Confirmed with Link: Rangers re-sign Vlad Namestnikov (2 years x 4.0M)

[Pavel Buchnevich]

Miller is still the biggest bozo in the league though. We agree on that.

 

[TheTakedown]

Also, I don't want to hear about JT not getting a shot from AV. **** AV and all, but JT played everywhere in the lineup at various points. He was a productive player, but he was streaky as hell and sometimes just floated around. And in the end, GORTON traded Miller. The team obviously knew they were going to fire AV--do you think they would have traded Miller had they believed his problems were a result of the coach they were going to fire? Come on. Miller is gone because the organization apparently grew tired of him. Forget about him.

This conversation starts and ends with the term....

Miller needed 5 years and no state tax to get a $5.25M per, $26.25M deal. Each year in Tampa nets him $700k more than it would in NYC, that's a $3.5M loss in taxes. You'd be looking at a $6M * 5 Year deal if we kept him.


Vlad took 33% lesser AAV, and 60% lesser years, and at the end or the day, the rangers net a similar player that just happens to fit their timeline better.

Nothing wrong with this at all.

 

[Rempe73]

Namestnikov per 82 games for his career: 36.9 points
Miller per 82 games: 43.2 points

Just by their career averages, this is what they'd be classified as if we took last season's PPG averages. Miller's career average would've resulted in about 155th last season, which is a low end 5th forward. Namestnikov's career average would've resulted in about 193, which is a high end 7th forward.

155-5th
193-7th

But I think its important to consider that if you take Miller's PPG average the last two years combined where he's clearly playing improved hockey, of which only 19 games came with the Lightning's great forwards, his average is about 84th, which is a low end 3rd forward. Thats a first liner. Some will claim thats partly due to playing some games on Tampa, but if we take away his Tampa stats, he still comes in at 114th, which is about one forward slot higher. If this guy isn't a first liner, he's very close to it. If we consider Namestnikov's career not counting the games he played this season for Tampa, considering he played on a line with two elite NHL'ers, he comes in as about 251st, which is a 9th forward. And I think thats what the guy is.

84th
114th
251

Thats before we even consider other parts of their games. Miller is a much better defensive player. I don't care what the corsi stats say. I've watched both of them play enough to say that Namestnikov plays very soft and has a low hockey IQ. He can't play center either. Miller certainly has his defensive issues, and its fair that he had a falling out with management so they wanted to trade him. But he is not soft, he plays a lot more physical than Namestnikov, he can play center better than Namestnikov, and at least his defensive issues are coachable. His defensive issues are trying to do too much. When he doesn't do that, he can have some very effective defensive games, evident by his usage on the PK for two years now. Namestnikov is just a bad defensive player. You aren't coaching the soft and bad hockey IQ out of the guy. The best you can try to do is limit his defensive responsibility by putting him on the wing, and asking him to just be an outlet guy who carries the puck out of the zone.

I don't think its a stretch to say that Miller is a low end 1st liner, and Namestnikov is a low-end 3rd liner. If we want to quibble and say Miller is a good 2nd liner, and Namestnikov is an average 3rd liner, go ahead, but I don't think there's much more of a realistic case against what I'm saying than that. Miller is a considerable better hockey player. Its not even close.

Well you just crushed my hopes and dreams, and I wasn't high on Namestnikov to begin with. How I wish we kept Miller. Or at least traded him separately. He's a very talented hockey player.

 

[Rempe73]

I think Spooner will have more trade value at the 19-20 trade deadline. I could definitely see him scoring like 40-45 points per season the next two seasons, which could net us maybe what we got for Holden. Long term, I don't think either are Rangers. Vesey in that category, as well.

Their spots will go to guys like Andersson, Chytil, Howden, Kravtsov.

This is how I would've gone about the forward spots for the next number of years.

19-20 forward lines:

KZB
Spooner-Chytil-Kravtsov
Andersson-Hayes-Howden
?-?-Fast

Hopefully we get an early pick in 2019, take one of the many good centers in that draft, and we could have something like this going into 20-21.

Kravtsov-high draft pick-Chytil
KZB
Andersson-Hayes-Howden
?-?-Fast

If that high draft pick turns into a real 1C, I think thats a cup-contending offense. Two big offensive lines, a shutdown defensive line, and then find two decent fourth liners to compliment Fast. That would be a well built defense. Only thing I think we are missing with the team we are building is a 1C and a 1D.

Yes, I also believe Spooner will have more trade value, but there are some that don't think so. I think he is capable of putting up a line of at least 15-35-50 with good, not necessarily great, linemates. He is a hell of a playmaker and has good wheels.

Regarding Vesey, if you asked me mid-season, I would say yes please trade him ASAP. However, he did show some progression with his passing ability. Basically had the same number of points this season as he had last season, but maybe he is capable of more. Not going to put money on it. Still might have decent trade value because of the name.

 

[Edge]

No problems with the deal.

I think he's a significantly better player than he showed in his time here last spring.

Not on the level he showed on Tampa's first line mind you, but I think he could be a solid complimentary player on the wings.

 

[RGY]

I think he will be a pretty good player here and will either be part of the team when we are good again or at the very least a solid trade chip

 

[JohnC]

I know this is a good deal just by the way it’s triggered PB

 

[Off Sides]

I don't totally dislike the deal, but I do kind of wonder why they went two years.

They could have just let him file for arbitration and seen where it went from there. At worst the team decides to go one year award and they go through the hearing and he ends up overpaid on that one year and still would be a RFA after that contract.

They must think he is a better player than I do, and even in that case should he turn out to be, this deal takes him right to UFA. So if he is better or good at that point he is going to be more expensive.

Maybe I am missing something but why did they pick him out of all the RFAs to sign right away?

 

[kovazub94]

I don't totally dislike the deal, but I do kind of wonder why they went two years.

They could have just let him file for arbitration and seen where it went from there. At worst the team decides to go one year award and they go through the hearing and he ends up overpaid on that one year and still would be a RFA after that contract.

They must think he is a better player than I do, and even in that case should he turn out to be, this deal takes him right to UFA. So if he is better or good at that point he is going to be more expensive.

Maybe I am missing something but why did they pick him out of all the RFAs to sign right away?

First, neither teams nor players generally want to go to arbitration.

Second, this contract makes sense to both sides and there obviously was an agreement of $$ based on similar contracts signed previously.

Third, both sides were on the same page pretty early and Gorton mantra seems to be “no time wasting for no good reason”, thus they put a quick check mark and move on to whatever the next thing is on his list (back to sitting on his hands, I heard ).

 

[kovazub94]

No problems with the deal.

I think he's a significantly better player than he showed in his time here last spring.

Not on the level he showed on Tampa's first line mind you, but I think he could be a solid complimentary player on the wings.

Personally I agree but there seems many here who don’t realize it (or just don’t recognize it).

 

[TheTakedown]

Riley Nash the UFA just signed for 2.75 mil, he put up 40 points mostly on 3rd line. Namestnikov the RFA after putting up 40 points on Tampa's top line and then nosediving with the Rangers gets 4 mil. both former 1st rounders.

Riley Nash got a 3rd year.

 

[Off Sides]

First, neither teams nor players generally want to go to arbitration.

Second, this contract makes sense to both sides and there obviously was an agreement of $$ based on similar contracts signed previously.

Third, both sides were on the same page pretty early and Gorton mantra seems to be “no time wasting for no good reason”, thus they put a quick check mark and move on to whatever the next thing is on his list (back to sitting on his hands, I heard ).

The thing is,

If he turns out to be really good he is a UFA in two years, they did not save any cap space there should they want to re-sign him at that point.

If he turns out to be bad he is not returning any value by trade or to play with the team with a 4M cap hit.

If he is average the signing kind of makes sense.

Why not just go with a one year, leave him a RFA, see what he does in that year and then either use that remaining 1 RFA year to lower his next cap hit, or if he is not so good just sign him for less next off-season.

I am not sure I see the upside to the term here other than it was not longer.

 

[kovazub94]

If he is average the signing kind of makes sense.

Why not just go with a one year, leave him a RFA, see what he does in that year and then either use that remaining 1 RFA year to lower his next cap hit, or if he is not so good just sign him for less next off-season.

I am not sure I see the upside to the term here other than it was not longer.

Bingo. There’s no reason to believe he’s going to be surprising good or bad in his period.

 

[chosen]

Personally I agree but there seems many here who don’t realize it (or just don’t recognize it).

Curious what this opinion is based upon. To me, he appears to be somewhere between a 40-60 point player. At 60, it's a great signing. At 40, it's treading water, at best.

 

[kovazub94]

Curious what this opinion is based upon. To me, he appears to be somewhere between a 40-60 point player. At 60, it's a great signing. At 40, it's treading water, at best.

Not sure what you’re getting at. Names didn’t show his best (or even better sides of his game) to give a truer overall impression. Do you agree/disagree with this? I might be wrong but thought it is not a controversial idea since Names really has done absolutely nothing with the Rangers.

If he’s 40+ point player, defensively solid 3C, occasional option in top6 then that’s what he’s to me.

 

[Hunter Gathers]

Curious what this opinion is based upon. To me, he appears to be somewhere between a 40-60 point player. At 60, it's a great signing. At 40, it's treading water, at best.

It's still an excellent signing at 40 since the term is so friendly.

 

[Hire Sather]

Two years isn't that long, but I wouldn't have re-signed this guy. I would've rather traded him. I like Spooner better.

I think we clearly see with the contracts of Namestnikov and Miller how lopsided that part of the trade was. I guess the rational that favors us is that management might've never wanted to extend Miller, so getting something is better than nothing. But I don't think we would've gotten nothing. We could've traded him for picks/prospects, instead of a fringe 3rd line winger.

Namesntikov can not play center, he's not good defensively, he has a bad hockey IQ. I'm not worried about the 4M part. I think its an overpayment, but the cap-space for us doesn't matter this year, and if for some reason we were going to add to the cap next season, we could work around the issue. 1 year at 4M isn't going to stop us from signing Panarin or Karlsson.

Given this signing, Spooner and Vesey need to go. There's not enough room. Two of the three need to be traded, otherwise there won't be spots for Andersson and Chytil.

He wasn't given a NTC. Can still be dealt

 

[Edge]

It's still an excellent signing at 40 since the term is so friendly.

If Names can score in the 15-20 goal, 40-50 point range, and be a solid, consistent two-way support player on the wings, I'll be thrilled.

 

[kovazub94]

It's still an excellent signing at 40 since the term is so friendly.

I mean 2*$4 are not contract parameters of someone with arbitration rights scoring 60 points.

 

[HockeyBasedNYC]

I think we will be very happy with this deal by the end of it.

Namestnikov's ability to possess and transport the puck through the neutral zone will be a big plus in Quinn's system. I think the trade really shook him up and he'll have a fresh start this year which will benefit him.

Good signing.

 

[Off Sides]

Bingo. There’s no reason to believe he’s going to be surprising good or bad in his period.

Like I said, I do not dislike the signing there is nothing to dislike.

Its just not often teams want to end a contract when the player can be a UFA at the earliest time in their career possible. Mostly they feel as if the player will improve so they try to buy up some UFA years with those RFA years to get a lower AVV. Or they are unsure what they have so they try to keep the player a RFA for as long as possible to see what happens then either go longer term or trade him off before hand.

In this case it seems to make sense the Rangers are willing to let him become a UFA at the earliest time he could as a trade off for the short term and relatively low AVV., nothing to dislike about that, more so without much gamble in the contract the possible reward is also pretty limited.

 

[Matz03]

In this case it seems to make sense the Rangers are willing to let him become a UFA at the earliest time he could as a trade off for the short term and relatively low AVV., nothing to dislike about that, more so without much gamble in the contract the possible reward is also pretty limited.

I think you're overanalyzing this, he's not in the Rangers longterm plans (hence the short deal) and getting him signed will let us trade him at a future trade deadline either in '19 or '20. He'll be a valuable asset in that sense. I just wish it was a bit $cap lower so that guys like Spooner and Hayes can be had for a bit less.

 

[nyr2k2]

Remember though that it's not just Namestnikov that's the barometer for what Hayes and Spooner will earn. There are a ton of RFA center/wings out there. I know they're all potentially at varying points in their contract cycle, but RFAs at the C/W spot include Hertl, Jenner, Lindholm, Strome, Nelson, Athanasiou, Karlsson, Larkin, Jankowski, Danault, Shore, Janmark, Tierney, etc. On top of the guys that have already signed. Again I know the guys I listed aren't all comparable, some are coming off their ELC, for instance, but it just illustrates that there will be lots of other deals that will factor into what Spooner and Hayes get. And what I posted doesn't even include all the guys that are exclusively wings.

 

[chosen]

Not sure what you’re getting at. Names didn’t show his best (or even better sides of his game) to give a truer overall impression. Do you agree/disagree with this? I might be wrong but thought it is not a controversial idea since Names really has done absolutely nothing with the Rangers.

If he’s 40+ point player, defensively solid 3C, occasional option in top6 then that’s what he’s to me.

I don't know if I agree or disagree. I have seen him with the Rangers where he greatly underwhelmed me and with two superstars where he looked good. None of us know how he'll produce going forward. That is my only point.

 

[BBKers]

Spooner Will get Name money, perhaps a tad more. Hayes around 5 M. Vesey Will be bridged under 2 M. Skjei is the Big ? Term Will dictate final numbers