Appraisal of Rangers' Salary Structure

[mas0764]

the article is ignorance while both the article and you missed

“anybody following this team knows the Rangers only added $1.1 million to their cap. Had the Rangers resigned Buch the cap would have been similar and worse had they resigned Buch and added grit.”

I didn't "miss," that.... it's irrelevant. We aren't talking about how much the Rangers added to their cap, nor are we talking about what shape they'd be in if the Rangers re-signed Buch. Why is it you think either of those points are important in this discussion?

This article is talking about contract value/efficiency.

 

[Off Sides]

This article is talking about contract value/efficiency.

I have been harping on it for years, you too, others as well, it's not ever going to be widely accepted that the Rangers are and have been inefficient with their cap space. I do not expect that to change. People would rather believe the Rangers have been unlucky in missing the playoffs, or in the playoffs, or blame injury, or any other thing than believe they were beaten by teams who had more efficient cap structures which led to them having better overall rosters that could better mitigate bad luck or injury.

 

[haohmaru]

The problem with an article like this is that when they ignore ELC contracts it makes it pointless.

Once you ignore the Norris trophy winner on an ELC then all credibility is lost. Have to look at the whole picture

 

[HockeyBasedNYC]

This is Dom Lunchchicken and his model. His model is his baby and it's black and white for him. He has also been running with the "Everything the Rangers do is because of Tom Wilson" narrative since day one, even when he's called out on not seeming to understand why that's garbage. It is what it is--one guy and one model, and what they think about things. I know some of you eat this up but for me it's just one small data point.

Honestly, with The Athletic, I read Carp's articles (I know a lot of you hate him) because they do have tidbits of new information. If it's Shayna, I usually skip it because she's either just referencing Dom and others' models nonstop or writing an entire article about Zibanejad vs. Eichel long term without mentioning the vast uncertainty of Eichel's neck. And then when it's a Dom article, I typically just skip it.

Same here. I read them but I don't put a lot of stock into any of it.

His models are subjective anyway, and to base all of the predictions off of them is a skewed starting point.

I'll always go back and check how his prediction pan out for previous seasons, and surprise, they arent that accurate.

 

[nyr2k2]

Same here. I read them but I don't put a lot of stock into any of it.

His models are subjective anyway, and to base all of the predictions off of them is a skewed starting point.

I'll always go back and check how his prediction pan out for previous seasons, and surprise, they arent that accurate.

Yeah I mean look, I follow Dom (not on Twitter anymore because he's insufferable), I follow Evolving Wild, JFresh, etc. I like the analytics and the models and the insights they provide. But, again, it's just one data point, and the guys that build those models will tell you that they're not infallible. So I don't mean to shit on Dom's thing too much, but again, it's just one lens to view things through.

 

[mas0764]

I have been harping on it for years, you too, others as well, it's not ever going to be widely accepted that the Rangers are and have been inefficient with their cap space. I do not expect that to change. People would rather believe the Rangers have been unlucky in missing the playoffs, or in the playoffs, or blame injury, or any other thing than believe they were beaten by teams who had more efficient cap structures which led to them having better overall rosters that could better mitigate bad luck or injury.

Listen, there is an argument for why models such as this are not the be-all, end-all thing we should be focusing on.

But the homers come out in force, like, "durrr! This is nerd stuff! We don't need to pay any attention!"

No. This is valuable information.

Of course any one of these contracts may or may not be as bad as the model says, or it might be worth overpaying for in a given circumstance or circumstances.

But this is not a one-off here. The fans at large identified this offseason's series of moves as necessary to an extent, but approaching overkill in the skill-for-grit swap out, and also that we didn't get great value on any of the contracts.

It has to stop. It's trending in the wrong direction. Yes, none of these are going to break us while we have lots of players on ELCs, but what happens when we don't?

Eventually some of these overpays have to be shipped out, bought out, traded, or you are going to have to get some very good value contracts to be a long term contender.

Everyone seems to have forgot that's the goal - to compete for ten years here. Not to make it to the semis and call it mission accomplished, rebuild over. We've been there, done that. Stop being so f***ing myopic, people.

 

[chosen]

It wasn't just Tom Wilson, everyone loves to point that moment out but it was because we couldn't hang with heavier teams like the Islanders that made this switch. If you look at Tampa they had to do the same thing to win. You need some bangers to soften up a team over a playoff series

Dolan's reaction was to Wilson, I'm guessing.

Tampa did something similar to win, but they were on the cusp of winning, and they brought in mostly guys who could take a regular shift. Reaves and Tinordi are not those kinds of players.

The Rangers, to me panicked and moved a year too soon in that direction

 

[NYSPORTS]

I didn't "miss," that.... it's irrelevant. We aren't talking about how much the Rangers added to their cap, nor are we talking about what shape they'd be in if the Rangers re-signed Buch. Why is it you think either of those points are important in this discussion?

This article is talking about contract value/efficiency.

lol, so in this post you’re dismissing the cap yet in others you mention it. Reading through this thread i’m on the same page as the majority. If value/efficiency has no relation to the cap then the article wouldn’t exist. Not sure you’re point is.

 

[NYSPORTS]

Dolan's reaction was to Wilson, I'm guessing.

Tampa did something similar to win, but they were on the cusp of winning, and they brought in mostly guys who could take a regular shift. Reaves and Tinordi are not those kinds of players.

The Rangers, to me panicked and moved a year too soon in that direction

what moves would you have made?

 

[chosen]

Trouba and Kreider are the only "bad" contracts this team has.

The article is bunk

I doubt Goodrow's contract will be considered a good one and sooner rather than later.

 

[nyr2k2]

Listen, there is an argument for why models such as this are not the be-all, end-all thing we should be focusing on.

But the homers come out in force, like, "durrr! This is nerd stuff! We don't need to pay any attention!"

No. This is valuable information.

Of course any one of these contracts may or may not be as bad as the model says, or it might be worth overpaying for in a given circumstance or circumstances.

But this is not a one-off here. The fans at large identified this offseason's series of moves as necessary to an extent, but approaching overkill in the skill-for-grit swap out, and also that we didn't get great value on any of the contracts.

It has to stop. It's trending in the wrong direction. Yes, none of these are going to break us while we have lots of players on ELCs, but what happens when we don't?

Eventually some of these overpays have to be shipped out, bought out, traded, or you are going to have to get some very good value contracts to be a long term contender.

Everyone seems to have forgot that's the goal - to compete for ten years here. Not to make it to the semis and call it mission accomplished, rebuild over. We've been there, done that. Stop being so f***ing myopic, people.

The top ten teams on this list have a combined 9 players on ELCs. You get the most bang for your buck from players on ELCs and second contracts (the latter, in theory). We have six players on ELCs that don't get credited to our efficiency; and even if they get "above-market" deals for their second contract, would still likely grade out as favorable. Meanwhile we get dinged for guys like Blais, Rooney, and Tinordi, the latter two who can be buried completely, and all three of whom may not even really be parts of the team for much longer. I mean this is all "fine" I guess because every team is being handled the same, but when a huge part of our core doesn't get counted and half of the guys that drag us down aren't even important players and could be dumped or moved out in a second, it seems kind of silly.

I think everyone is aware that the Kreider and Trouba deals are problematic--I don't think anyone is blind to that. The Goodrow one? Dom's model hates Goodrow, and even among those who are more optimistic about what he'll bring, I think people still have reservations about it. I don't think anyone is being myopic--it's really just about this model. Generally speaking I think more people than not are pissed off at many of the contracts we have on the books.

 

[Levitate]

I have been harping on it for years, you too, others as well, it's not ever going to be widely accepted that the Rangers are and have been inefficient with their cap space. I do not expect that to change. People would rather believe the Rangers have been unlucky in missing the playoffs, or in the playoffs, or blame injury, or any other thing than believe they were beaten by teams who had more efficient cap structures which led to them having better overall rosters that could better mitigate bad luck or injury.

I think some of the problems with the Rangers cap inefficiency in the past have come down to being loyal to and paying some guys "what they're owed", like Girardi and Staal, and having them weigh down important positions on the ice as well as eating up cap space and making it difficult to retain some other players, but at the same time that's also more of a talent mis-evaluation than salary cap issue. Like...letting Stralman walk while being committed to Girardi and Staal, etc.

Ultimately I don't really get the narrative so far of "the Rangers have abandoned their building of a super skilled team and have instead gone all in on grit!" They're still a super skilled roster. They traded Buchnevich, yes, but again I don't think you can see a future Rangers team that has Buchnevich, Kakko, and Kravtsov on it. The Rangers are gambling to some extent that their young high end talent can replace Buchnevich and then are shoring up holes in their roster elsewhere.
Other than that...they added grit but they're not subtracting skill in other areas. Why complain about Nemeth, a very solid 3rd pairing vet to match with a high skill rookie? Why complain about Tinordi, a guy who's gonna be a 7th D at best? I get the complaint about Goodrow but I suspect that contract is not going to sink the Rangers.
I also think that while it's fine to criticize the Trouba contract now, I don't think it was that crazy when it was signed and I think Trouba will still give this team a whole lot more if they make the playoffs.

Yes good teams need to rely primarily on their high end skill but the Rangers haven't really deviated from that plan and so far are also just adding in other elements to their roster that were missing. No team just rolls 3 lines of top line players and a 4th line made up of guys who score 40 points, yet sometimes it seems like that's what these models are pushing for.

 

[chosen]

what moves would you have made?

For starters, I wouldn't have fired all of management in a fit of rage.

I'm not the GM, so I have no idea who was available for what, but that's irrelevant, anyway.

I wouldn't have signed Reaves or Tinordi, though.

The Buchnevich-Blais deal is a puzzler because Buch was supposed to bring back a center, even if not by himself. Now, you're looking at the possibility of guys like Kravtsov and or Kakko leaving for a center.

Goodrow sure got a long contract for what I believe is a team not even ready to plug guys in to make a Cup run. He may work out, anyway, but that's probably a flip of a coin.

For those claiming Wilson wasn't a motivating factor for all this, there have been loads of postings here crowing about getting Reaves and what he's going to do to Wilson.

 

[Off Sides]

Does the model account for the extensions the Rangers will likely give out?

I mean if we are trying to say the entry levels are not being accounted for, neither are those extensions, two of which that are in the good side end this year.

 

[Levitate]

L
But this is not a one-off here. The fans at large identified this offseason's series of moves as necessary to an extent, but approaching overkill in the skill-for-grit swap out, and also that we didn't get great value on any of the contracts.

I mean I'm gonna be double posting here but again I'm gonna call this out because the Rangers haven't"skill for grit" swapped much of anything this year and it feels like an overused criticism.

They moved Buch but are also adding skill with Kravtsov for much cheaper than Buch and giving more responsibility and icetime to their other high talent RW to hopefully maximize his contract efficiency if you want to put it that way. Might their overall scoring take a hit next season? Maybe. What if Buch scores 50 points next season, but Kakko scores 50 and Kravtsov scores 35 in a 3rd line roll? And they're doing it for millions less than a new Buch contract? Not even taking into account other impacts Blais might have.

Adding Nemeth and Tinordi and even Reaves isn't subtracting skill either. They'll be adding skill with someone like Lundkvist.

I guess you can argue that letting Blackwell get taken in expansion was the wrong move but that seems like a different argument and situation.

At any rate it seems like people want to make it out like the Rangers have swapped a bunch of talented players for grinders and that just isn't true so far.

 

[Levitate]

Dolan's reaction was to Wilson, I'm guessing.

Tampa did something similar to win, but they were on the cusp of winning, and they brought in mostly guys who could take a regular shift. Reaves and Tinordi are not those kinds of players.

The Rangers, to me panicked and moved a year too soon in that direction

I think Dolan definitely freaked out and messed this up to some extent but this "adding grit" step was always coming this year. JD and Gorton talked about it all the time, they drafted a gritty defenseman last year. They got fired for not moving fast enough on it apparently but they were definitely going to be making similar moves.
And they were right. The Rangers really did need some moves like this. Whether these are the exact right moves is certainly up for debate, but this was always coming

 

[Off Sides]

I think some of the problems with the Rangers cap inefficiency in the past have come down to being loyal to and paying some guys "what they're owed", like Girardi and Staal, and having them weigh down important positions on the ice as well as eating up cap space and making it difficult to retain some other players, but at the same time that's also more of a talent mis-evaluation than salary cap issue. Like...letting Stralman walk while being committed to Girardi and Staal, etc.

Ultimately I don't really get the narrative so far of "the Rangers have abandoned their building of a super skilled team and have instead gone all in on grit!" They're still a super skilled roster. They traded Buchnevich, yes, but again I don't think you can see a future Rangers team that has Buchnevich, Kakko, and Kravtsov on it. The Rangers are gambling to some extent that their young high end talent can replace Buchnevich and then are shoring up holes in their roster elsewhere.
Other than that...they added grit but they're not subtracting skill in other areas. Why complain about Nemeth, a very solid 3rd pairing vet to match with a high skill rookie? Why complain about Tinordi, a guy who's gonna be a 7th D at best? I get the complaint about Goodrow but I suspect that contract is not going to sink the Rangers.
I also think that while it's fine to criticize the Trouba contract now, I don't think it was that crazy when it was signed and I think Trouba will still give this team a whole lot more if they make the playoffs.

Yes good teams need to rely primarily on their high end skill but the Rangers haven't really deviated from that plan and so far are also just adding in other elements to their roster that were missing. No team just rolls 3 lines of top line players and a 4th line made up of guys who score 40 points, yet sometimes it seems like that's what these models are pushing for.

I am not sure loyal, more like they were extended while the Rangers were in playoff position, so the options were, extend, self rent or trade, and they were not going to trade them. Even when they had to know they were not very good they extended Kreider.

I'd like to believe they are super skilled, yet much of that concerning the youth is unproven so far.

I guess I just find it hard to have it both ways, Is the Rangers/NYC market desirable enough to play in where the players will leave chunks of money on the table, or is it not? Even disregarding the market, is the organization worth playing for even if it means the players are not getting the highest possible contract? I mean we talk about team identity, and whatnot, what is the Rangers organization identity?

 

[mas0764]

lol, so in this post you’re dismissing the cap yet in others you mention it.

I have no idea what you are talking about and I'm not sure you do either.

The genesis of this thread is that the Rangers have too many contracts that are, as the writer posits, "bad."

Bad is subjective but we are certainly way behind in value compared to other teams.

This will eventually be quite bad for us in terms of maintaining a contender, even if it isn't as we sit here today. Hence why I said, some of these bad deals - namely Trouba and/or Kreider or both - are eventually going to have to be moved to make way for some of these other lesser bad deals to breathe.

Reading through this thread i’m on the same page as the majority.

Really couldn't care less what a few other lemmings have posted in this thread.

 

[mas0764]

The top ten teams on this list have a combined 9 players on ELCs. You get the most bang for your buck from players on ELCs and second contracts (the latter, in theory). We have six players on ELCs that don't get credited to our efficiency; and even if they get "above-market" deals for their second contract, would still likely grade out as favorable. Meanwhile we get dinged for guys like Blais, Rooney, and Tinordi, the latter two who can be buried completely, and all three of whom may not even really be parts of the team for much longer. I mean this is all "fine" I guess because every team is being handled the same, but when a huge part of our core doesn't get counted and half of the guys that drag us down aren't even important players and could be dumped or moved out in a second, it seems kind of silly.

I think everyone is aware that the Kreider and Trouba deals are problematic--I don't think anyone is blind to that. The Goodrow one? Dom's model hates Goodrow, and even among those who are more optimistic about what he'll bring, I think people still have reservations about it. I don't think anyone is being myopic--it's really just about this model. Generally speaking I think more people than not are pissed off at many of the contracts we have on the books.

Well, some people are being myopic. Your response is a well thought out one and worthy of a response.

I agree with you - the model here basically doesn't look at ELCs, which is how we are keeping our head above water right now. But that's not what the article is trying to debate either - overall cap health. Instead its a ranking of non-ELC contracts (and among skaters only, what's more), by team.

I think you make a very good point though - we have to win some of these second contracts, stat. A great opportunity would have been Chytil, but we punted on that. Not sure why.

But we have to get Fox, Kakko, Laf, etc, locked up on favorable deals at young ages so that they can be good value for the next 4-5-6+ years. We cannot lose on those deals, and they have to get locked in long term like the Avs did. It is comforting at least that even with Makar getting $9m a year he's looked at as an A+ contract. Can we give that to Fox right flippin now? Would have maybe been nice to get Lindgren for 5-6 years too.

We do have a bunch of net negative contracts comparatively speaking. Some of them are going to have to be cleared out.

And preferably we stop fricking handing them out to begin with.

 

[mas0764]

Does the model account for the extensions the Rangers will likely give out?

I mean if we are trying to say the entry levels are not being accounted for, neither are those extensions, two of which that are in the good side end this year.

No, it doesn't.... but I think if we get a couple value long term deals there we can shoot up this list.

Ultimately don't really care about the ranking, it's more about the fact that we have a couple of albatross deals. Kreider and Trouba just are going to end up paid too much for their eventual roles.

 

[Levitate]

I'd like to believe they are super skilled, yet much of that concerning the youth is unproven so far.

yeah but if you want to become a legitimate contender you have to assume those guys are going to show their talent and develop. This rebuild is doomed if Kakko and Lafreniere don't become top players for this team and it doesn't matter how efficient their salary cap structure is otherwise.

I guess I just find it hard to have it both ways, Is the Rangers/NYC market desirable enough to play in where the players will leave chunks of money on the table, or is it not? Even disregarding the market, is the organization worth playing for even if it means the players are not getting the highest possible contract? I mean we talk about team identity, and whatnot, what is the Rangers organization identity?

Depends on the player I think...we've seen a few players leave a bit of money on the table to play in NY. We've seen plenty others decline to do that and demand max dollars. I don't think we should assume players are going to do the team a favor for the most part. It's possible that if the Rangers develop this team into a legitimate contender and winner then you'll see some more players take some discounts to try to keep the team together, but they're certainly not there yet

 

[NYSPORTS]

I have no idea what you are talking about and I'm not sure you do either.

The genesis of this thread is that the Rangers have too many contracts that are, as the writer posits, "bad."

Bad is subjective but we are certainly way behind in value compared to other teams.

This will eventually be quite bad for us in terms of maintaining a contender, even if it isn't as we sit here today. Hence why I said, some of these bad deals - namely Trouba and/or Kreider or both - are eventually going to have to be moved to make way for some of these other lesser bad deals to breathe.



Really couldn't care less what a few other lemmings have posted in this thread.

Great yup, thanks. Sticking with the majority. There was a bit more written than your selective contracts which many of us have beaten to death since before Covid.

 

[NYSPORTS]

For starters, I wouldn't have fired all of management in a fit of rage.

I'm not the GM, so I have no idea who was available for what, but that's irrelevant, anyway.

I wouldn't have signed Reaves or Tinordi, though.

The Buchnevich-Blais deal is a puzzler because Buch was supposed to bring back a center, even if not by himself. Now, you're looking at the possibility of guys like Kravtsov and or Kakko leaving for a center.

Goodrow sure got a long contract for what I believe is a team not even ready to plug guys in to make a Cup run. He may work out, anyway, but that's probably a flip of a coin.

For those claiming Wilson wasn't a motivating factor for all this, there have been loads of postings here crowing about getting Reaves and what he's going to do to Wilson.

- ok, you wouldn’t have fired all management. Neither would any of us while we have no idea what transpired behind the scenes. We do know what happened in the Carolina play in series and we do know how no physical elements were added. Was the plan to change that? We don’t know

- you’re not a GM. Ugh,this is what makes me smh. If you’re going to ridicule without a solution what is the point? Hate a move yet no answer to what you would do? Com’on, you give yourself all the credit for killing moves yet step aside when asked for a move you like? I don’t get it.

- Buch’s return is completely subjective. We have no idea what the market was like for a center. B/c you expected it and it didn’t happen doesn’t mean the return for Buch was supposed to be a center

- Ok you don’t like Goodrow. We’ve beaten this to death. I’d ask what physical players you would like to bring in yet you already played you’re not a GM card and maybe you felt a physical addition wasn’t necessary.

- Reaves is again subjective. What do you care what others posted? He did add more than fighting to Vegas although it doesn’t have to be on the scoresheet. For $1.75 who cares? Is that 3rd Round pick so precious when the Rangers have so many prospects and already gained another 2nd Round pick in a loaded draft for Buch? I say no.

 

[Off Sides]

No, it doesn't.... but I think if we get a couple value long term deals there we can shoot up this list.

Ultimately don't really care about the ranking, it's more about the fact that we have a couple of albatross deals. Kreider and Trouba just are going to end up paid too much for their eventual roles.

I am not sure long term value deals are possible.

If the youth breaks out, like many are counting on, (me too) I feel as if this is more like Toronto than anything else where all these players coming off their entry levels are going to demand a ton. The Shesterkin contracts did not give me any reason to change that feeling.

 

[DudMan28]

This is Dom Lunchchicken and his model. His model is his baby and it's black and white for him. He has also been running with the "Everything the Rangers do is because of Tom Wilson" narrative since day one, even when he's called out on not seeming to understand why that's garbage. It is what it is--one guy and one model, and what they think about things. I know some of you eat this up but for me it's just one small data point.

Honestly, with The Athletic, I read Carp's articles (I know a lot of you hate him) because they do have tidbits of new information. If it's Shayna, I usually skip it because she's either just referencing Dom and others' models nonstop or writing an entire article about Zibanejad vs. Eichel long term without mentioning the vast uncertainty of Eichel's neck. And then when it's a Dom article, I typically just skip it.

"They were on the right track creating an uber-skilled team, but decided to go all in on grit after Tom Wilson ruffled their feathers."

This narrative that we completely changed the structure of our team has been around all off-season and it's baffling.

The only "uber-skilled" guy we lost was Buchnevich, who had a career year. We're counting on the kids to replace his production and added some quality guys to the bottom sixers.