Rumor: Namestnikov Gaining Some Interest

[GeorgeKaplan]

Namestnikov is the Chris Higgins of that trade

 

[Blue Blooded]

I could see the rangers using Vlad and spooner to try to land a home run prospect who is busting...like puljujarvi for example. Why take a 3rd when you can swing for the fences. That's probably what I'd do. Like Kyle turris for example....didn't the yotes trade him for like nothing

Wasn't Turris traded due to contract holdouts though

He had held out, but played six games for the Yotes before getting traded having signed a bridge deal. He returned a David Rundblad just coming off a 50P/55GP SHL campaign (the shine hadn't come off yet) and a 2nd, which was considered quite a haul. Rundblad was at the time considered one of the very best defenceman prospects in the league and Sens fans weren't particularly salty about trading the Tarasenko pick straight up for him at the time.

 

[Tawnos]

He had held out, but played six games for the Yotes before getting traded having signed a bridge deal. He returned a David Rundblad just coming off a 50P/55GP SHL campaign (the shine hadn't come off yet) and a 2nd, which was considered quite a haul. Rundblad was at the time considered one of the very best defenceman prospects in the league and Sens fans weren't particularly salty about trading the Tarasenko pick straight up for him at the time.

That Turris situation is why people figured Trouba was on the move despite having signed his deal. Teams generally don't want to hold onto players they figure aren't sticking around anyway.

 

[GeorgeKaplan]

That Turris situation is why people figured Trouba was on the move despite having signed his deal. Teams generally don't want to hold onto players they figure aren't sticking around anyway.

I think Chevy is mostly trying to make a precedent that wanting out of Winnipeg isn’t going to get you out of Winnipeg until you’re a UFA, but I do agree and that’s why all this Nylander trade stuff isn’t going to go away even when he’s signed

 

[Ola]

But if we consider McDonagh's contract, we did get good value. Tampa only had cost certainty for two playoff runs - basically he was a glorified rental. Also, too many people put an emphasis on what a player has historically done and ignore what the current situation is and what the likely prognosis of the near future looks like. McDonagh did great things for us years ago. Why would Tampa pay us for what McDonagh did for us way back when - they're only concerned with what McDonagh can likely do in the immediate future.

We already sequestered the best years out of McDonagh. He was a great player around 2011-12 and a couple of seasons after that. However, he clearly took a nose dive and never came back to his earlier form. He's a battle worn player that's good, but not great. That's who he is now. Thus, we got good pieces, not great ones in exchange for a defenseman that's a good player, not great.

The only way we could've gotten a top tier prospect would've been if we still had the 2012 Ryan McDonagh with term on his contract. That archetype would yield an elite prospect. A downtrending McDonagh that's almost 30 years old with an upcoming pay raise for several years, that also has no cost certainty, does not yield an elite prospect, let alone one that's already a roster player - like a Sergachev or Point.

But you are comparing it solely from our perspective. From our perspective it would have been better to trade Rick Nash for a 2nd round pick in December when he struggled the most — rather than to keep him. Hey that 3rd round pick could have been great.

With that said — Gorton got a lot more at the deadline, in which was a good trade. It would have been a bad trade to only get a 2nd. Right?

People thought all those great Ds would hit the market. Nobody did. Expecting McD and Miller to jointly or separately have little value this summer is ridiculous. I love Howden and think Hajak has a good shot. If we trade McD and Miller this summer I have a hard time to not see us getting several good assets too.

Namestnikov for 95% of the time when I have seen him have done absolutely nothing for me. Namestnikov by all accounts was a big part of that trade. Right?

I don’t agree that it was a good trade, JMHO.

 

[Tawnos]

But you are comparing it solely from our perspective. From our perspective it would have been better to trade Rick Nash for a 2nd round pick in December when he struggled the most — rather than to keep him. Hey that 3rd round pick could have been great.

With that said — Gorton got a lot more at the deadline, in which was a good trade. It would have been a bad trade to only get a 2nd. Right?

People thought all those great Ds would hit the market. Nobody did. Expecting McD and Miller to jointly or separately have little value this summer is ridiculous. I love Howden and think Hajak has a good shot. If we trade McD and Miller this summer I have a hard time to not see us getting several good assets too.

Namestnikov for 95% of the time when I have seen him have done absolutely nothing for me. Namestnikov by all accounts was a big part of that trade. Right?

I don’t agree that it was a good trade, JMHO.

Wrong.

 

[CasusBelli]

Wrong.

Even then, I would have taken a fifth rounder instead of him, but I bet Tampa wasn't willing to give up that much.

 

[Tawnos]

Even then, I would have taken a fifth rounder instead of him, but I bet Tampa wasn't willing to give up that much.

I mean, I wouldn't. I'm just saying, in the way that the negotiations reportedly went, I wouldn't consider him a big part of the deal.

Let's lay out some crazy number ratings on this. This is a speculative offer from Yzerman.

McDonagh: 12
for
Howden: 5
1st Round Pick: 3
Conditional 1st Round Pick: 2
Cernak (B defensman prospect): 2
(12 total)

But Gorton doesn't want Cernak, he wants Hajek, who is a 5 like Howden, bringing the Tampa offer to 15. Yzerman asks about Miller, who is an extra 6 bringing the Rangers total to 18. So Yzerman offers Namestnikov, who is a 3 and it's made whole.

So in my opinion, Namestnikov had about the same value as a first.

 

[nyr2k2]

I mean, I wouldn't. I'm just saying, in the way that the negotiations reportedly went, I wouldn't consider him a big part of the deal.

Let's lay out some crazy number ratings on this. This is a speculative offer from Yzerman.

McDonagh: 12
for
Howden: 5
1st Round Pick: 3
Conditional 1st Round Pick: 2
Cernak (B defensman prospect): 2
(12 total)

But Gorton doesn't want Cernak, he wants Hajek, who is a 5 like Howden, bringing the Tampa offer to 15. Yzerman asks about Miller, who is an extra 6 bringing the Rangers total to 18. So Yzerman offers Namestnikov, who is a 3 and it's made whole.

So in my opinion, Namestnikov had about the same value as a first.

I understand and agree with the general process that you've laid out, here, but I have a hard time accepting that Miller (who I really wasn't a fan of) is only a 6 while Hajek and Howden would come in at a 5. With these numbers I'd have JT at like a 7 or 8. I've been a staunch defender of this trade, and I would certainly do it over again, but I don't think many trades work out exactly even from a value standpoint. And, I think Tampa got a bit better value than we did--even if it's only a 20-18 or whatever it comes out as.

Again, though, I agree with your premise here. I wrote more or less the same in narrative form earlier--it could have been McDonagh for Howden, Stephens and the picks, and then we wanted to swap Stephens for Hajek, which made them ask for Miller, so we then asked for Namestnikov to more or less balance it out. So, same principle.

 

[CasusBelli]

I mean, I wouldn't. I'm just saying, in the way that the negotiations reportedly went, I wouldn't consider him a big part of the deal.

Let's lay out some crazy number ratings on this. This is a speculative offer from Yzerman.

McDonagh: 12
for
Howden: 5
1st Round Pick: 3
Conditional 1st Round Pick: 2
Cernak (B defensman prospect): 2
(12 total)

But Gorton doesn't want Cernak, he wants Hajek, who is a 5 like Howden, bringing the Tampa offer to 15. Yzerman asks about Miller, who is an extra 6 bringing the Rangers total to 18. So Yzerman offers Namestnikov, who is a 3 and it's made whole.

So in my opinion, Namestnikov had about the same value as a first.

I really like your equilibrium approach -- but I do have an observation. If the first round pick is worth 3, and we naively assume that each playoff team has an equal chance of winning the Cup, the value of the conditional first-round selection should be:

E[conditional 1st] = P(event of conditional) * V(1st round pick) = (1/16) * (3) < 1

Or, simply, that the conditional pick is worthless. That in turn implies that Namestnikov has a value of 5, which (given the proposed scale) matches that of the prospects. Whether that is the case is debatable*, but I just wanted to weigh in on the mathematics.

* I don't believe I am qualified to defend one side over the other; there are too many uncertain uncertainties (including what that pick is / will be worth, how the received prospects develop, whether we used the pick as intended, etc.). Perhaps you, or other posters who track the hockey world more closely than I do, could shed some light on this -- qualitatively.

 

[Don Chytil]

I really like your equilibrium approach -- but I do have an observation. If the first round pick is worth 3, and we naively assume that each playoff team has an equal chance of winning the Cup, the value of the conditional first-round selection should be:

E[conditional 1st] = P(event of conditional) * V(1st round pick) = (1/16) * (3) < 1

Or, simply, that the conditional pick is worthless. That in turn implies that Namestnikov has a value of 5, which (given the proposed scale) matches that of the prospects. Whether that is the case is debatable*, but I just wanted to weigh in on the mathematics.

* I don't believe I am qualified to defend one side over the other; there are too many uncertain uncertainties (including what that pick is / will be worth, how the received prospects develop, whether we used the pick as intended, etc.). Perhaps you, or other posters who track the hockey world more closely than I do, could shed some light on this -- qualitatively.

Occupation checks out

 

[CasusBelli]

Occupation checks out

 

[bobbop]

He had held out, but played six games for the Yotes before getting traded having signed a bridge deal. He returned a David Rundblad just coming off a 50P/55GP SHL campaign (the shine hadn't come off yet) and a 2nd, which was considered quite a haul. Rundblad was at the time considered one of the very best defenceman prospects in the league and Sens fans weren't particularly salty about trading the Tarasenko pick straight up for him at the time.

Maloney didn't want to trade Turris. Turris signed a contract with an agreement that he would be moved. Maloney took the best offer on the table. The shine was definitely fading on Rundblad and Maloney took the best offer he could get. The only thing that saved the deal for the Coyotes is that they flipped the 2nd for Vermette, who gave them several years of good service.

 

[Barnaby]

But you are comparing it solely from our perspective. From our perspective it would have been better to trade Rick Nash for a 2nd round pick in December when he struggled the most — rather than to keep him. Hey that 3rd round pick could have been great.

With that said — Gorton got a lot more at the deadline, in which was a good trade. It would have been a bad trade to only get a 2nd. Right?

People thought all those great Ds would hit the market. Nobody did. Expecting McD and Miller to jointly or separately have little value this summer is ridiculous. I love Howden and think Hajak has a good shot. If we trade McD and Miller this summer I have a hard time to not see us getting several good assets too.

Namestnikov for 95% of the time when I have seen him have done absolutely nothing for me. Namestnikov by all accounts was a big part of that trade. Right?

I don’t agree that it was a good trade, JMHO.

The Senators waited until the summer to see how things played out with EK, and I think the Rangers received at worst, an equivalent package. I think the Rangers did better.

A 28 year old future hall of fame defenseman is >>> to Miller/Mcdonagh.

If the Rangers couldn't get an offer they liked now or at the deadline, then they would have been faced with 3 lousy scenarios. Sell low. Resign to massive deal. Lose for nothing.

As far as summer trading went. I don't think anyone went for high end prospects or young players. I wouldn't assume the Rangers could have worked that out.

I'm sure they'd have listened on a Hayes, Zucc, or Spooner, and they are all still here.

 

[JHS]

Why? There's Hajek, the cond. 1st rounder next year and the pick that landed us Lundkvist. It's not just Howden. And we gave up McDonagh, who is going to be too old when we are through this rebuild anyway.

I totally get that. I thought the trade was a good one at the time but we have to see how these guys develop. My point was really that Howden and Vlad are the only really tangible proof of the quality of that trade and Vlad seems like a lost cause at this point.

 

[Riche16]

Can we close this thread now? No one wants him at 2 yrs

 

[Tawnos]

I understand and agree with the general process that you've laid out, here, but I have a hard time accepting that Miller (who I really wasn't a fan of) is only a 6 while Hajek and Howden would come in at a 5. With these numbers I'd have JT at like a 7 or 8. I've been a staunch defender of this trade, and I would certainly do it over again, but I don't think many trades work out exactly even from a value standpoint. And, I think Tampa got a bit better value than we did--even if it's only a 20-18 or whatever it comes out as.

Again, though, I agree with your premise here. I wrote more or less the same in narrative form earlier--it could have been McDonagh for Howden, Stephens and the picks, and then we wanted to swap Stephens for Hajek, which made them ask for Miller, so we then asked for Namestnikov to more or less balance it out. So, same principle.

I think you have to consider that the Rangers, in the context of this trade, were really looking to dump Miller, between not wanting him around the team anymore and not wanting to sign him to a long-term, expensive contract. That's why I had him rated so low. In many ways, to Gorton's thinking, Hajek and Howden individually had nearly equal value when looking at the broad picture.

I really like your equilibrium approach -- but I do have an observation. If the first round pick is worth 3, and we naively assume that each playoff team has an equal chance of winning the Cup, the value of the conditional first-round selection should be:

E[conditional 1st] = P(event of conditional) * V(1st round pick) = (1/16) * (3) < 1

Or, simply, that the conditional pick is worthless. That in turn implies that Namestnikov has a value of 5, which (given the proposed scale) matches that of the prospects. Whether that is the case is debatable*, but I just wanted to weigh in on the mathematics.

* I don't believe I am qualified to defend one side over the other; there are too many uncertain uncertainties (including what that pick is / will be worth, how the received prospects develop, whether we used the pick as intended, etc.). Perhaps you, or other posters who track the hockey world more closely than I do, could shed some light on this -- qualitatively.

Except that at minimum, the conditional pick will be a 2nd. The value I placed on it is more based on what it is as a 2nd rounder.

 

[nyr2k2]

I think you have to consider that the Rangers, in the context of this trade, were really looking to dump Miller, between not wanting him around the team anymore and not wanting to sign him to a long-term, expensive contract. That's why I had him rated so low. In many ways, to Gorton's thinking, Hajek and Howden individually had nearly equal value when looking at the broad picture.



Except that at minimum, the conditional pick will be a 2nd. The value I placed on it is more based on what it is as a 2nd rounder.

The report on how this trade went down was that Miller was included because we wanted Hajek and that's what Tampa wanted in return, IIRC. Someone posted it somewhere in this thread.

Either way, just because we didn't want Miller anymore doesn't mean that Gorton would just trade him for pennies on the dollar. I mean if the guy is an "8", he's an 8 whether we want to move him or not. Unless everyone in the league knew we were desperate to move him and it killed his value or something, which we've never heard or had reason to believe.

I hear what you're saying, it's just hard for me to believe Gorton valued Miller basically the same as a B+ prospect, even if he wasn't in our future plans.

 

[Tawnos]

The report on how this trade went down was that Miller was included because we wanted Hajek and that's what Tampa wanted in return, IIRC. Someone posted it somewhere in this thread.

Either way, just because we didn't want Miller anymore doesn't mean that Gorton would just trade him for pennies on the dollar. I mean if the guy is an "8", he's an 8 whether we want to move him or not. Unless everyone in the league knew we were desperate to move him and it killed his value or something, which we've never heard or had reason to believe.

I hear what you're saying, it's just hard for me to believe Gorton valued Miller basically the same as a B+ prospect, even if he wasn't in our future plans.

Well, Yzerman still had to include Namestnikov to make it happen. In my mind, in a vacuum a 6 is a 2nd/3rd tweener forward, and Hajek and Howden were both being treated as A/A- prospects. Miller is more than that, but when you ding him for contract status and attitude issues, that's where he ends up. But my point is that, even if you do take a value hit on it, there's nothing wrong with leveraging a player you don't really want to get a player you do really want.

 

[nyr2k2]

Well, Yzerman still had to include Namestnikov to make it happen. In my mind, in a vacuum a 6 is a 2nd/3rd tweener forward, and Hajek and Howden were both being treated as A/A- prospects. Miller is more than that, but when you ding him for contract status and attitude issues, that's where he ends up. But my point is that, even if you do take a value hit on it, there's nothing wrong with leveraging a player you don't really want to get a player you do really want.

https://nypost.com/2018/04/16/the-rangers-other-trade-chip-found-hockey-heaven/

That's the Brooks piece. He explains it actually exactly as I mentioned earlier. We wanted Hajek which led to the request for Miller and subsequent inclusion of Namestnikov. Which essentially means that in the deal, both sides seemed to value Miller at Hajek and Namestnikov, which by your valuations makes Miller an 8 in terms of value (Hajek's 5 and Namestnikov's 3), coincidentally what I said I would think Miller would be worth if Howden and Hajek were 5s.

Anyway, we've played that game enough. I agree that you should leverage guys you don't want for guys you do, but you shouldn't accept substandard value in the process. Unless a guy is so toxic you just have to get rid of him, you still need to at least attempt to get market value for him. You shouldn't downgrade a guy in your own valuations just because you don't like him anymore. The other teams should be doing the downgrading and devaluation.

 

[Tawnos]

https://nypost.com/2018/04/16/the-rangers-other-trade-chip-found-hockey-heaven/

That's the Brooks piece. He explains it actually exactly as I mentioned earlier. We wanted Hajek which led to the request for Miller and subsequent inclusion of Namestnikov. Which essentially means that in the deal, both sides seemed to value Miller at Hajek and Namestnikov, which by your valuations makes Miller an 8 in terms of value (Hajek's 5 and Namestnikov's 3), coincidentally what I said I would think Miller would be worth if Howden and Hajek were 5s.

Anyway, we've played that game enough. I agree that you should leverage guys you don't want for guys you do, but you shouldn't accept substandard value in the process. Unless a guy is so toxic you just have to get rid of him, you still need to at least attempt to get market value for him. You shouldn't downgrade a guy in your own valuations just because you don't like him anymore. The other teams should be doing the downgrading and devaluation.

You’re right that it doesn’t matter (even though there’s an important part of this that you’re leaving out), especially since we’re overall in agreement.

Sometimes I think that talk of maximizing value ends up being a case of perfect being an enemy of good.

 

[Larrybiv]

Got 2 pts vs Kings. Trade high! Trade high!

 

[Kovalev27]

Namestnikov Hayes Zucc McQuaid.

All should be moved as soon as possible.

Don’t wait. Make the moves. We’ve still got veterans around after they’re gone. We’re the worst team in Hockey. Nothing worse is going to happen if we play some kids bigger mins.

 

[Ghost of jas]

Namestnikov Hayes Zucc McQuaid.

All should be moved as soon as possible.

Don’t wait. Make the moves. We’ve still got veterans around after they’re gone. We’re the worst team in Hockey. Nothing worse is going to happen if we play some kids bigger mins.

They should be moved when Gorton is approached with the right deal.

 

[Amazing Kreiderman]

Namestnikov Hayes Zucc McQuaid.

All should be moved as soon as possible.

Don’t wait. Make the moves. We’ve still got veterans around after they’re gone. We’re the worst team in Hockey. Nothing worse is going to happen if we play some kids bigger mins.

Yeah, let's move them as soon as possible so we can all complain and call Gorton a shit GM for not accepting the right return