Toggle sidebar

Arizona Trade Revisited

  • We're expecting server maintenance on March 3rd starting at midnight, there may be downtime during the work.
  • Xenforo Cloud has upgraded us to version 2.3.6. Please report any issues you experience.
McRanger said:
Stop trying to make "Stepan was a cap dump" happen.
Click to expand...
I don't think he was a "cap dump." But he was a player who was about to get difficult to move, whose cap hit may have then become burdensome. It's not a cap dump, but I absolutely believe it was a move made in large part because of future cap implications. I mean if Stepan continued to record points at this rate, he'd finish with 36 this year. An he has to waive an NMC to be moved. At his $6M or whatever. That was the fear.

To me, it's really not that much different that what's happening with Hayes. Yeah, they could have extended him for five or six years instead of just the one, but it would have been for a pretty substantial cap hit and likely with a NMC. And the team doesn't want to lock themselves into that at this point. (I say this as someone who want to keep Hayes.)
 
  • Like
Reactions: ReggieDunlop68
Getting out from under Stepans contract absolutely had a motivating factor in moving him.

We're debating the merits today of signing Hayes to a similar contract and hes not that much off of Stepan.

Moving that contract was almost as important as the return
 
  • Like
Reactions: NewYorkNick and ReggieDunlop68
McRanger said:
BE LESS VAGUE.

The return [The 7th overall pick in 2017 and Anthony DeAngelo] probably had something to do with it [the trade that sent Derek Kenneth Stepan to the Arizona Coyotes].
Click to expand...

Be less obtuse.

The motivation to make the trade was the Stepan’s NTC about to kick in.

And that makes it a good trade.
 
I think they made the trade because Stepan was not a center who could out produce the centers he was facing in the playoffs, he had a pending clause kicking in, the return made some sense.

What transpired after, why they signed Shattenkirk, Smith, McQuaid all to play above DeAngelo I do not have an answer anyone would like as it would seem to go against what transpired next, mostly the rebuild letter.

It leads me to believe they were trying to retool by moving Stepan, having Hayes and Miller take over, have Zbad with them and still thought it would more or less be okay if added to Shattenkirk, Smith, Staal, McD, Skjei.

Once that did not work, (which I'd attribute to injuries elsewhere (even those the players played through) along with porous defense/defensemen, and coaching, more than to the lack of Stepan) the letter happened and since then for the most part other than McQuaid they have followed that course.

Which leads me to believe DeAngelo for whatever reason was not really in their plans post trading for him but may have forced his way into them since McQuaid was injured, Smith stinks again, and Shattenkirk was also injured/stank.

The 7th overall, it's a pretty good place to pick, and I am not ready to form any strong opinion on who they picked there as I believe he should probably still be in the AHL playing along with some of the other 2017 and 2016 draft choices the Rangers made or traded for, Chytil, Howden, Hajek, Lindgren to be more specific, who all of which I am also not ready to form any strong opinions on.
 
pld459666 said:
Getting out from under Stepans contract absolutely had a motivating factor in moving him.

Were debating the merits today of signing Hayes to a similar contract and hes not that much off of Stepan.

Moving that contract was almost as important as the return
Click to expand...
No one is debating that Stepan's contract is a part of it. I think the Rangers saw it as an opportunity to pick up some young pieces while clearing up some space to add a player who they think will have a similar impact to Stepan through free agency (Shattenkirk, Thornton).

Take away the part about the assets coming back in the trade being a key part of it and, baby, you got yourself a cap dump going.
 
pld459666 said:
Getting out from under Stepans contract absolutely had a motivating factor in moving him.

We're debating the merits today of signing Hayes to a similar contract and hes not that much off of Stepan.

Moving that contract was almost as important as the return
Click to expand...
If we keep Hayes we need no trade protection imo. That was the real issue with Step’s deal
 
nyr2k2 said:
I don't think he was a "cap dump." But he was a player who was about to get difficult to move, whose cap hit may have then become burdensome. It's not a cap dump, but I absolutely believe it was a move made in large part because of future cap implications. I mean if Stepan continued to record points at this rate, he'd finish with 36 this year. An he has to waive an NMC to be moved. At his $6M or whatever. That was the fear.

To me, it's really not that much different that what's happening with Hayes. Yeah, they could have extended him for five or six years instead of just the one, but it would have been for a pretty substantial cap hit and likely with a NMC. And the team doesn't want to lock themselves into that at this point. (I say this as someone who want to keep Hayes.)
Click to expand...

Aside from the fact that Arizona paid the Rangers price for Stepan I think the biggest difference is that the team would not have considered moving Stepan if they didn't think they were on the brink of a rebuild/retool/whatever.

They would have happily paid him his money, not been much concerned with his NTC and held the very reasonable hope that he was still close to a 6.5m #1 center at the age of 30.

Its what separates a cap dump from just making a smart move.
 
  • Like
Reactions: nyr2k2
Stepan is on pace for like 40 points this year. I'm sure he'll pick it up and hit his usual 50ish. They sold a year early on him. What was it Branche Rickey used to say? Raanta is a very good goalie but has never been able to play more than 40 games with a series of health issues.

ADA is controllable for at least four more year.

Lias despite being "behind" on his NHL readiness is still a year ahead of how long it takes most prospects to make the big dance. We don't know what he'll become. Maybe he's a Joel Otto type. I still hope he can develop into a Jeri Letthonnen-lite. His passing and vision are very good.

The people who hate on this trade are doing it from an instant gratification point of view. It's the same people who flipped out on draft day during the first round.

I wouldn't even say Arizona "won" the trade short term. Did they make the playoffs? It's not like Stepan has a Dave Gagner on Minnesota or Rick Middleton in Boston impact on that franchise.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Brooklyn Rangers Fan
As far as the deal itself... I was fine moving Stepan for the reasons I elaborated on above. I was fine moving Raanta. In my head I had them going separately, but what I come up with in my head regarding player movement usually is not reflected by anything in reality. But giving them up, in general, fine by me.

Getting the seventh pick was great. That we picked Lias Andersson there is separate from the trade. I'll go down that rabbit hole, though--I still think he's a fine pick. I see good things from the player. Smart, nose for the net, chippy, leadership, good vision. A lot of people are back to pegging him as a 3C, and I think they'll feel silly in a year or so when his minutes increase and he plays with other guys that can actually play an offensive game. And the Mittelstadt stuff--just makes me laugh. If Lias played 13:30, got 2 minutes of PP time each night, and played with Okposo and Sheary instead of Fogarty, McLeod, Lettieri, and whatever other chud they stick on his wing, I would wager my house and all my vehicles he'd be producing at the same or greater rate that Casey. But whatever, again, it's not relevant to the trade.

ADA--verdict is still out for me. His defense is better than anticipated, but he still makes plenty of mistakes in coverage. He's young, but not a rookie, and I'd like to see those mistakes start diminishing (I actually think he was better when he first got back into the lineup than he has been recently). He can sling the puck around pretty good, but I actually haven't been terribly impressed with his play on the PP. He can work the top part of the umbrella fine but sometimes when he's on the boards, he telegraphs a pass cross-ice or otherwise just tries to force a play that isn't there. All in all though he has been good, he's definitely an NHL-caliber defenseman. I'm just not sure if he's a star or he's a #4 who can put up some good production on the PP.

So, I liked the trade as it was made. Taking Andersson is irrelevant to evaluating the trade, but if you demand he be included in the evaluation I still like it. I think we got two guys that will be good-to-really good players for a goalie we didn't need and a very good C approaching a bad part of his contract.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Larrybiv, Unusual Suspect, Greg02 and 6 others
nyr2k2 said:
As far as the deal itself... I was fine moving Stepan for the reasons I elaborated on above. I was fine moving Raanta. In my head I had them going separately, but what I come up with in my head regarding player movement usually is not reflected by anything in reality. But giving them up, in general, fine by me.

Getting the seventh pick was great. That we picked Lias Andersson there is separate from the trade. I'll go down that rabbit hole, though--I still think he's a fine pick. I see good things from the player. Smart, nose for the net, chippy, leadership, good vision. A lot of people are back to pegging him as a 3C, and I think they'll feel silly in a year or so when his minutes increase and he plays with other guys that can actually play an offensive game. And the Mittelstadt stuff--just makes me laugh. If Lias played 13:30, got 2 minutes of PP time each night, and played with Okposo and Sheary instead of Fogarty, McLeod, Lettieri, and whatever other chud they stick on his wing, I would wager my house and all my vehicles he'd be producing at the same or greater rate that Casey. But whatever, again, it's not relevant to the trade.

ADA--verdict is still out for me. His defense is better than anticipated, but he still makes plenty of mistakes in coverage. He's young, but not a rookie, and I'd like to see those mistakes start diminishing (I actually think he was better when he first got back into the lineup than he has been recently). He can sling the puck around pretty good, but I actually haven't been terribly impressed with his play on the PP. He can work the top part of the umbrella fine but sometimes when he's on the boards, he telegraphs a pass cross-ice or otherwise just tries to force a play that isn't there. All in all though he has been good, he's definitely an NHL-caliber defenseman. I'm just not sure if he's a star or he's a #4 who can put up some good production on the PP.

So, I liked the trade as it was made. Taking Andersson is irrelevant to evaluating the trade, but if you demand he be included in the evaluation I still like it. I think we got two guys that will be good-to-really good players for a goalie we didn't need and a very good C approaching a bad part of his contract.
Click to expand...

/thread
 
nyr2k2 said:
As far as the deal itself... I was fine moving Stepan for the reasons I elaborated on above. I was fine moving Raanta. In my head I had them going separately, but what I come up with in my head regarding player movement usually is not reflected by anything in reality. But giving them up, in general, fine by me.

Getting the seventh pick was great. That we picked Lias Andersson there is separate from the trade. I'll go down that rabbit hole, though--I still think he's a fine pick. I see good things from the player. Smart, nose for the net, chippy, leadership, good vision. A lot of people are back to pegging him as a 3C, and I think they'll feel silly in a year or so when his minutes increase and he plays with other guys that can actually play an offensive game. And the Mittelstadt stuff--just makes me laugh. If Lias played 13:30, got 2 minutes of PP time each night, and played with Okposo and Sheary instead of Fogarty, McLeod, Lettieri, and whatever other chud they stick on his wing, I would wager my house and all my vehicles he'd be producing at the same or greater rate that Casey. But whatever, again, it's not relevant to the trade.

ADA--verdict is still out for me. His defense is better than anticipated, but he still makes plenty of mistakes in coverage. He's young, but not a rookie, and I'd like to see those mistakes start diminishing (I actually think he was better when he first got back into the lineup than he has been recently). He can sling the puck around pretty good, but I actually haven't been terribly impressed with his play on the PP. He can work the top part of the umbrella fine but sometimes when he's on the boards, he telegraphs a pass cross-ice or otherwise just tries to force a play that isn't there. All in all though he has been good, he's definitely an NHL-caliber defenseman. I'm just not sure if he's a star or he's a #4 who can put up some good production on the PP.

So, I liked the trade as it was made. Taking Andersson is irrelevant to evaluating the trade, but if you demand he be included in the evaluation I still like it. I think we got two guys that will be good-to-really good players for a goalie we didn't need and a very good C approaching a bad part of his contract.
Click to expand...
Agree with every word of this post.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Unusual Suspect and nyr2k2
GeorgeKaplan said:
A rebuild that wasn’t a rebuild until like January last season?
Click to expand...
I think it was understood by the team that they would have to do some retooling in the near future. Maybe they didn't expect having to go as all-in as they did, but I think they knew they were probably going to need to do something. And they figured they could move Stepan, save some cap which would allow them some flexibility to pursue other things, and hopefully replace his production with the Zibanejad-Hayes combo.

Once things turned to shit they may have had a come-to-Jesus moment, realized the window was probably closed, and that they needed more than just whatever retooling they had in mind. That's the narrative that makes sense to me, anyway.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lucky13, Brooklyn Rangers Fan and Off Sides
nyr2k2 said:
I think it was understood by the team that they would have to do some retooling in the near future. Maybe they didn't expect having to go as all-in as they did, but I think they knew they were probably going to need to do something. And they figured they could move Stepan, save some cap which would allow them some flexibility to pursue other things, and hopefully replace his production with the Zibanejad-Hayes combo.

Once things turned to **** they may have had a come-to-Jesus moment, realized the window was probably closed, and that they needed more than just whatever retooling they had in mind. That's the narrative that makes sense to me, anyway.
Click to expand...

That is pretty much what I wrote out above. I think plans changed, yet I'm not so sure that retool would not have at least worked a little better if they did not have injuries. Not that I think it was a cup roster or anything but more a roster that would lead them to another kick at the can. (Which I am not a fan of as a team building exercise so in a way, in my opinion those injuries saved them from continuing on can kicking)
 
  • Like
Reactions: nyr2k2
nyr2k2 said:
I think it was understood by the team that they would have to do some retooling in the near future. Maybe they didn't expect having to go as all-in as they did, but I think they knew they were probably going to need to do something. And they figured they could move Stepan, save some cap which would allow them some flexibility to pursue other things, and hopefully replace his production with the Zibanejad-Hayes combo.

Once things turned to **** they may have had a come-to-Jesus moment, realized the window was probably closed, and that they needed more than just whatever retooling they had in mind. That's the narrative that makes sense to me, anyway.
Click to expand...
That, I agree with. But saying that they traded Stepan because they were rebuilding and didn’t want his contract and then signed Shattenkirk to essentially the same contract is silly to me
 
  • Like
Reactions: nyr2k2
Wanted more at the time, still kinda wish they did but it's fine.

Jury is still out on the Andersson pick, leaning towards them going a different direction at this point but I'd love to be wrong

DeAngelo has been good, hope he is here long term.
 
Edge said:
I think the value was there for the Rangers.

Whether the results are there will take time.

I wouldn't undo the deal, even if I could.
Click to expand...
Yeah I think that's the better way to looks at it...would you undo it....I certainly wouldn't.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom