How would they have done that?
Seemed like the 8+goalie would've meant they had to buy out Staal and expose McDonagh to keep Lindberg. It wasn't like they could just expose Holden to protect Lindberg.
Unless you're suggesting we had given LV a pick to choose Holden.
Agree, 8+ goalie would not have worked....
[collapse=text]
Well, they could have gotten the stepan trade done before the expansion draft and then protected Lindberg. Though they would have most likely lost Fast at that point.
that was one piece in the equation.
another, and apologies I missed who said it, would have been to move Nash.
Had we moved Nash early enough during the season when he had production value to contribute to the stretch run and playoffs, we could have gotten, maybe not top dollar, but something more substantive. We waited, he got injured. Then we could have moved him prior to the expdraft, which would have freed up a slot and most of his cap, depending on the deal
SJ still makes the most sense; can afford the whole cap hit, is a fit. Don't be greedy, Gorton, we are better off setting up for the future and not gambling Rick gets hurt or starts slow.
You're absolutely right about the Holden situation... IMO 2 of the kids have to make a push to force a Holden trade.
They should have incentivized Vegas if they knew of losing Lindberg... but the assets weren't there to act as a trade chip... the Rangers did try and negotiate.
Market value was set very high by teams like ANA, MIN, NYI who needed favors done with the Expansion draft. ANA in particular.. Shea Theodore to lose Stoner?? That is a high premium to pay.
With the signings this off-season, the Rangers really need to look and see if there is an internal forward option (or three) for the 4th line that can handle 20-25 games.
Once the Thanksgiving marker hits, you will see teams on the outside looking in start to make moves... I think the Rangers needs will be obvious by then.
Holden @ 50% + Nieves for a Premium 4th line Center would be a contender like move. LA makes a good trade partner. I'm partial to Brodzinski.. Shore is another proven option... but if Jonny B can PK... that's an excellent pick up imo.
great all around post. but,
IMO 2 of the kids have to make a push to force a Holden trade
disagree. We should not go to the other extreme and throw kids to the wolves, sink or swim; but we do not need to constantly, overcautiously, overprotect them either.
Day is not ready, tho he has shaped up since being drafted and progresses nicely. I give him up to the 10 game max peek to incentivize him further, but prob only 3-5 games vs weaker teams to give regular guys a breather.
I am bullish on Graves, Beargloves and Pionk. We should be making room for these guys, not holding back for guys like Holden.
However, I am not eager to move Nieves yet. Too much raw talent to give the short shrift for denying him roster spot. Yes, he has to earn it, but let's not throw away a good elc with upside
BTW Vegas has 10 defensemen on one way deals, and none of whom are waiver exempt... so the teams that are short on D will pick up one of those player... say 3 of them get claimed.
They send Theodore down, and carry 7...
Rangers won't be a team that picks one up... but there are several teams across the league that are short...
The higher the waiver order... the less likely the team picks up a player... say an injury hits to one of those teams... and 2 of the kids on D make a push...
That will result in a premium plus for Holden... so from an asset management perspective, the Rangers should not be in a rush.
What they need to do... is to trade an upside prospect/farm hand... for a reliable 4th line center... and then gauge the return for Holden.
Outside of Lias Andersson... you have Nieves & Gropp as NHL level skaters... Gropp can fill a role and do it well imo... upside is not that of a top 6 guy, but his game is tailor made for a very effective bottom 6 NHLer... if the hockey wits are there, it's a matter of when and not if.
Nieves... he has deficiencies with decision making... good speed and skating ability... but very passive... very passive player.
DD will play center and make the team... I don't see him as a 82 game player... crafty veteran.. but not one you win with imo.
There will be NHL bodies on waivers this September... Gorts smart move may be to move an SPC early in training camp.. and then go for a waiver pick up.
The team is 2-3 reliable slot fillers away from contending... and that's not bad... but just a number of what ifs.
Miller in the middle as an effective center would be the biggest impact this team could gain.
We should not take less than market value for Holden. If we can manipulate that into a premium, great. IMO his value is late 1st to mid 2nd. If we have to add a 2nd to bump that up to a mid to late 1st and expedite things, it's a worthwhile investment.
As to
Nieves... he has deficiencies with decision making... good speed and skating ability... but very passive... very passive player.
I am not so sure at this point that is the case.
Yet is possible; he has had concussion issues.
However, I believe he is on track, barring injury, to progress his game.
Defensively, he could be a larger Jan Erixon type if gives up a 2 way game and focuses on this and gets help to develop in this area.
However I see atm a more overall game, basically status quo where he is defensively, but growing offensively.
Now I have maintained that just like with Kreider when we first got him, we didn't know what kind of shot he might or might not have; or how he would fill out. All we knew was CK at drafting time was = to possibly one of the 5 fastest skaters in the NHL.
I am not saying it is quite that with Boo. But his shot, what there is, may yet reveal itself. He does seem comfortable as a pivot, including as to passes. He had no Ws of worth down on the farm; handing off to guys who can bury it up here will make a difference.
As to passive, I don't believe this is so much raw indecision as to still trying to learn properly.
Miller is a good example.
When he had to think of everything before he did it, it slowed his game - in his case, we think it was understanding defensive choices/options. Once he got comfortable, it was the 2nd nature it needs to be function smoothly at highest level.
Nieves will be okay. Rough edges need to be smoothed, sure, but he will be fine.
DD I think is not just limited but sucks. Pitlick signed for same 1.0 but 3 yr deal. That was the ticket, if he was willing to come here.
Graves or Nieves and 2nd for AA
Nope.
They are in a group with upside, do not want to give up on them too soon, if at all.
AA would be huge for the team... that's Hagelin 2.0 and a center to boot. DET messed up their cap and they need to move a body to accommodate AA.
They need futures... a 2nd and 3rd is fair value from a offer sheet price... but I'd rather move bodies for him.
Nieves + Graves + 3rd for AA
or you can bail DET out by taking Sheahan for a conditional 5th.
I would rather have AA... but if they aren't moving him, one year of Sheahan as a filler can help the Rangers. 36 points two years ago.
No. You are offering above sheet price, which is fine, but in the wrong currency.
Don't want Sheahan.
A 1st round pick for AA?
Just stop. The infatuation and drooling over speed has completely scrambled some people's brains.
Agree and disagree.
Largely disagree in that "Speed kills" --- in every sport, is a common adage. A guy who can deliver it and give a competitive advantage is worth a
strategic investment. Since the competition is also looking to max speed options, we should be receptive to possibilities. However, I said "and give a competitive advantage", which means no Gene Carr types pls - skates like wind but couldn't put puck in the OCEAN, per original Big Whistle Bill Chadwick. And I said "strategic" which means care as to payment and currency for it.
Agree that a 1st is the wrong currency.
The guy has a limited track record, and there is nothing wrong with gambling,
within reason, that his upside will deliver going forward. However there is another factor to consider.
From a standpoint of chronological age, AA is fine.
From a standpoint of cap mgmt, we are getting a guy who would be starting his RFA yrs. That is not bad. moving from Nash [trade] Staal [trade or buy out] and Hank [retires or re-signs as backup at a team friendly 2-ishm] will provide funds to extend the young core. And that is not counting other vets.
But what is bad is, especially for a team which gambled and lost so often on EStaal, Clowe, and other foolish win now overreaches, is to give up a 1st. Use other currency of players and possibly later picks, or preferably, use of $ as a backscrach, ie DD for Helms in a package.
Detroit unfortunately isn't a match for Holden; they have Oullett, Dekeyser, Kronwall, Ericsson,Daley, Nick Jensen (the other one
), Sproul, not to mention Mike Green's huge contract with one year left.
Rangers have no need for Mike Green as an RHD because he'd be behind Shatty/Deangelo and even with salary retained it wouldn't work.
So it would literally have to be AA for prospects/picks. Sign him to a one year bridge deal in the 2.50-2.75 range, and deal with arb next summer.
A 2nd rounder plus is probably fair value for him at this point. Why? While he's only had one strong year, he's a reasonably cost controlled asset for four more seasons that can play all aspects of the game. In today's NHL young cost controlled assets > deadline rentals.
There is one other play.
we can use our cap space to take on 4 years of Helm at 3.8 for 1 yr DD at 1.0.
That is a net of 2.8 savings for DRW and most of their just over 3 cap deficit.
That's HUGE
Then as a package, a 5th for AA's rights.
We may sweeten that with conditional additional picks, something
if he signs with us [say another 5th or 5th];
or how well he performs [say a 4th which could go as high as a 2nd, but more likely a 3rd].
That would be measured
we can stopgap Helm and have the option to move him after a year or two.
Other teams might offer more for AA, but Wings are strapped as to making a return fit.
This is a win win.
[/collapse]
