Speculation: Offseason Thread XVII: Trade a spade for a jade

[TheTakedown]

Or maybe some of us just don't want to invest $50M and 7 years in a guy whose value will only depreciate.

i mean, they all depreciate at that age--we don't have any other avenues of getting players that are still trending up

 

[Gardner McKay]

Or maybe some of us just don't want to invest $50M and 7 years in a guy whose value will only depreciate.

In today's NHL you don't really have an option. Your best bet is to sign the player to a long term deal and hope that for the first 4 years or so of the 7 that they maintain the level of play.

 

[silverfish]

I wouldn't mind giving it to a player like Yandle, since that type of defenseman is more durable. Shattenkirk focuses more on defense, gets more defensive zone starts and that takes its toll after all these years. Do we really want to go through this again? People were celebrating in the streets after the Staal signing. Now, 1 year later, nobody likes it.

Shattenkirk is nothing like Staal or Girardi.

Think most of us are potentially being blinded by two terrible contracts. Good players should still be signed to long-term deals if it benefits the team.

In today's NHL you don't really have an option. Your best bet is to sign the player to a long term deal and hope that for the first 4 years or so of the 7 that they maintain the level of play.

This. Unless you're willing to gamble on "moneypuck" moves. This board isn't really that open to those moves yet though.

 

[Glen Sathers Cigar]

Current status of HFNYR:

No contracts that take players over the age of 32

Girardi and Staal seem to have everyone thinking ALL players decline like they did and ALL contracts turn out as albatrosses.

Shattenkirk for 7x7 is debatable, but he's very likely to perform better to his deal than either of those did. I'd give him Yandle's deal, no doubt. RHD, great on PP, legitimate 1st pairing guy, puck mover. He's really a perfect fit.

 

[TheTakedown]

If Staal bounces back to his age 27 form this year, then we really only have one bad contract--just about every team has one bad contract--the contract equivalent to Girardi should be something like Klein, meaning we're overpaying by about $2.5M for Girardi.

Move Girardi at 50% retained, move any combo of Nash, Klein, and Staal for primarily futures and a top 4 RHD.

That's really not that hard to get out of. Assuming a $1M/year defender can take the 3rd pair RHD minutes, and all the cap space acquired from moving Staal and Nash primarily, the $2.75M penalty from trading Girardi for 3 years really isn't that terrible

 

[Gardner McKay]

Shattenkirk is nothing like Staal or Girardi.

Think most of us are potentially being blinded by two terrible contracts. Good players should still be signed to long-term deals if it benefits the team.



This. Unless you're willing to gamble on "moneypuck" moves. This board isn't really that open to those moves yet though.

I don't think it is the board not being open to those moves. I think it is more of you maybe going a little too far on moneypuck type moves. I am all for them but there has to be a balance.

 

[silverfish]

I don't think it is the board not being open to those moves. I think it is more of you maybe going a little too far on moneypuck type moves. I am all for them but there has to be a balance.

Not exactly sure what I do that constitutes "going too far" on moneypuck moves.

Haven't posted a trade proposal or a who I think we should sign in like a week, even though I've got the shakes

Let's keep talking about how Dallas will trade Nichushkin or Honka for Staal, though.

 

[Trxjw]

This logic can be applied to any player that hits UFA at age 27. Not many players improve after that.

Well that makes sense because I'm not interested in filling out the roster with overpriced UFA's again.

i mean, they all depreciate at that age--we don't have any other avenues of getting players that are still trending up

No? How'd we get Zibanejad?

In today's NHL you don't really have an option. Your best bet is to sign the player to a long term deal and hope that for the first 4 years or so of the 7 that they maintain the level of play.

There's always another option. The Rangers just weren't patient enough to find it. I'm happy with the direction Gorton is going, and thankfully that appears to be to the edges of the free agent pool instead of diving into the middle of it.

 

[Beer League Sniper]

When did long contracts start becoming a "thing"? Seems to me that offering a premier free agent anything less than 5 years is a non-starter in today's NHL.

NHL contracts have been moving towards this since the lockout. A max contract in the NHL is 20% of the cap. Teams can't afford to pay a single player that much and still fill out a semi-competent roster, regardless of how good that one player is. So, they tack on more years knowing the risk of injury or decline due to age. You can always throw the player on IR or buy them out and reduce the cap hit.

Sidney Crosby, the best player in the world, makes $8.7M per year. When he signed that contract before the 2013-2014 season, the max contract was $12.86M. He only got about 2/3rds of the max, and he was the best player in a generation. He got 12 years, though, at least a handful of which he'll probably never play. But he can be put on IR and PIT will benefit from having him in his prime at a bargain.

At the end of the day, it's all about the teams circumventing the very cap they fought so hard to enact. It's kind of funny.

 

[Ghost of jas]

I don't like the idea of Shattenkirk at anything more than 6 years or over $6.5 million per. However, I will admit that I expect him to become a Ranger in the near future. And the gnashing of teeth of what that will entail will be deafening I suspect. There are potentially better options that will require more heavy lifting. But acquiring Shattenkirk and putting him in the top 4 is an immediate upgrade on D. And, while trading for him will costs assets, it will eliminate competition in signing him on the free agency market.

 

[TheTakedown]

No? How'd we get Zibanejad?

Oh yes, I forgot, rip off trades happen every single day.

Ottawa is fooling themselves into contending, when in reality they are a bubble team. On top of that, they're probably one of the most internal-budget driven teams, and brassard's front loaded contract is important to them.

 

[Mac n Gs]

I'm wary of giving out another big contract until we get rid of the at least one, or hopefully both, of the Staal and Girardi contracts. I like the young core they've assembled so far, and hopefully Gorton can add another young piece to the defense

 

[Amazing Kreiderman]

Oh yes, I forgot, rip off trades happen every single day.

Ottawa is fooling themselves into contending, when in reality they are a bubble team. On top of that, they're probably one of the most internal-budget driven teams, and brassard's front loaded contract is important to them.

This is also the exact same reason why I don't see Nash being traded to Anaheim. Budget teams can't really take on back-loaded contracts of this magnitude.

 

[TheTakedown]

This is also the exact same reason why I don't see Nash being traded to Anaheim. Budget teams can't really take on back-loaded contracts of this magnitude.

at 50% I could see it, but not without retention.

where else does Nash fit though? SJS? Anaheim needs to make the most of the next 2 years which is why Nash fits them.

 

[Trxjw]

Oh yes, I forgot, rip off trades happen every single day.

Ottawa is fooling themselves into contending, when in reality they are a bubble team. On top of that, they're probably one of the most internal-budget driven teams, and brassard's front loaded contract is important to them.

So what you're saying is that there are avenues for getting young players on the way up?

 

[Amazing Kreiderman]

at 50% I could see it, but not without retention.

where else does Nash fit though? SJS? Anaheim needs to make the most of the next 2 years which is why Nash fits them.

At 50% retained, I expect the return to be at least a 1st + Theodore + Manson + Silfverberg. Nash at 3.9m for 2 seasons is better value than Kane at 10.5m

 

[RangerBoy]

I don't like the idea of Shattenkirk at anything more than 6 years or over $6.5 million per. However, I will admit that I expect him to become a Ranger in the near future. And the gnashing of teeth of what that will entail will be deafening I suspect. There are potentially better options that will require more heavy lifting. But acquiring Shattenkirk and putting him in the top 4 is an immediate upgrade on D. And, while trading for him will costs assets, it will eliminate competition in signing him on the free agency market.

Based on what? The Rangers have to satisfy the Blues asking price and all satisfy Shattenkirk.

 

[Gardner McKay]

Not exactly sure what I do that constitutes "going too far" on moneypuck moves.

Haven't posted a trade proposal or a who I think we should sign in like a week, even though I've got the shakes

Let's keep talking about how Dallas will trade Nichushkin or Honka for Staal, though.

I am on board with money puck as part of an overall strategy for building this team However, for a while those money puck moves are all I can remember you talking about. What do you do after that? After you sign Nakladal?

As far as the bold goes..

Honka for Staal? That wouldn't happen. Staal w/ retention + Fast for Nuke + Hemsky or something isn't totally out of the equation IMO.

Well that makes sense because I'm not interested in filling out the roster with overpriced UFA's again.



No? How'd we get Zibanejad?



There's always another option. The Rangers just weren't patient enough to find it. I'm happy with the direction Gorton is going, and thankfully that appears to be to the edges of the free agent pool instead of diving into the middle of it.

I agree. Although I am alright with a splash once in a while to supplement the team, just not as a main way to acquire talent.

 

[silverfish]

What do you do after that? After you sign Nakladal?

Win the next five Stanley Cups.

 

[Irishguy42]

Win the next five Stanley Cups.

With Nakladal winning the Conn Smythe each time?

 

[wafflepadsave]

Dan Girardi is skating with the Buffalo Sabres players today. They have already started their informal skates.

That's a positive sign!

 

[Trxjw]

I agree. Although I am alright with a splash once in a while to supplement the team, just not as a main way to acquire talent.

And that's the way it should be, IMO. I'm not completely against free agents, but I think there's something to be said for exploring all avenues and using that big checkbook as a last resort. The big time UFA's seem to have a short shelf-life at MSG, so I can't see the point in chasing after more of them to fill major holes. Can't keep relying on compliance buyouts to save us from bad decisions.

 

[silverfish]

With Nakladal winning the Conn Smythe each time?

Figured this went without saying.

 

[Gardner McKay]

And that's the way it should be, IMO. I'm not completely against free agents, but I think there's something to be said for exploring all avenues and using that big checkbook as a last resort. The big time UFA's seem to have a short shelf-life at MSG, so I can't see the point in chasing after more of them to fill major holes. Can't keep relying on compliance buyouts to save us from bad decisions.

We had no choice to buy out Richards after the rules were retroactively changed to include the recapture penalty. To this day that still pisses me off. If you take that out, it would just be Drury and Way Deadend as CBO's? Still not good by any means.

At 50% retained, I expect the return to be at least a 1st + Theodore + Manson + Silfverberg. Nash at 3.9m for 2 seasons is better value than Kane at 10.5m

Kane at 50% would command a package like that (probably a hell of a lot more). Nash? In the BEST case scenario you get 1st + one of those players.

 

[Irishguy42]

At 50% retained, I expect the return to be at least a 1st + Theodore + Manson + Silfverberg. Nash at 3.9m for 2 seasons is better value than Kane at 10.5m

I want to have what you're having, because Nash @50% doesn't get you that much.