting majors.