Speculation: Roster Building Thread XLVII: June Swoon or a 1st rounder?

[silverfish]

So how do we easily fix the defense without sending out any great pieces?

Yes, this is the unfortunate dilemma.

But, you lose one of the 8, in this case Nash. Make sure you get a RH D in the return who can step in and contribute today. Shouldn't be too hard.

You also make sure you never have Staal and Girardi in the lineup at the same time. Preferably never see Girardi. Although I'd wager since it looks like the Rangers will have to waste a protection spot on him for the expansion draft, a buyout is more likely now - I hope.

 

[Trxjw]

Playing the bad defenders less than the good defenders would be a great first step.

Sounds a little more like a bandaid than a fix to me.

 

[Trxjw]

Yes, this is the unfortunate dilemma.

But, you lose one of the 8, in this case Nash. Make sure you get a RH D in the return who can step in and contribute today. Shouldn't be too hard.

You also make sure you never have Staal and Girardi in the lineup at the same time. Preferably never see Girardi. Although I'd wager since it looks like the Rangers will have to waste a protection spot on him for the expansion draft, a buyout is more likely now - I hope.

I don't wanna portray the wrong tone here, but that seems pretty far from easy to me. Balancing +$10M of bad defenders that way on the roster that is already cap strapped? That's like tying a sack of potatoes to a swimmer's leg and saying you expect him to still be competitive.

 

[silverfish]

I don't wanna portray the wrong tone here, but that seems pretty far from easy to me. Balancing +$10M of bad defenders that way on the roster that is already cap strapped? That's like tying a sack of potatoes to a swimmer's leg and saying you expect him to still be competitive.

I don't necessarily have the time to go about the intricacies of the plan. In a nutshell, they work something like this.

Trade Nash for 2nd pairing RHD who can actually move the puck, plus prospect, plus 1st round pick. Cap savings here.

Buyout Girardi. Cap savings here ($3.75m for the 16-17 season) probably pay for new defenseman.

 

[Trxjw]

I don't necessarily have the time to go about the intricacies of the plan. In a nutshell, they work something like this.

Trade Nash for 2nd pairing RHD who can actually move the puck, plus prospect, plus 1st round pick. Cap savings here.

Buyout Girardi. Cap savings here ($3.75m for the 16-17 season) probably pay for new defenseman.

But it's already been floated that the team is not going to buy out Girardi. So how can that be part of the solution? I also question whether or not Nash has that kind of value right now without the Rangers taking a bad contract or eating some of the deal.

 

[silverfish]

But it's already been floated that the team is not going to buy out Girardi. So how can that be part of the solution? I also question whether or not Nash has that kind of value right now without the Rangers taking a bad contract or eating some of the deal.

Right, but there is also new information surfacing about the expansion draft. There's no way the Rangers force themselves to protect Girardi. If they do, everyone in the FO should be fired. If it turns out that the expansion draft is going to take place before Girardi's NMC becomes an NTC, and the NHL is going to force teams to protect players on NMCs, the Rangers have absolutely no choice.

So, yeah, maybe they don't buy Girardi out this off-season, but they should take the initiative and do it. The buyout this season is much better for the books than it would be next off-season. It's the smart thing to do, hence why the Rangers won't do it.

Secondly, there should be no reason why Nash doesn't have the same value that Kessel had. A RHD, prospect, and 1st round pick should be the minimum JG asks for in a Nash return.

He has that value still.

 

[Irishguy42]

But it's already been floated that the team is not going to buy out Girardi. So how can that be part of the solution? I also question whether or not Nash has that kind of value right now without the Rangers taking a bad contract or eating some of the deal.

The FO could always change it's mind and approach Girardi about being bought out.

Not saying it will happen, but who knows.

 

[Vitto79]

if they can sign Vessey and deal Nash for a 1st plus that will help in recouping lost assets

I always hear Vessey to Bruins or Leafs though. His dad works for the Leafs and his bro was drafted there.

 

[Infinitum Vitae*]

Watch there be no trades this offseason lol

 

[GAGLine]

So, yeah, maybe they don't buy Girardi out this off-season, but they should take the initiative and do it. The buyout this season is much better for the books than it would be next off-season. It's the smart thing to do, hence why the Rangers won't do it.

I have no idea how you came to that conclusion, since it's actually the complete opposite.

 

[Amazing Kreiderman]

if they can sign Vessey and deal Nash for a 1st plus that will help in recouping lost assets

I always hear Vessey to Bruins or Leafs though. His dad works for the Leafs and his bro was drafted there.

They also said Hayes would go to the Bruins because he is from MA.

Stastny is from Quebec and didn't sign with Montreal
Iginla is from Edmoton and didn't sign with them
Callahan is from Rochester and didn't sign with Buffalo

 

[Inferno]

The Rangers had 8 forwards this season produce primary points at a 2nd line rate or above this season.

Please, tell me again how the offense is the problem with this team?



Protip: If "points per 20" is more up your alley, please keep in mind that the dot placement on the cart will remain unchanged, and feel free to divide all #s by 3.

EDIT - Further, this is why I'm so perplexed about people wishing to blow this team up. When people believe that the offense is a problem. There are problems with this team, and they are:

1. The defense is complete trash
2. The coach makes mind-boggling decisions with his personnel.

Both easily fixed. Both do not require shipping out great pieces to build a team around like Stepan, Brassard, Zuccarello, etc...

Tough for me to look at that chart while typing on my tablet...but it looked like what..one guy producing at first line level and seven producing at second line level. Or another way to look at it is on an average team with three guys producing at first line, another three at second and another three at third...comparably we've got four guys producing at the expected level, two guys producing under the expected level, and two guys producing above the expected level...in short..it's a wash....at least when you look at it that way

 

[NYRFAN218]

Right, but there is also new information surfacing about the expansion draft. There's no way the Rangers force themselves to protect Girardi. If they do, everyone in the FO should be fired. If it turns out that the expansion draft is going to take place before Girardi's NMC becomes an NTC, and the NHL is going to force teams to protect players on NMCs, the Rangers have absolutely no choice.

So, yeah, maybe they don't buy Girardi out this off-season, but they should take the initiative and do it. The buyout this season is much better for the books than it would be next off-season. It's the smart thing to do, hence why the Rangers won't do it.

Secondly, there should be no reason why Nash doesn't have the same value that Kessel had. A RHD, prospect, and 1st round pick should be the minimum JG asks for in a Nash return.

He has that value still.

Kessel is also 4 or so years younger than Nash, is coming off a better season stat wise leading to his trade, and has been absurdly healthy the past 5+ years. Nash has developed an injury history for better or worse. I don't disagree that he should be worth in the same ballpark as Kessel but there's definitely more red flags to consider than there were with Kessel because all there was there was dumb **** like character stirred up by idiots like Steve Simmons. These factors are why I think it's essential to retain as much on Nash as possible to maximize the return.

 

[silverfish]

I have no idea how you came to that conclusion, since it's actually the complete opposite.

Well, my thought process is as such...

Buying Girardi out today gets him off the team for this season. With the buyout, that's $1.75m on the cap this season rather than $5.5m, savings of $3.75m this season. It also gets a **** player off the team.

What I'm taking into account is the cost of holding Girardi's $5.5m on the books this season as a complete loss of assets at full value.

I believe the buyout works like this:

Today:

16-17: + $3.75
17-18: + $2.75
18-19: + $1.75
19-20: + $1.75
20-24: - $1.25

Next off-season:

16-17: - $5.5 (debatable of course, but my opinion that holding Girardi is a complete sunk cost and hurts the Rangers more than just on the cap)
17-18: + $2.88
18-19: + $1.88
19-20: + $1.88
20-23: - $1.11

Addition by subtraction.

 

[RangerBoy]

The Mayor John Hoven said the Kings like Goligoski,Demers,Russell and Hamhuis as free agents. He provides the links to his blog entries and Sirius hockey segments on his twitter account. Craig Custance was at the scouting combine. He heard the Habs might really trade Subban. Edmonton and Colorado. Hall or RNH plus #4 or a package headlined by Duchene which or may not include Barrie. A lot of teams like Goligoski. More so than Yandle who is the more expensive player. Dallas wants to keep Goligoski. The Hawks are trying to trade Bickell to free up $ for Shaw and maybe even bring back Brian Campbell. They would put Campbell with Hammer on the 2nd pair. Custance wondered if Bowman would put TT in the deal with Bickell.

 

[Trxjw]

Right, but there is also new information surfacing about the expansion draft. There's no way the Rangers force themselves to protect Girardi. If they do, everyone in the FO should be fired. If it turns out that the expansion draft is going to take place before Girardi's NMC becomes an NTC, and the NHL is going to force teams to protect players on NMCs, the Rangers have absolutely no choice.

So, yeah, maybe they don't buy Girardi out this off-season, but they should take the initiative and do it. The buyout this season is much better for the books than it would be next off-season. It's the smart thing to do, hence why the Rangers won't do it.

Secondly, there should be no reason why Nash doesn't have the same value that Kessel had. A RHD, prospect, and 1st round pick should be the minimum JG asks for in a Nash return.

He has that value still.

I'm not sure how the buyout is better this season than it would be next season. The buyout cap hit goes up next summer regardless. The only difference being that it's cheaper if you wait, and you only have 3 extra years of dead cap instead of 4. The Rangers still have to deal with an increased cap penalty next summer even if they buy him out this year, so how do they manage that?

I think there are plenty of reasons Nash doesn't have the same value as Kessel. He just came off the worst season of his career and he's 32 years old. Are teams going to just chalk it up to injuries and think he can rebound? I wouldn't be so sure. $7.8M is a huge cap hit to carry for a guy that could very well continue downward in production. Plus his contract is backloaded, so he's being paid even more than that. He's not the same player he used to be.

I think the Rangers are handcuffing themselves if the idea is to be competitive while juggling Staal, Girardi, the expansion draft, and the lack of a future in the pipeline.

 

[silverfish]

Tough for me to look at that chart while typing on my tablet...but it looked like what..one guy producing at first line level and seven producing at second line level. Or another way to look at it is on an average team with three guys producing at first line, another three at second and another three at third...comparably we've got four guys producing at the expected level, two guys producing under the expected level, and two guys producing above the expected level...in short..it's a wash....at least when you look at it that way

Rather than go through every teams chart that was posted on Twitter, let me know which team you'd like to compare the Rangers to, and I'll post that one so we can see how many players they had above that threshold of 2nd liners. I'd wager not many teams have 8.

For starters, here are some perceived highly touted offenses:

Washington (6 or 8, depending on your cutoff):



Dallas (6):



Chicago (5, maybe, also LOL at Kane being off the chart, literally):

 

[Igor Shestyorkin]

I still don't get to this day why so many teams have interest in Russell.

 

[silverfish]

I'm not sure how the buyout is better this season than it would be next season. The buyout cap hit goes up next summer regardless. The only difference being that it's cheaper if you wait, and you only have 3 extra years of dead cap instead of 4. The Rangers still have to deal with an increased cap penalty next summer even if they buy him out this year, so how do they manage that?

I think there are plenty of reasons Nash doesn't have the same value as Kessel. He just came off the worst season of his career and he's 32 years old. Are teams going to just chalk it up to injuries and think he can rebound? I wouldn't be so sure. $7.8M is a huge cap hit to carry for a guy that could very well continue downward in production. Plus his contract is backloaded, so he's being paid even more than that. He's not the same player he used to be.

I think the Rangers are handcuffing themselves if the idea is to be competitive while juggling Staal, Girardi, the expansion draft, and the lack of a future in the pipeline.

If the plan is to hold Girardi for this season, have his entire $5.5m cap hit on the books, and play him 40 or more games, then, well, I have no ****ing idea how to justify that.

 

[HatTrick Swayze]

Any JVR rumors out there? Is he a part of the rebuild?

 

[Thirty One]

Sounds a little more like a bandaid than a fix to me.

Maybe. But I believe just shuffling the minutes around for the defense would have been a big improvement last season.

 

[GAGLine]

Well, my thought process is as such...

Buying Girardi out today gets him off the team for this season. With the buyout, that's $1.75m on the cap this season rather than $5.5m, savings of $3.75m this season. It also gets a **** player off the team.

What I'm taking into account is the cost of holding Girardi's $5.5m on the books this season as a complete loss of assets at full value.

I believe the buyout works like this:

Today:

16-17: + $3.75
17-18: + $2.75
18-19: + $1.75
19-20: + $1.75
20-24: - $1.25

Next off-season:

16-17: - $5.5 (debatable of course, but my opinion that holding Girardi is a complete sunk cost and hurts the Rangers more than just on the cap)
17-18: + $2.88
18-19: + $1.88
19-20: + $1.88
20-23: - $1.11

Addition by subtraction.

Buying out Girardi this season only helps if we use that 3.75 mil savings on someone else. Who are we spending it on and then what do we do over the next 3 years when Girardi's cap hit rises?

It's better for 2017, but it's worse for the next 7 years after that. It's just more short term thinking.

 

[Trxjw]

If the plan is to hold Girardi for this season, have his entire $5.5m cap hit on the books, and play him 40 or more games, then, well, I have no ****ing idea how to justify that.

Hope he can regain some value and make him tradeable? Less years on the buyout the following summer? They're not worried about the expansion draft being a problem? The team is looking beyond this year and they don't care about his negative possession impact in the short term? The team plans on adding more young defensemen and want him as a mentor and as a bullet sponge to insulate them?

 

[silverfish]

Buying out Girardi this season only helps if we use that 3.75 mil savings on someone else. Who are we spending it on and then what do we do over the next 3 years when Girardi's cap hit rises?

It's better for 2017, but it's worse for the next 7 years after that. It's just more short term thinking.

Use it on the player we trade Nash for. Then we have the cap savings from moving Nash, as well, for our RFAs in the hopes that we don't have to lose one of them for Ryan Gropp at the draft.

[should've drafted Bracco]

Hope he can regain some value and make him tradeable? Less years on the buyout the following summer? They're not worried about the expansion draft being a problem? The team is looking beyond this year and they don't care about his negative possession impact in the short term? The team plans on adding more young defensemen and want him as a mentor and as a bullet sponge to insulate them?

I have a hard time believing there are better days ahead for Girardi. Sure, but this year still gets the short end of the stick when it doesn't have to. Well, I guess the people in the Rangers FO know more than I do, but if the draft happens in the 2017 off-season and they have to protect Girardi, the Rangers are opening themselves up to losing a good player because of that. I am also looking beyond this year, without throwing away the 16-17 season IMO. Like who? Skjei and McIlrath? Do they need that from Girardi? What can they get from Girardi that they couldn't get from Staal, Klein, or McDonagh?

 

[Leetch3]

Sounds a little more like a bandaid than a fix to me.

if they replaced boyle and girardi's minutes with skjei and mcilarth, you would see that as a bandaid and not part of the long term solution?