Confirmed with Link: Ryan Spooner re-signed [2 years, $4.0MM AAV]

[NYR]

They can easily retain 50% on him if needed and the structure of his contract is easily movable. He has no signing bonuses and is due $4M each year, so my bet is they’re banking on him putting up 40-50 points, and they’ll ship him off as scoring depth next trade deadline.

Now, no, but at the trade deadline when he is having 50 point season, yes.

Eco pretty much echoed my exact thoughts.
Spooner never should've been acquired in the first place.
He's just not a fit for this team.
Besides, Is signing this guy to an $8M contract really worth the 2nd/3rd pick we get back in a trade?

 

[Kakko Schmakko]

Both are probably best suited for wing...but if i had to choose 1,probably Vlad.Hes much better defensively.

then I guess this lineup works:

Kreider Zibanejad Buchnevich
Spooner Hayes Zuccarello
Vesey Namestnikov Fast
Beleskey Nieves Lettieri/Meskanen

Vesey and Namestnikov will have to play 2 way game and kill penalties. Likely the entire 2nd line gets traded by the deadline or earlier.

 

[Kakko Schmakko]

Eco pretty much echoed my exact thoughts.
Spooner never should've been acquired in the first place.
He's just not a fit for this team.
Besides, Is signing this guy to an $8M contract really worth the 2nd/3rd pick we get back in a trade?

I think so far he showed he is a pretty good fit, unlike Namestnikov. And I think Bruins included him as a way to fit Nash under the Cap.

I don't understand your last question. Spooner is a 50 point player he is worth 4 mil. If we receive 2nd rounder+ for him then what is wrong with that? It is not like Gorton had a choice to get 2nd rounder or Spooner from Bruins.

 

[Off Sides]

I don't think the Rangers will be 'selling' per se for another few years, I do expect them to not buy aimlessly like they did with Yandle, MSL and Staal. I think Gorton will make smart moves while the young players fill in and then we will see him be aggressive again.

I don't think it has to be binary. Seller or Buyer. There are lots of teams that continue stocking up their pipeline while competing.

It's just how their timeline structure sort of is, all those players are going to be pending UFAs. I don't see them self renting, they may think about extending some of them but at that point most of the players are going to be thinking about just going on the UFA market versus taking whatever team friendly extension the Rangers may be offering.

Reason I believe the Rangers will be only offering team friendly stuff, the entry level contracts to most of their better prospects end after the 2021 season. That group will likely be followed up by another grouping in the 2022 season, perhaps beyond. I don't think the Rangers are going to over commit to many if any off those pending UFAs knowing they may want to go long term right off some of those entry level contracts.

 

[NYRFANMANI]

So what if he fits or not? He's an asset, that WILL BE transformed into other assets.

If we get a 2nd rounder and a B level prospect, it will be a great addition to the original trade.

His O skills are certainly there, speed too, he's simply small and defensively weak.

 

[Mac n Gs]

Eco pretty much echoed my exact thoughts.
Spooner never should've been acquired in the first place.
He's just not a fit for this team.
Besides, Is signing this guy to an $8M contract really worth the 2nd/3rd pick we get back in a trade?

I mean they don’t really have wing depth and he’s shown he can be effective scorer. They can give him loaded offensive minutes and make him a more appealing trade asset. He’s really just a pawn in the grand scheme of things, and $4M for a 40+ point player really isn’t an issue. He’s more of a playmaker, and 21 of his 31 even-strength points were primary and so were 4 of his 7 powerplay points.

You’re kinda fretting over nothing to be honest.

 

[Gardner McKay]

Eco pretty much echoed my exact thoughts.
Spooner never should've been acquired in the first place.
He's just not a fit for this team.
Besides, Is signing this guy to an $8M contract really worth the 2nd/3rd pick we get back in a trade?

We need bodies. Spooner has produced enough to deserve that kind of cap hit. If he produces this year, his value would be closer to a 2nd + 3rd than only one of them. Who knows. If Spooner has a career year, maybe some desperate team will pay a late 1st for him at the deadline.

I think people often forget that you not only need vets to help shelter some of your young players, you also want your young players playing with SOME sort of talent. Spooner, for his flaws, is a talented player. Signing guys like Spooner and Names to 2 year deals makes perfect sense. If they have a big year this year and some team will pay up at the deadline, great. If not, you get another year out of each player and then trade them at the 2020 deadline for some assets.

Having no vets and a roster that is void of veteran talent is a great way to ruin your rookies. It creates a losing culture.

 

[Edge]

When you're at this stage of a rebuild, you shouldn't have to worry about wiggle room IMO.
#AnotherStupidSigning

I’m not really sure I follow.

It’s a moveable contract, with no long-term commitment.

If someone displaced him, they displace him. If they don’t, at the very least he’s an NHL player.

If he works, the Rangers benefit.

If he’s moved, the Rangers get additional assets.

 

[Hire Sather]

When you're at this stage of a rebuild, you shouldn't have to worry about wiggle room IMO.
#AnotherStupidSigning

He's our RFA. Did you just want to let him sit unsigned?

#TryMakingSense

 

[HockeyBasedNYC]

If the kids come up and prove they belong, they take away spots from some of the vets. Thats what a rebuild is all about. You cannot hand these kids spots. Thats not the way it works.

These deals will work out, if Spooner flirts with a 50+ point season he could be a nice addition for another team with a year left on his deal. If Hayes leaves you gotta get something for him. But you hav e the luxury of at least seeing how he fits in. There is some uncertainty as to who will fit into Quinn's system and what kids will push for a lineup spot. The most important thing is when we assess this team next offseason, they will have already hit rock bottom and are trending upwards fast with some more high picks in their pocket.

 

[NYR]

This probably belongs in a different thread but I’ll put it here to answer multiple posts.

I’m having a hard time wrapping my head around the concept of loading the team up with flawed talent.

Zib, Shattenkirk, Smith, Spooner..

All of these players each have well documented flaws so why build a team to lose?

I do understand that the team needs bodies but the youngsters also need vets that have had some level of success in order to teach them how to win.

I’ve read in numerous articles where Quinn preaches defense first and that he expects his players to take the body.

Does that even remotely describe Spooner or any of the above players?

The answer is no, these players are known for playing a game that’s the exact opposite.

Therefore, signing Spooner is a big giant waste of time to me and if you’re going just to trade him for picks/b-level prospect, then those picks should’ve been acquired in the first place instead of taking on another teams dead weight.

That money could’ve been used in UFA to address an actual need.

Just my opinion..

 

[NYR]

^^^ Does that make enough sense to you @Hire Sather ?

 

[nyr2k2]

This probably belongs in a different thread but I’ll put it here to answer multiple posts.

I’m having a hard time wrapping my head around the concept of loading the team up with flawed talent.

Zib, Shattenkirk, Smith, Spooner..

All of these players each have well documented flaws so why build a team to lose?

I do understand that the team needs bodies but the youngsters also need vets that have had some level of success in order to teach them how to win.

I’ve read in numerous articles where Quinn preaches defense first and that he expects his players to take the body.

Does that even remotely describe Spooner or any of the above players?

The answer is no, these players are known for playing a game that’s the exact opposite.

Therefore, signing Spooner is a big giant waste of time to me and if you’re going just to trade him for picks/b-level prospect, then those picks should’ve been acquired in the first place instead of taking on another teams dead weight.

That money could’ve been used in UFA to address an actual need.

Just my opinion..

I don't know that I've ever seen a team where every player is a perfect fit for the coach's desired identity.

A good coach instills a certain philosophy but will also work to best-utilize the existing talent on the team. Remember when Tortorella came, with the "Safe is Death" mantra? He quickly identified that wouldn't work for the guys he had, and changed his philosophy. I am not suggesting Quinn will do a 180, but I'm sure he will have no problem working those guys you mentioned into the fold.

As to the question about why acquire Spooner rather than additional picks and prospects, that presupposes that the Rangers knew they'd be hiring Quinn or someone like him. It also presupposes that the Bruins would have been willing to give up additional picks or prospects instead of Spooner.

Spooner is here now, can help out in working in the kids this year (the young guys need some established, productive players around them to best develop), and be traded at the deadline. Or, maybe he breaks out and we choose to keep him. Who knows. And as far as his money being used to sign UFAs--do you really think they would have signed a UFA if they traded Spooner? I mean, anything more than a low-level stopgap?

 

[eco's bones]

Eco pretty much echoed my exact thoughts.
Spooner never should've been acquired in the first place.
He's just not a fit for this team.
Besides, Is signing this guy to an $8M contract really worth the 2nd/3rd pick we get back in a trade?

FWIW the Bruins wanted Nash and to get Nash they had to dump salary to make it work and we had to retain half of what Nash had left--that's why we took Beleskey's contract--no other reason and it's why we took Spooner who is still at least something of an asset that you could turn around and maybe flip for a late 2nd or early 3rd without anyone raising an eyebrow. Spooner was kind of superfluous to their needs especially with all the young forward prospects they had coming along. He was like their 7th or 8th best offensive forward--a guy they could play on the powerplay or push on to the 2nd line in an emergency but with Nash coming in to replace him and needing cap and Spooner being a bit expensive for what he brought--he was easily for them the odd man out. Look at their wingers--Marchand, Pastrnak, DeBrusk, Heinen--they are all really good players and the last three are younger than him and DeBrusk and Heinen are low cap hits besides.

So the way I look at that trade is the Boston 1st and Ryan Lindgren were the really good stuff--Spooner is a player with some value who is filler for now but not someone you want to overpay (which IMO we might just have done) or commit long term to and Beleskey is a piece of junk. If we could get a 2nd for Spooner in next year's draft I would absolutely do that. Not sure we'll be able to--maybe though depending on what kind of season he has. He's a talented guy and a creative playmaker. He doesn't score enough goals--is not physical and is so so at best as a back checker. It's not like we haven't had similar guys before. He is a legit NHL player though.

 

[NYR]

I don't know that I've ever seen a team where every player is a perfect fit for the coach's desired identity.

A good coach instills a certain philosophy but will also work to best-utilize the existing talent on the team. Remember when Tortorella came, with the "Safe is Death" mantra? He quickly identified that wouldn't work for the guys he had, and changed his philosophy. I am not suggesting Quinn will do a 180, but I'm sure he will have no problem working those guys you mentioned into the fold.

As to the question about why acquire Spooner rather than additional picks and prospects, that presupposes that the Rangers knew they'd be hiring Quinn or someone like him. It also presupposes that the Bruins would have been willing to give up additional picks or prospects instead of Spooner.

Spooner is here now, can help out in working in the kids this year (the young guys need some established, productive players around them to best develop), and be traded at the deadline. Or, maybe he breaks out and we choose to keep him. Who knows. And as far as his money being used to sign UFAs--do you really think they would have signed a UFA if they traded Spooner? I mean, anything more than a low-level stopgap?

This begs for the question..If a GM has a certain philosophy he looking to instill in the new team he's trying to build, then why bring in all these types of players that completely contradict that philosophy?
I think the coach is irrelevant because again, if you have a certain philosophy, then you're going to bring in a coach that will follow suit.

Yes, he is here now but hopefully not for long..We'll see

 

[haveandare]

This probably belongs in a different thread but I’ll put it here to answer multiple posts.

I’m having a hard time wrapping my head around the concept of loading the team up with flawed talent.

Zib, Shattenkirk, Smith, Spooner..

All of these players each have well documented flaws so why build a team to lose?

I do understand that the team needs bodies but the youngsters also need vets that have had some level of success in order to teach them how to win.

I’ve read in numerous articles where Quinn preaches defense first and that he expects his players to take the body.

Does that even remotely describe Spooner or any of the above players?

The answer is no, these players are known for playing a game that’s the exact opposite.

Therefore, signing Spooner is a big giant waste of time to me and if you’re going just to trade him for picks/b-level prospect, then those picks should’ve been acquired in the first place instead of taking on another teams dead weight.

That money could’ve been used in UFA to address an actual need.

Just my opinion..

99% of players in the league have well documented flaws.

And Zib, Shattenkirk, Smith, Spooner etc have had some level of success in order to be able to impart something on the kids. Do you think Chytil and Lias are looking at guys like Zibanejad and Spooner and thinking they have nothing to learn from them? That Hajek and Lindgren are looking at Shattenkirk and Smith and thinking there's nothing they could learn from them? They're teenagers with less than 10 games of NHL experience. They can learn a ton from any number of experienced NHL players.

 

[Edge]

This probably belongs in a different thread but I’ll put it here to answer multiple posts.

I’m having a hard time wrapping my head around the concept of loading the team up with flawed talent.

Zib, Shattenkirk, Smith, Spooner..

All of these players each have well documented flaws so why build a team to lose?

I do understand that the team needs bodies but the youngsters also need vets that have had some level of success in order to teach them how to win.

I’ve read in numerous articles where Quinn preaches defense first and that he expects his players to take the body.

Does that even remotely describe Spooner or any of the above players?

The answer is no, these players are known for playing a game that’s the exact opposite.

Therefore, signing Spooner is a big giant waste of time to me and if you’re going just to trade him for picks/b-level prospect, then those picks should’ve been acquired in the first place instead of taking on another teams dead weight.

That money could’ve been used in UFA to address an actual need.

Just my opinion..

A few general thoughts:

I think there's often a misconception that completely changing a flawed team is about going and signing a bunch of guys or trading the players who aren't part of your long-term plans.

Unfortunately, changing a team is a process and I've yet to see a team that could successfully overhaul its entire roster over the span of several months.

We often fail to take into account that bringing in players is not a matter of simply identifying them and signing them to a contract or trading for them. There's also no exchange rate for swapping flawed players for guys you like better. In other words, 3 flawed players does not net you 1 player you really like.

So you have guys like Spooner, on reasonable contracts, who can play for you in the short-term. Eventually, the idea is to have better players push a guy like Spooner off the roster, but that doesn't just happen over night.

For every flawed player the Rangers move, they have to acquire someone/have someone ready to take the spot, and/or they have to get acceptable value in return.

Right now, the Rangers don't really know what they have, or when/if what they have will be ready. They can estimate, but I don't know think we fully acknowledge just how early in this process we are. There are people on here who are approaching this upcoming season as if we're in year two or three of the process, rather than merely being in the sixth month.

Flaws and all, you don't just give away a guy like Zib or Shattenkuirk without getting at least one of the above.

When it comes to a guy like Spooner, if the general trade value is more or less the same now as it is in February, there's really no incentive to moving him now.

For starters, warts and all, he should be good for 40 points. He can play both center and wing, and there's really no one beating down the door to take his spot on the wings.

So if the long-term plan is to get assets, and Spooner isn't worth more than a third round pick at this point, is an insurance policy for the upcoming season not worth at least a third round pick?

When we start talking about UFA, I don't think we really stop to consider the various aspects that play into a signing.

For one, there has to be a player available who fits a need.

Second, said player has to want to sign with us.

Third, the terms have to be agreed upon and acceptable for the team. Just because a guy is available, doesn't mean't he's signing with us on our terms.

Fourth, for the upcoming season, we are not exactly a preferred destination for the top free agents.

I'm not exactly sure what some people were wanting or expecting from this offseason.

 

[nyr2k2]

This begs for the question..If a GM has a certain philosophy he looking to instill in the new team he's trying to build, then why bring in all these types of players that completely contradict that philosophy?
I think the coach is irrelevant because again, if you have a certain philosophy, then you're going to bring in a coach that will follow suit.

Yes, he is here now but hopefully not for long..We'll see

Does Gorton have a philosophy on how a team should play? I'm not sure he does.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

Eco pretty much echoed my exact thoughts.
Spooner never should've been acquired in the first place.
He's just not a fit for this team.
Besides, Is signing this guy to an $8M contract really worth the 2nd/3rd pick we get back in a trade?

Look, Im not going to get excited about Ryan Spooner, but you'll have to explain how having a good puck distributor on a team severely lacking them is "not a fit"

 

[NYR]

99% of players in the league have well documented flaws.

And Zib, Shattenkirk, Smith, Spooner etc have had some level of success in order to be able to impart something on the kids. Do you think Chytil and Lias are looking at guys like Zibanejad and Spooner and thinking they have nothing to learn from them? That Hajek and Lindgren are looking at Shattenkirk and Smith and thinking there's nothing they could learn from them? They're teenagers with less than 10 games of NHL experience. They can learn a ton from any number of experienced NHL players.

Fair enough..I can agree on the kids still learning something but I'll have to disagree on level of success.

 

[NYR]

A few general thoughts:

I think there's often a misconception that completely changing a flawed team is about going and signing a bunch of guys or trading the players who aren't part of your long-term plans.

Unfortunately, changing a team is a process and I've yet to see a team that could successfully overhaul its entire roster over the span of several months.

We often fail to take into account that bringing in players is not a matter of simply identifying them and signing them to a contract or trading for them. There's also no exchange rate for swapping flawed players for guys you like better. In other words, 3 flawed players does not net you 1 player you really like.

So you have guys like Spooner, on reasonable contracts, who can play for you in the short-term. Eventually, the idea is to have better players push a guy like Spooner off the roster, but that doesn't just happen over night.

For every flawed player the Rangers move, they have to acquire someone/have someone ready to take the spot, and/or they have to get acceptable value in return.

Right now, the Rangers don't really know what they have, or when/if what they have will be ready. They can estimate, but I don't know think we fully acknowledge just how early in this process we are. There are people on here who are approaching this upcoming season as if we're in year two or three of the process, rather than merely being in the sixth month.

Flaws and all, you don't just give away a guy like Zib or Shattenkuirk without getting at least one of the above.

When it comes to a guy like Spooner, if the general trade value is more or less the same now as it is in February, there's really no incentive to moving him now.

For starters, warts and all, he should be good for 40 points. He can play both center and wing, and there's really no one beating down the door to take his spot on the wings.

So if the long-term plan is to get assets, and Spooner isn't worth more than a third round pick at this point, is an insurance policy for the upcoming season not worth at least a third round pick?

When we start talking about UFA, I don't think we really stop to consider the various aspects that play into a signing.

For one, there has to be a player available who fits a need.

Second, said player has to want to sign with us.
sense
Third, the terms have to be agreed upon and acceptable for the team. Just because a guy is available, doesn't mean't he's signing with us on our terms.

Fourth, for the upcoming season, we are not exactly a preferred destination for the top free agents.

I'm not exactly sure what some people were wanting or expecting from this offseason.

You seem to have this crazy way of always making sense.
Stop it lol

 

[NYR]

Does Gorton have a philosophy on how a team should play? I'm not sure he does.

He seemed to have it all spelt out when he announced the rebuild but now, not so sure

 

[NYR]

Look, Im not going to get excited about Ryan Spooner, but you'll have to explain how having a good puck distributor on a team severely lacking them is "not a fit"

This guy's a cream puff.
OK, he's a good passer but I wouldn't go holding my breath waiting for him to back check or score a goal

 

[Hunter Gathers]

Kreider, Namestnikov, Vesey, Fast and Spooner all headed for UFA in 2 years.

Also, I feel like Spooner will do well here, and people will come to like him. I have nothing to base this on other than a gut feeling.

Kreider and Fast will be extended and the rest will be deadline deals. We will not be competing for the Cup in two years, IMO. So this is fine.

 

[Edge]

You seem to have this crazy way of always making sense.
Stop it lol

I just try and remember that this isn't the finished product or vision the Rangers have --- this is the transition period.

Spooner, Names, and others probably aren't here for the long-haul, but they're here now. At the very least, they're all NHL players and they give us some versatility to play both center and the wings. I think that's their biggest value to the Rangers at the moment.

Beyond that, we'll see how the youngster progress this season and the hope is to transition them into NHL players.

I've often pointed to 2019 as the offseason where the Rangers really dip their feet in the free agent pool. But in the meantime, I think we're looking at a team that is going to have to live with its flaws for the upcoming season and will probably be an active seller at the deadline. Maybe not quite with the returns of 2018, but definitely at least a decent amount of picks and maybe some prospects.

I'm still fairly convinced that the Rangers, at least in the back of their minds, would love to find their first line center of the near future in the 2019 draft, along with some additional offensive depth.