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

[Harbour Dog]

Is either player likely to have a significant role on the team in their next Cup window? I view both of these guys as somewhat temporary.

If either is, it's Hayes.

And if either is going to help our young guys grow, it's Hayes.

 

[Amazing Kreiderman]

I like it when we sign players at under market value price, not at market price or above it.

Alright. I'll bite. What is market value for Namestnikov according to you, and why? Give me comparisons.

 

[NYR713]

I think he's right at market value. Hertl just got 5.625 for 4 years. He's one year younger and production is fairly close so if that is the going rate for a youngish guy with mid 40's point production, $4M for 2 years seems pretty great. And it's only 2 years. I see no problems.

 

[kovazub94]

This is probably the main reason that I had an initially negative reaction to this signing. Otherwise Names would be, at worst, a filler for a couple years while our young guys iron out their games.

If the signing does end up being Hayes' death knell though; I'm going to absolutely hate it. For an extra million, we could have the player who is longer-tenured, still showing signs of development jumps, and is just all around better..

Is either player likely to have a significant role on the team in their next Cup window? I view both of these guys as somewhat temporary.

To @Tawnos point this is more about means to allow Chytil, Andersson and Howden to properly develop in the next few seasons and provide them protection / insulation against a level of competition that they are not prepared yet to face regularly.

Personally, I’d be uncomfortable with Names being the only one if Hayes is moved to address other needs. In this case I’d take a flyer on an established but overpriced 2C who’s got a year or two remaining on his contract (and therefore getting something assets back to relieve the other team of an unwanted cap hit).

 

[nyr2k2]

Alright. I'll bite. What is market value for Namestnikov according to you, and why? Give me comparisons.

I literally asked these exact questions and received some nonsensical answer that didn't even attempt to provide a legitimate response. I'll take a stab at providing his answers:

1. I don't know his market value because that's a concept I don't understand.
2. Accordingly, I cannot tell you why.
3. I don't know what a comparable is.
4. But we should have paid less money, anyway, because I don't like him.

 

[Amazing Kreiderman]

Those 3 complain that people are mocking them, disagree with them and one of them even blamed it on them being new to HFNYR hahaha. Here's the thing: When I joined in 2011, I had a hard time adjusting to the pace and trying to find my place in this group because there is a history between the already existing posters. But it takes time. If you stick with it, and try to engage in good debates, the responses will follow.

They don't seem to understand that positive feedback only comes if you add something substantial. I'm confident the majority here will have no problem accepting different opinions as long as there is a valid reason why someone thinks different. I always try to substantiate my opinions, try to explain why I feel a certain way, why I disagree with people.

But in this case, all I see is "we overpaid for Namestnikov" without anything backing that up. Even the reasoning behind it can be flawed, but at least try.

 

[Off Sides]

I think this is about as market as it gets for a two year deal for Name.

My musings in this thread are more about what the plan is. I really don't know so it's not like I am asking a question just to bash the answers.

If the plan is to use him as a filler, trade him before the contracts ends, this all makes some sense although I think the same would be said had this been a 1 year deal that left him with 1 RFA year left after.

Maybe they think he will get to 50-60 points or something this or next year and that will be seen as a pretty attractive thing at one of those trade deadlines?

Does this signing really make them feel more secure to move someone else? If so that too would make some sense but I'm not sure I think that was the idea, anyone they look to move is probably going out near a deadline more so than this summer I'd think.

For expansion it would make more sense if this were a 3 year deal as the players being exposed would have to be under contract for best estimate the 20-21 season.

While I don't think this is an over or under payment, I just don't really get it strategically.

 

[PlamsUnlimited]

A 2 season deal for 4M each is pretty good for a mid 40 point player right now. It's 2 years, not 7 as well. We don't really know if he's going to fit the tea in 2 years so this is fine and it's a decent contract in the event someone wants him as a rental-could get decent value back if they go that way. Personally I liked what I saw out of him in the short time he was a Ranger last season and think he could be a pretty good player here.

 

[Riche16]

I think this is about as market as it gets for a two year deal for Name.

My musings in this thread are more about what the plan is. I really don't know so it's not like I am asking a question just to bash the answers.

If the plan is to use him as a filler, trade him before the contracts ends, this all makes some sense although I think the same would be said had this been a 1 year deal that left him with 1 RFA year left after.

Maybe they think he will get to 50-60 points or something this or next year and that will be seen as a pretty attractive thing at one of those trade deadlines?

Does this signing really make them feel more secure to move someone else? If so that too would make some sense but I'm not sure I think that was the idea, anyone they look to move is probably going out near a deadline more so than this summer I'd think.

For expansion it would make more sense if this were a 3 year deal as the players being exposed would have to be under contract for best estimate the 20-21 season.

While I don't think this is an over or under payment, I just don't really get it strategically.

Going by Gorton and his almost constant use of the word "term" I take it that he wants COMPLETE flexibility in 2 years time... That's when he seems to feel we would be competitive again. I understand ur issues with UFA status and the expansion tho... because both are quite valid.

 

[Igor Shestyorkin]

So why not take his play with Tampa outside of the games he played on a line with two elite players?

Well then that's more fair. Not denying that.