Have you ever considered that should the Lord not come for another 2000 years, and if many of the old manuscripts that were used by the KJV translators, and most of the ones used for the CT were destroyed, that our offspring could be having this discussion too:

They might say, seeing that the language of 2009 is so antiquated and most people no longer understand it well, we must make a new translation.

Well the KJV is the only complete manuscript we have been able to find, we have a mostly complete copy of one but it was only used for a few years then abandoned by the church called the NASB and it was based on an earlier ASV that we can't find any copies of. There are parts of a version called ESV and RSV both with limited usage, but more recent than the KJV.
And one called NIV but clearly a paraphrase attempt to make it easy for less well educated people to read, not a real translation.

So in light of what manuscripts we have to work with, we feel it best to go with the one we have the most complete copy of
and fill in the missing verses from a compilation of the best of our other manuscripts.

Would this not make sense?
Would we say they do not have a real reliable word of God Bible were they to make a year 4009 translation this way?

Thus, though I would never say it is the only way, or you should do it, to me it seems the TR would be the best for us to use. I would not go so far to say there was a new canon made with the KJV translation, rather the largest complete manuscripts, saved in reliable sensible places, that had agreement with each other were used; then where something may have been missing in a few small spots we use the frankenstein method, rather than for the entire work.

Now if we agreed on this method, then perhaps scholars could go to work improving a better translation from the TR if they feel the KJV or NKJV lack something in translation.

I just can't stand the frankenstein concept which basically, or at least potentially in concept, is still not a closed canon.

__________________
DonP