Roster needs · candidate fits
As of Sun, Sep 20The Trade Board
The model measures each club's roster gaps against the league, then ranks outside players on how well they'd plug the biggest one — on-ice value, style fit, and how gettable the seller looks. On-ice fit only; nothing here is cap-validated.
How to read this
First the diagnosis: we compare this club's impact in every roster bucket — top-six scoring, defensive D, and so on — against the league average, and rank the shortfalls. The biggest gap becomes the shopping brief.
Then the shortlist: outside players are scored on how well they'd plug that hole — their on-ice value (), their with how this club creates offense, and an that assumes struggling clubs sell and contenders don't. Know what this board is not: it has no salary data, no cap math, no term, and no idea whether a GM would return the call. It's a scouting shortlist built purely from on-ice fit — the phone call is your job.
- NEED
- roster bucket where the club trails league average, ranked by the gap
- WAR*
- on-ice value — a model proxy, not official WAR
- STYLE
- 0–100: does the candidate score the way this club scores?
- ACQ†
- 0–100: how gettable the seller looks, from points pace alone
- FIT
- value × need × style × acquirability — the shortlist order
Fine print · verbatim from the model
- on-ice fit only; not cap-validated
- acquirability is a PROXY (team points pace), not real availability; no contract/cap/AAV/term data exists.
- No real contract data (PuckPedia/CapWages are paid). Contract phase is an age/experience estimate; market visibility proxies what contracts pay for.
NYRNew York Rangers
Biggest need
Bottom-6 forward depth
-42team 40.2 vs league 81.9 · high
All needs · ranked
4 flagged01
Bottom-6 forward depthhigh
-4202
Depth defensehigh
-3503
Top-6 forwardhigh
-2504
Top-pair defensemanhigh
-13Best value fits
8 ranked · league board →| # | From | Player | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | UTA | Lawson CrouseL · +2.29Coming off a clear top-of-the-lineup season, brings a different stylistic profile (54/100) — and comes underpriced by the market. | 58 | +21.4 | UFA (est.) | 72/100 · model-est. |
| 2 | CAR | Jordan StaalC · +1.68Coming off a solid contributor season, fits the style well (77/100) — and comes underpriced by the market. | 61 | +15.8 | UFA (est.) | 70/100 · model-est. |
| 3 | NJDstats: PIT | Anthony ManthaR · +3.02Coming off a clear top-of-the-lineup season, brings a different stylistic profile (54/100) — and comes underpriced by the market. | 59 | +17.7 | UFA (est.) | 70/100 · model-est. |
| 4 | NSH | Filip ForsbergL · +3.34Coming off a clear top-of-the-lineup season, brings a different stylistic profile (63/100) — and comes underpriced by the market. | 61 | +15.3 | UFA (est.) | 70/100 · model-est. |
| 5 | FLA | 69 | +5.1 | UFA (est.) | 70/100 · model-est. | |
| 6 | TBL | Jake GuentzelC · +4.07Coming off an all-star level season, brings a different stylistic profile (54/100) — and comes underpriced by the market. | 59 | +16.3 | UFA (est.) | 70/100 · model-est. |
| 7 | CAR | Andrei SvechnikovR · +3.19Coming off a clear top-of-the-lineup season, brings a different stylistic profile (63/100) — and comes underpriced by the market. | 59 | +15.4 | RFA (est.) | 69/100 · model-est. |
| 8 | OTT | Tim SttzleC · +3.61Coming off an all-star level season, fits the style well (77/100) — and comes underpriced by the market. | 64 | +10.0 | RFA (est.) | 69/100 · model-est. |
◆ Value basis · No real contract data (PuckPedia/CapWages are paid). Contract phase is an age/experience estimate; market visibility proxies what contracts pay for.
Candidate fits · Bottom-6 forward depth
15 ranked| # | From | Player | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | FLA | +2.43 | 82 | 53 | AVERAGE FIT69/100 · model-est. | |
| 2 | LAK | Adrian KempeR · 54.3Coming off a clear top-of-the-lineup season, plays this club's style almost exactly (88/100). | +2.79 | 88 | 52 | AVERAGE FIT64/100 · model-est. |
| 3 | OTT | Tim SttzleC · 65.9Coming off an all-star level season, fits the style well (77/100) — and comes underpriced by the market. | +3.61 | 77 | 47 | AVERAGE FIT64/100 · model-est. |
| 4 | CAR | Seth JarvisC · 72.4Coming off a clear top-of-the-lineup season, brings a different stylistic profile (70/100). | +3.12 | 70 | 45 | AVERAGE FIT63/100 · model-est. |
| 5 | MIN | +1.99 | 77 | 47 | AVERAGE FIT62/100 · model-est. | |
| 6 | WSH | Ryan LeonardR · 49.6Coming off a solid contributor season, plays this club's style almost exactly (91/100). | +1.57 | 91 | 48 | AVERAGE FIT62/100 · model-est. |
| 7 | CAR | Jordan StaalC · 60.9Coming off a solid contributor season, fits the style well (77/100) — and comes underpriced by the market. | +1.68 | 77 | 45 | AVERAGE FIT61/100 · model-est. |
| 8 | DAL | +1.42 | 82 | 45 | AVERAGE FIT61/100 · model-est. | |
| 9 | PHI | +0.46 | 88 | 50 | AVERAGE FIT61/100 · model-est. | |
| 10 | WSHstats: CBJ | Boone JennerC · 58.3Coming off a solid contributor season, fits the style well (77/100) — and comes underpriced by the market. | +1.50 | 77 | 48 | AVERAGE FIT61/100 · model-est. |
| 11 | NSH | Filip ForsbergL · 64.8Coming off a clear top-of-the-lineup season, brings a different stylistic profile (63/100) — and comes underpriced by the market. | +3.34 | 63 | 52 | AVERAGE FIT61/100 · model-est. |
| 12 | UTA | Dylan GuentherR · 74.5Coming off an all-star level season, brings a different stylistic profile (54/100) — and comes underpriced by the market. | +3.67 | 54 | 47 | AVERAGE FIT60/100 · model-est. |
| 13 | PIT | Rickard RakellR · 63.2Coming off a clear top-of-the-lineup season, brings a different stylistic profile (70/100). | +2.05 | 70 | 47 | AVERAGE FIT60/100 · model-est. |
| 14 | PIT | Bryan RustR · 63.0Coming off a clear top-of-the-lineup season, brings a different stylistic profile (70/100). | +2.63 | 70 | 47 | AVERAGE FIT60/100 · model-est. |
| 15 | VGK | +0.34 | 77 | 48 | AVERAGE FIT60/100 · model-est. |