Speculation: Roster Building Thread: Part LV

[True Blue]

I’m saying they likely resign Strome

Ahh

 

[Avery16]

A buyout offers some relief, and we need every cap dollar we can find.

Buying out Staal and Smith would deliver more relief than buying out Hank.

 

[GoAwayPanarin]

Gonna be really tough for them to come up with the money for AP.

We have a cheaper cap alternative though!

 

[GAGLine]

Buying out Staal and Smith would deliver more relief than buying out Hank.

Not true. Hank saves us 3 mil. Staal saves us 2.133 mil and Smith saves us 1.567 mil.

No matter which of those players gets bought out, they have to be replaced. Hank will provide the best net savings, especially if we trade Georgiev and sign a cheap backup.

Edit: I see you mean buying both out. Yes, of course, buying out 2 players will save us more than buying out 1, but then we need to replace 2 players instead of 1.

So we save a total of 3.7 mil, but then have to spend half of that to replace them.

Hell, let's just buy out all 3.

 

[Trxjw]

I guess it depends if you feel they're that attached to Geo. If they are hell bent on keeping him short of an insane offer, then sure.

I don't think they're at that point though. This comes down to a matter of dollars and unless they need every penny that they'd get from buying out Hank vs. Staal, I don't see how Hank is the correct choice here.

Georgiev is really on the fringes of the conversation as well. The issue at hand is can Hank spend the entire season as a backup? Does he even want to? If the answer is "No" to either question, the Rangers' hands are tied. He's likely untradeable at 50% retention. So their only recourse is to buy him out.

It's really not a matter of cap at all. It's the worry of spending an entire year with an irritated franchise legend sitting on the bench.

 

[Avery16]

Not true. Hank saves us 3 mil. Staal saves us 2.133 mil and Smith saves us 1.567 mil.

No matter which of those players gets bought out, they have to be replaced. Hank will provide the best net savings, especially if we trade Georgiev and sign a cheap backup.

2.133 + 1.567 = > 3.

Is there a limit on how many players can be bought out?

 

[Off Sides]

To the first point, I can't help but feel there are older guys who could carry us through something like that. The difference between them and Geo is there is no expectation for them to be long-term starters. They are what they are.

And ultimately, that leads to your second, which is the trade value of Georgiev. His value isn't so much as a backup, so much as it is a potential starter. A second round pick is probably more or less in the range for that kind of potential, albeit uncertain potential.

As for the difference between a second and third, it can be fairly significant. Your odds are better with second round picks vs. third round picks. And looking at our roster, you're looking at some interesting assets like Fox, Lindgren, Lemieux, even a trade up to grab someone like Miller in a draft. So I'm always hesitant to take that difference for granted.

Let's say it were a gamble.

The higher reward would be, Geo's value goes up, say it's a 2nd now, maybe that turns to a 2nd and a good prospect or turns to a 1st.

The bad side, let's say it goes down to a 3rd

The even would be the value stays the same.

I would probably gamble on the value either staying the same or increasing. Yet if I lost that gamble I would not feel as if I lost very much. While there is of course a difference between a 2nd and 3rd, your examples are good, yet mine would be all the 2nds the Rangers have whiffed on or used on a goalie.

 

[Thirty One]

Gonna be really tough for them to come up with the money for AP.

We have a cheaper cap alternative though!

The right side of their D look pretty good to me.

 

[GAGLine]

2.133 + 1.567 = > 3

But you have 1 extra player you have to replace, so there goes your savings.

 

[Trxjw]

If it was just about carrying three goaltenders, they'd make an announcement that Hank will not suit up and let him ride out the contract at home. Buyouts aren't to resolve issues like this. Buyouts are for the cap, and the fact is that buying out Hank just doesn't deliver much relief. Partner that with the points discussed re: Georgiev, and something doesn't add up about the buyout reporting.

That's not at all true. Buyouts can be used for a number of situations. In fact they're literally the only option teams have to get themselves out of exactly this kind of situation.

 

[Avery16]

But you have 1 extra player you have to replace, so there goes your savings.

Hajek and K'Andre. Cost negligible, improvements on Staal and Smith.

 

[RGY]

 

[Avery16]

That's not at all true. Buyouts can be used for a number of situations. In fact they're literally the only option teams have to get themselves out of exactly this kind of situation.

Who was the last player to get bought out for non-cap concerns?

 

[DanielBrassard]

Gonna be really tough for them to come up with the money for AP.

We have a cheaper cap alternative though!

But do they really want Trouba? IDK.

 

[Edge]

Let's say it were a gamble.

The higher reward would be, Geo's value goes up, say it's a 2nd now, maybe that turns to a 2nd and a good prospect or turns to a 1st.

The bad side, let's say it goes down to a 3rd

The even would be the value stays the same.

I would probably gamble on the value either staying the same or increasing. Yet if I lost that gamble I would not feel as if I lost very much. While there is of course a difference between a 2nd and 3rd, your examples are good, yet mine would be all the 2nds the Rangers have whiffed on or used on a goalie.

It is gamble, but I feel like any gamble comes down to the odds. Odds, somtimes even more than the upside return in many situations, is the deciding factor.

I'd say the odds of Geo's value going up, let alone substantially, is pretty slim.

I'd say the odds of Geo's value doing down, even if only a very modest amount, is fairly high.

And that's taking into account that unless Georgiev really hits a lights-out kind of level, he's either expansion draft fodder, or a candidate to go to another team to hedge their losses in an expansion draft. But I don't think there's higher value there either.

 

[GAGLine]

Hajek and K'Andre. Cost negligible, improvements on Staal and Smith.

How is the cost negligible? Hajek has a 833k cap hit and Miller has a 925k cap hit, with another 300k in performance bonuses. Because we are going to exceed the bonus cushion, that 300k will count against the cap, so that's a total of 2.058 mil.

And that assumes they are both ready for the NHL.

 

[Avery16]

It is gamble, but I feel like any gamble comes down to the odds. Odds, somtimes even more than the upside return in many situations, is the deciding factor.

I'd say the odds of Geo's value going up, let alone substantially, is pretty slim.

I'd say the odds of Geo's value doing down, even if only a very modest amount, is fairly high.

And that's taking into account that unless Georgiev really hits a lights-out kind of level, he's either expansion draft fodder, or a candidate to go to another team to hedge their losses in an expansion draft. But I don't think there's higher value there either.

I agree here, except that we don't have a goaltender requiring protection in the expansion draft other than Georgiev.

 

[Avery16]

How is the cost negligible? Hajek has a 833k cap hit and Miller has a 925k cap hit, with another 300k in performance bonuses. Because we are going to exceed the bonus cushion, that 300k will count against the cap, so that's a total of 2.058 mil.

And that assumes they are both ready for the NHL.

Given that buying out Staal and Smith results in an extra million in cap savings, and a backup to Igor will likely cost another million+, cost negligible.

 

[Off Sides]

It is gamble, but I feel like any gamble comes down to the odds. Odds, somtimes even more than the upside return in many situations, is the deciding factor.

I'd say the odds of Geo's value going up, let alone substantially, is pretty slim.

I'd say the odds of Geo's value doing down, even if only a very modest amount, is fairly high.

And that's taking into account that unless Georgiev really hits a lights-out kind of level, he's either expansion draft fodder, or a candidate to go to another team to hedge their losses in an expansion draft. But I don't think there's higher value there either.

I am not so sure what the odds are of him playing a lot.

If it is a condensed season and there are many more back to backs than there normally would be, maybe Geo ends up playing more? That with possible injury or down play by Shesterkin could also end up with Geo playing more.

Other factors, does some other team lose their starter to injury?

I guess I still feel like I'd gamble his value stayed the same or increases. And that would be his trade value, should Shesterkin end up not playing as much as we believe for one reason or another, then Geo's value to the Rangers would probably be even greater than any realistic trade which could be made.

 

[GAGLine]

Given that buying out Staal and Smith results in an extra million in cap savings, and a backup to Igor will likely cost another million+, cost negligible.

Assuming the same replacement cost, buying out Hank saves us more money, which is the opposite of what you said. Call it negligible if you want, you were still wrong. If you want to argue against buying out Hank, that isn't the hill to die on.

 

[Avery16]

Assuming the same replacement cost, buying out Hank saves us more money, which is the opposite of what you said. Call it negligible if you want, you were still wrong. If you want to argue against buying out Hank, that isn't the hill to die on.

As we just ran through, the numbers don't support your statement.

 

[Oscar Lindberg]

I feel way more confident that Georgiev will be worth less in the future than he is today, than I do the other way around.

He's just not going to play a lot, unless Shestyorkin goes down with a catastrophic injury

 

[Edge]

I feel way more confident that Georgiev will be worth less in the future than he is today, than I do the other way around.

He's just not going to play a lot, unless Shestyorkin goes down with a catastrophic injury

He's really not, especially in a condensed schedule where the Rangers are really going to want to give Shesterkin a solid amount of playing time. He's going to be 25 this year, so I don't see them "easing" him into the NHL.

 

[GAGLine]

The numbers don't support your statement.

Are you serious? Smith + Staal save us 3.7 mil. Hank saves us 3 mil. Even if you assume minimum salary (700k) for replacements, that's still 2.3 vs 2.3, which means you were wrong.

#MathIsHard

 

[Edge]

I agree here, except that we don't have a goaltender requiring protection in the expansion draft other than Georgiev.

Don't we have to expose a goalie? So either Georgiev, or we have to bring someone else in to make available.

I need verfication on this, because I don't know if what I am saying is accurate.