Speculation: Rangers cap crunch

[Pavel Buchnevich]

Can people stop saying that Namestnikov and Strome would cost picks/prospects/retaining to move?

Vesey, a worse player than both, just went for a third round pick. To think that players on one year deals at less than 4M and productive third liners can’t fetch even a 7th rounder in three years is ridiculous.

If they can’t, it’s purely because the GM waited too long to trade them and there isn’t any team at the moment that can use players like that, but in isolation, they absolutely do not have negative value, nor would we need to retain. That has never been the market for players of this caliber.

 

[bernmeister]

I could see
Skjei [AV knows, I think likes him] + Deangelo [grew up a Flyers fan] of interest to Philly. Reason: nowhere close to Prov. and may want to deal Ghost.

I could also see a big deal alternatively with those 2 and others to Detroit.

---------

Beleskey
Smith at half
Staal at half
Lias Andersson elc

to Sens for SJ 2020 1st [Ott controlled]

Smith is retained again and thus at like 1.08+ and flipped to Vegas for lifeless Holden, 2.2 expiring, and inducement ________

Rangers get out from under cap, and continue to pare down to a min core.

If Staal uses NMC and refuses, then we substitute 1 yr of Namest at 4 instead.

Sens get better value of a top 10 pick vs a very late projected pick.

Rangers effectively trade down value of a first to get a late 1st while achieving objective of salary slash.

 

[ElLeetch]

Shattenkirk and Names have negative value, Kreider tho, MTL would be interested!

How is Names value 'negative'? He has one year left on a deal paying him the same $ that other player have signed for *just this offseason* for the same production level.

 

[justafan22]

Can people stop saying that Namestnikov and Strome would cost picks/prospects/retaining to move?

Vesey, a worse player than both, just went for a third round pick. To think that players on one year deals at less than 4M and productive third liners can’t fetch even a 7th rounder in three years is ridiculous.

If they can’t, it’s purely because the GM waited too long to trade them and there isn’t any team at the moment that can use players like that, but in isolation, they absolutely do not have negative value, nor would we need to retain. That has never been the market for players of this caliber.

Shattenkirk 100% would cost retaining salary.

 

[Shootertooter]

I could see
Skjei [AV knows, I think likes him] + Deangelo [grew up a Flyers fan] of interest to Philly. Reason: nowhere close to Prov. and may want to deal Ghost.

I could also see a big deal alternatively with those 2 and others to Detroit.

---------

Beleskey
Smith at half
Staal at half
Lias Andersson elc

to Sens for SJ 2020 1st [Ott controlled]

Smith is retained again and thus at like 1.08+ and flipped to Vegas for lifeless Holden, 2.2 expiring, and inducement ________

Rangers get out from under cap, and continue to pare down to a min core.

If Staal uses NMC and refuses, then we substitute 1 yr of Namest at 4 instead.

Sens get better value of a top 10 pick vs a very late projected pick.

Rangers effectively trade down value of a first to get a late 1st while achieving objective of salary slash.

This is simply terrible for Ott.
In what world do 3 significant cap dumps and Andersson return a 1st? We would be lucky to get a 6th for that garbage. And there is no chance for that either. Come on, no team makes moves this stupid, to this magnitude.

Staal is not getting traded ever. He should get bought out.
Belesky and Smith to Hartford.......Names might be able to get moved.......or waive him.
I think we are keeping Strome. Trade Kreider at the deadline or don't, but I think resigning him for 5 yrs will be a mistake.

 

[Nucks N Canes]

I could see
Skjei [AV knows, I think likes him] + Deangelo [grew up a Flyers fan] of interest to Philly. Reason: nowhere close to Prov. and may want to deal Ghost.

I could also see a big deal alternatively with those 2 and others to Detroit.

---------

Beleskey
Smith at half
Staal at half
Lias Andersson elc

to Sens for SJ 2020 1st [Ott controlled]

Smith is retained again and thus at like 1.08+ and flipped to Vegas for lifeless Holden, 2.2 expiring, and inducement ________

Rangers get out from under cap, and continue to pare down to a min core.

If Staal uses NMC and refuses, then we substitute 1 yr of Namest at 4 instead.

Sens get better value of a top 10 pick vs a very late projected pick.

Rangers effectively trade down value of a first to get a late 1st while achieving objective of salary slash.

Man is this awful for Ottawa, what other actual assets are you giving them? How many firsts?

 

[Vitto79]

Kreider for Kaut and a protected 1st from the Avs?

 

[Nucks N Canes]

A second round pick and a b prospect

So a first round pick +, if marleau cost a first shattenkirk will cost more.

 

[Dijock94]

So a first round pick +, if marleau cost a first shattenkirk will cost more.

Yea two first round picks and kakko

 

[QJL]

How is Names value 'negative'? He has one year left on a deal paying him the same $ that other player have signed for *just this offseason* for the same production level.

There isn’t very little cap space available in the league right now. There are only a handful of teams even capable and with the need to add Namestnikov. If his value was as positive, one would think a trade would have happened already. I’m hopeful, but skeptical.

 

[GirardSpinorama]

Kreider for Kaut and a protected 1st from the Avs?

Way too much for a upcoming UFA. I honestly think we're just gonna roll with what we have. We need to pay Landeskog/Girard soon, so we will need a good prospect pool.

 

[Richard88]

Kreider for Kaut and a protected 1st from the Avs?

Someone earlier suggested Kaut + 3rd for Kreider and several Rangers fans liked it. Needless to say Kaut AND a 1st would be a significant overpayment by Colorado.

 

[Rich Nixon]

I love watching the “this is fine” meme play out in real time.

So, you have no real NHL depth and are over the cap with two solid RFAs to sign.

“Well, like a third of our roster have expiring contracts in the next two years, it’ll be fine. We just need to get rid of one of the few good veteran players and bridge the good RFAs until then.”

Well, those are some bad contracts, but you do gotta replace those players. Plus, the bridge deal seems to be dying. Plus, if you manage to get said players onto bridge deals, it’s only because they’ll be expecting substantial paydays in two years, around the same time you’ll need to be replacing a third of the roster.

“We have a lot of prospects coming up.”

That’s fair, it is a really good pool, but you need to hit on more than half of them to end up with a really good team. Plus, rinse and repeat with bridges/increasingly insane RFA deals.

It just doesn’t seem well laid out. Like, certainly, there’s a lot of young talent to look forward to, but it isn’t as simple as “BOOM all the prospects are on the roster we a contender now!” They gotta take time to develop and gel and season up, and they won’t be two years, it’ll be four or five. But kicking the can on their contracts only means you’ll have a whole lot of huge asks hitting all at once, or you’ll just be paying Panarin $55 million before the window had even opened.

I respect the audacity and it’s good to bet on your team and your youth, but I find it a bit confusing.

 

[Riche16]

The way they are going about business, they will have.

Look up the contracts and cap hit for:

Staal
Smith
Shattenkirk
Namestnikov
Girardi's (dead cap)
and Hank

Doesn't take much to reassess your take @ that point

 

[Djp]

Any bonuses expenditures over the cap are pushed to the next season.

That 7.5% is the cushion allowed for the bonuses earned during a season.

Any part of that cushion used is deferred to the next season.

Bonuses earned from ELC count against that 7.5%.

That cushion is not pushed to the next season.

Go and read the CBA.

 

[flying v 604]

It cost a 1st to move Marleau, yet the Lightning somehow got paid a 1st to move Miller who had triple the amount of term.

Are you comparing Miller to Marneu? Miller was not a cap dump, and is absolutely worth a 1st.

 

[bigdog16]

Kreider for Kaut and a protected 1st from the Avs?

This was discussed earlier. The added 1st is too much from Avs point of view. I would certainly do Kreider for Kaut + a mid round pick though.

 

[JT Kreider]

Well, those are some bad contracts, but you do gotta replace those players.

Imagine thinking that any NHL team will struggle to replace Staal, Smith and Shattenkirk. The former two are barely bottom pairing defenders at this point in time, and Fox and DeAngelo are primed to replace Shattenkirk's puck moving skills.

 

[Shootertooter]

Someone earlier suggested Kaut + 3rd for Kreider and several Rangers fans liked it. Needless to say Kaut AND a 1st would be a significant overpayment by Colorado.

So Kaut and a 2nd it is.

 

[Goulet17]

So Kaut and a 2nd it is.

Colorado does not currently have a 2nd in the 2020 draft.

 

[Richard88]

What do Rangers fans think Kreider will get on his next contract, in terms of AAV and term? Has there been any noise or leaks about it?

I was considering it with regards to what it would take for Colorado to to resign him after acquiring him (as discussed earlier in this thread), but it might as well be a general question regardless of who he resigns with.

For reference, here are some comparables for Kreider from the past two offseasons, sorted by term and then AAV:

• Skinner --------- age 27 ---- $9m x 8 years ----- expires at age 35
• Duchene ------- age 28 ---- $8m x 7 years ----- expires at age 36
• Hayes ----------- age 27 ---- $7.14 x 7 years ----- expires at age 34
• Lee -------------- age 28 ---- $7m x 7 years ----- expires at age 35
• E. Kane --------- age 26 ----- $7m x 7 years ----- expires at age 33
  
• Nelson ---------- age 27 ---- $6m x 6 years ----- expires at age 33
• Turris ------------ age 28 ---- $6m x 6 years ----- expires at age 34
  
• Van Riemsdyk - age 29 ---- $7m x 5 years ----- expires at age 34
  
• Zuccarello ------ age 31 ---- $6m x 5 years ----- expires at age 36
  
• Pacioretty ------ age 28 ---- $7m x 4 years ----- expires at age 32
• Pavelski -------- age 34 ----- $7m x 3 years ----- expires at age 37
• Stastny --------- age 32 --- $6.5m x 3 years ----- expires at age 35

Note that Kreider will be 29 next summer, and recently no forwards over age 28 have gotten more than 5 years term.

If I were to guess Kreider will probably come in somewhere between Turris and Van Riemsdyk's contracts. If he wants $7m he'll probably only get 5 years. If he wants that extra 6th year he'd probably be closer to $6m.

That said, he might find that the only teams offering the $7m x 5 years are less competitive teams who are willing to overpay slightly (like Minnesota with Zuccarello), rather than contenders.

Based on the list above I'd say that a good contract for him with Colorado would probably be around $6.5m / 5 years. $6m x 6 years wouldn't be bad either, but would ideally be heavily front-loaded and include no NTC/NMC so that he can be easily traded in the last 2 years if needed. Mackinnon's contract renewal happens in 2023 so it's important to have flexibility after the first 3 years of Kreider's contract.[/QUOTE]

 

[haveandare]

I love watching the “this is fine” meme play out in real time.

So, you have no real NHL depth and are over the cap with two solid RFAs to sign.

“Well, like a third of our roster have expiring contracts in the next two years, it’ll be fine. We just need to get rid of one of the few good veteran players and bridge the good RFAs until then.”

Well, those are some bad contracts, but you do gotta replace those players. Plus, the bridge deal seems to be dying. Plus, if you manage to get said players onto bridge deals, it’s only because they’ll be expecting substantial paydays in two years, around the same time you’ll need to be replacing a third of the roster.

“We have a lot of prospects coming up.”

That’s fair, it is a really good pool, but you need to hit on more than half of them to end up with a really good team. Plus, rinse and repeat with bridges/increasingly insane RFA deals.

It just doesn’t seem well laid out. Like, certainly, there’s a lot of young talent to look forward to, but it isn’t as simple as “BOOM all the prospects are on the roster we a contender now!” They gotta take time to develop and gel and season up, and they won’t be two years, it’ll be four or five. But kicking the can on their contracts only means you’ll have a whole lot of huge asks hitting all at once, or you’ll just be paying Panarin $55 million before the window had even opened.

I respect the audacity and it’s good to bet on your team and your youth, but I find it a bit confusing.

But, it is fine. People who are saying this know the team in pretty good detail. This comment doesn't show a very solid understanding of this roster at all.

The "good veterans players" they're looking to get rid of are essentially Namestnikov or one of those albatross d-contracts if at all possible. Namestnikov is"good"at best, not an impactful player in any way at all, and Staal, Smith and Shattenkirk are to all net minuses to varying extents.

The bad contracts that need to be replaced are literally third pairing d-men and Smith who alternates between a third pairing d-man, a fourth line wing and a healthy scratch. Those 3 guys make roughly $16M now. It is not hard to find two bottom pairing d-men and a healthy scratch / utility forward to replace these guys while saving the vast majority of that money.

The rest of this is stuff literally every team deals with. If your young players hit you need to pay them. Yes, that's not unique to NYR at all. It's never as simple as boom all our prospects worked out and now we're contenders - nobody who knows much about the league thinks that's what's going to happen.

 

[Rich Nixon]

Imagine thinking that any NHL team will struggle to replace Staal, Smith and Shattenkirk. The former two are barely bottom pairing defenders at this point in time, and Fox and DeAngelo are primed to replace Shattenkirk's puck moving skills.

What I am saying is, you need NHL players, and ideally much better ones than those guys if the team is to be better. Those will cost money. If it’s internal, sure, great, but the ascension of prospects alone does not a better team make: Check out the Flyers as a test case. All the blue-chip defenders in the world and it’s not a good defense yet, because it takes a while. Trouba, DeAngelo, Skjei and a bunch of ELCs? That’s not a top-end NHL defense. So it’s either a longer curve or you’re back in the position of having to go back out and buy something. In the meantime, you’ve just got a Panarin and a Trouba sitting on the books, and now you’re in a position of having to bridge younger guys to get to that open cap, which typically results in their contracts exploding at the end of the bridge and the process starting all over again.

It might work out just fine, there’s no way to tell. It just doesn’t make a lot of sense to me for a young team that probably needs 3-4 years to season into contention to create unnecessarily tight cap situations early on, because it just constantly pushes those issues down the road and allows them to rear up again when the team is threatening. The Leafs went out and did it much later in their rebuild process, and it’s still a colossal headache for them.

There’s a ton of promise there, but the way the RFA market has been going, if the promise is met early it’s mighty costly.

I guess it boils down to...is it worth it to spend $20 million on good stuff before you know if the team will be a complete and viable unit at any point? They bet on “Yes” and that’s fine, but there will be headaches to come either way.

 

[Vitto79]

This was discussed earlier. The added 1st is too much from Avs point of view. I would certainly do Kreider for Kaut + a mid round pick though.

I’m thinking if Kreider goes they shouid aim for a young kid like Kaut who’s not eligible for the expansion draft in a few yrs

 

[Alluckks]

Smith, Staal, Shattenkirk, Lundqvist, Namestnikov, Strome, Fast all expiring within the next two years. A little more than wiggle room.