Toggle sidebar

Speculation: 2014 - 2015 New York Rangers :: Roster building / proposal thread Part III

  • Xenforo Cloud will be upgrading us to version 2.3.5 on March 3rd at 12 AM GMT. This version has increased stability and fixes several bugs. We expect downtime for the duration of the update. The admin team will continue to work on existing issues, templates and upgrade all necessary available addons to minimize impact of this new version. Click Here for Updates
Status
Not open for further replies.
SeventySeven said:
That's not how I remember it, but I'll stand corrected if that was the case.

Can you reply to my earlier post re: NTC's (POST #66) when you get a chance? I was enjoying our healthy debate on the subject. :yo:
Click to expand...

Soon enough. Just as backup.

http://nypost.com/2012/02/28/rangers-dont-get-nash-which-is-good-news/

...he is believed to have offered the Blue Jackets a five-asset package including Brandon Dubinsky, 21-year-old top defense prospect Tim Erixon, highly regarded 2011 first-round draft choice J.T. Miller and 2010 second-round pick Christian Thomas, along with a 2012 first-round selection in order to make it happen ...
Click to expand...

http://www.newsday.com/sports/hocke...h-for-rangers-at-nhl-trade-deadline-1.3561638

The Rangers were believed to be offering Brandon Dubinsky, defenseman Tim Erixon, a prospect such as J.T. Miller or Christian Thomas and a No. 1 pick.
Click to expand...
 
SeventySeven said:
Exactly. That speaks to good negotiating by Yzerman to still get close to full value for MSL, DESPITE the NTC and only one destination. The NTC in most cases, limits the return. Usually, because most GMs aren't stupid and won't just GIVE their player away will hold out and still get near full value, but it's in spite of the detrimental NTC.


If MSL wanted out and he didn't have a NTC, you don't think the Isles or Oilers or Avs etc etc could've come up with a better package than Cally and two 1sts? Teams with much better prospects and recent high draft-picks could've and would've offered better than that, even if only slightly.

Even the sheer fact that TBL was limited to the players and prospects of ONE team limits the return. What if they didn't like Cally and didn't want draft picks?

The NTC absolutely limits the return in both scope (available players/prospects due
to limited teams involved) and value (due to lack of bidders competing).

It doesn't mean the GM will bend to the will of the acquiring GM and sell the player for nothing or for any bogus offer, but it limits their options and it limits the potential maximum return. You can usually still get a "good" / "fair" return but when trading a guy like MSL for example, if there was no NTC involved, Tampa could've really gotten a king's random for the future hall-of-famer.



ASIDE: It's interesting to note that you very rarely see a player WITHOUT a NTC demand a trade. If Player X wants out of Calgary, he likely isn't going to be happy on Buffalo. The bottom barrel teams often have the most sellable assets, draft picks, prospects, etc, which makes them a likely candidate to be able to put together a strong package to acquire Player X. But if Player X has a NTC, he can make sure he doesn't go to those teams, thus limiting and likely lowering the maximum potential value of the eventual return.
Click to expand...

I don't think MSL garners anything more than was traded for him from anywhere else. King's ransom? That's exactly what they got. Your point, that they get full value "in spite" of the NTC doesn't really matter, because they still got near full value. The thing that dampers the trade value of the player is the trade demand itself. Once that demand is out, other teams are immediately willing to pay less.

"What if they didn't like Cally and didn't want draft picks?" Then Yzerman tells MSL that he's either not being traded or he needs to widen his list. It's happened before. Hell, Bob Murray has done it before, and I generally think of him as being pretty inept. The GM is under no obligation to trade a player and the CBA makes it pretty prohibitive for a player to sit out for any significant amount of time.

Could the Isles or Oilers ponied up a better package? Maybe so. Why would they want to? How does a 39-year old help either of those teams in the long run, which is what teams in their situations care about? This is something that I think keeps getting missed. Just because there are 29 teams in the league besides the controlling team doesn't mean there are 29 potential destinations. A team open to bringing in MSL has to see themselves as a legitimate contender for the Cup. That cuts the numbers down to 7-10. The team then has to have the cap space, or potential cap space presented by the trade. Cut that initial number in half. Then the team has to have an open roster spot or be willing to create one. Cut the number down again. We're essentially talking about 2-4 teams with the motive, means and opportunity ( :laugh: we aren't talking about murder!), provided the player has no NTC or no issue going to the team in question. Will that really drive the price up my much? My answer is: not much. The demand for the player isn't particularly high to begin with.

I actually think players without NTCs demand trades just as often as players with. Remember Chris Pronger? The one thing the NTC does is slow down the process. Maybe it causes the controlling GM to hold out for full value. Maybe it takes more time for the potential destinations to decide to do a deal. Either way, it slows it down to the point where the demand leaks out. A player without an NTC might have his GM find a reasonable deal more quickly, before the trade demand comes out in the public.
 
Tawnos said:
I don't think MSL garners anything more than was traded for him from anywhere else. King's ransom? That's exactly what they got. Your point, that they get full value "in spite" of the NTC doesn't really matter, because they still got near full value. The thing that dampers the trade value of the player is the trade demand itself. Once that demand is out, other teams are immediately willing to pay less.

"What if they didn't like Cally and didn't want draft picks?" Then Yzerman tells MSL that he's either not being traded or he needs to widen his list. It's happened before. Hell, Bob Murray has done it before, and I generally think of him as being pretty inept. The GM is under no obligation to trade a player and the CBA makes it pretty prohibitive for a player to sit out for any significant amount of time.

Could the Isles or Oilers ponied up a better package? Maybe so. Why would they want to? How does a 39-year old help either of those teams in the long run, which is what teams in their situations care about? This is something that I think keeps getting missed. Just because there are 29 teams in the league besides the controlling team doesn't mean there are 29 potential destinations. A team open to bringing in MSL has to see themselves as a legitimate contender for the Cup. That cuts the numbers down to 7-10. The team then has to have the cap space, or potential cap space presented by the trade. Cut that initial number in half. Then the team has to have an open roster spot or be willing to create one. Cut the number down again. We're essentially talking about 2-4 teams with the motive, means and opportunity ( :laugh: we aren't talking about murder!), provided the player has no NTC or no issue going to the team in question. Will that really drive the price up my much? My answer is: not much. The demand for the player isn't particularly high to begin with.

I actually think players without NTCs demand trades just as often as players with. Remember Chris Pronger? The one thing the NTC does is slow down the process. Maybe it causes the controlling GM to hold out for full value. Maybe it takes more time for the potential destinations to decide to do a deal. Either way, it slows it down to the point where the demand leaks out. A player without an NTC might have his GM find a reasonable deal more quickly, before the trade demand comes out in the public.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. I'll agree to disagree in general about NTC's limiting return value, but you certainly make some very thoughtful and valid points. I do appreciate the discussion. Always a pleasure.
 
If you want to talk about myths, one of my favorites is "X team doesn't HAVE to trade the player requesting a trade"

You know what all those players have in common? They get traded.
 
Serious question:

What happened to all of the rumored trades. With teams so close to the cap I would have thought there would be more action this off-season in that regard.
 
Fletch said:
aren't there a couple teams over the cap also?
Click to expand...

4 teams are currently over the cap.

2 teams have less than $1M in cap space (actually, less than $500k)

3 teams have less than $2M in cap space (including the Rangers)

http://capgeek.com/


Some of those rosters may not be final however, so I'm not sure how valid those numbers are when the season starts.
 
azaloum90 said:
4 teams are currently over the cap.

2 teams have less than $1M in cap space (actually, less than $500k)

3 teams have less than $2M in cap space (including the Rangers)

http://capgeek.com/


Some of those rosters may not be final however, so I'm not sure how valid those numbers are when the season starts.
Click to expand...

Rangers have both Hunwick and Kostka accounted for (both won't happen), Fast in the lineup (prob won't happen) and neither J Moore or Miller accounted for.. I think Brooks said when Moore signs, the Rangers will probably have about 1.5M in space for in season.
 
Lundsanity30 said:
Rangers have both Hunwick and Kostka accounted for (both won't happen), Fast in the lineup (prob won't happen) and neither J Moore or Miller accounted for.. I think Brooks said when Moore signs, the Rangers will probably have about 1.5M in space for in season.
Click to expand...

yeah something like that. Thats why I stated the numbers were final.

I also think the $1.5M figure comes from carrying no spare forward. If they do carry a spare forward, that drops a bit more.. $805k to keep fast, $600k to keep Mueller, etc.
 
azaloum90 said:
4 teams are currently over the cap.

2 teams have less than $1M in cap space (actually, less than $500k)

3 teams have less than $2M in cap space (including the Rangers)

http://capgeek.com/


Some of those rosters may not be final however, so I'm not sure how valid those numbers are when the season starts.
Click to expand...

And do some still have spots to fill/RFAs top sign?
 
azaloum90 said:
4 teams are currently over the cap.

2 teams have less than $1M in cap space (actually, less than $500k)

3 teams have less than $2M in cap space (including the Rangers)

http://capgeek.com/


Some of those rosters may not be final however, so I'm not sure how valid those numbers are when the season starts.
Click to expand...

2 of those 4 teams have LTIR situations that will put them under. Boston with Savard and Philly with Pronger. Another, in Tampa, Cap Geek has 9 defensemen listed on their roster. Same type of thing with Toronto and LA, who are within a million.

Chicago is over the cap and I'm not sure what's going on there.
 
Fletch said:
And do some still have spots to fill/RFAs top sign?
Click to expand...

Chicago has some serious issues with the cap. They're going to have to let one of their $5M players go. I don't know which one. Once that's done they'll probably get a cheaper player back, or draft picks and hope that a rookie on an ELC can step in...

Boston is a $1-2M under once Savard hits LTIR. They have 1-2 spots to fill, they'll be OK

Philly is nearly $2M under once Pronger hits LTIR. Timmonen most likely takes that spot. They just have to carry a spare forward. They're OK

Tampa needs to dump one more player. Even with knocking out 2 spare defensemen and leaving only 1, they're still ~$150k over the cap....

Funny thing is how many NMC that team has
 
Tawnos said:
Philly just has Gustafsson
Boston has Krug and Smith.
Tampa has no one significant
Chicago has no one.
LA has no one
Toronto has no one significant.
Click to expand...

Chicago has to sign K Hayes or lose him. Which we a know is going to happen. Just thought I would throw that out there.
 
Tawnos said:
2 of those 4 teams have LTIR situations that will put them under. Boston with Savard and Philly with Pronger. Another, in Tampa, Cap Geek has 9 defensemen listed on their roster. Same type of thing with Toronto and LA, who are within a million.

Chicago is over the cap and I'm not sure what's going on there.
Click to expand...

Does Ohlund go on LTIR?
 
howztheglass said:
Chicago has to sign K Hayes or lose him. Which we a know is going to happen. Just thought I would throw that out there.
Click to expand...

Signing Hayes won't impact their cap though, just their 50 contract limit, which I'm sure they've accounted for.
 
Not sure where to put this so I'm putting it here. Does anybody have a link to the CBC intro from the Final where all the players said who their favorite player growing up was?
 
We have no need to rush defenders. If he wants to go back to college, good for him. Allen, McIlrath are the prospects pushing Moore and they have veteran options as always.
 
Fitzy said:
We have no need to rush defenders. If he wants to go back to college, good for him. Allen, McIlrath are the prospects pushing Moore and they have veteran options as always.
Click to expand...

totally agree, I think that article was referring to what to do with Staal though and how his development could impact Staal.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom