McDonagh trade

[HFsNumber1Heel]

They're called prospects for a reason. They are prospective players. Not every trade is going to be a home run. We all get so fixated on data and because we can follow Libor Hajek on Instagram or Twitter and see him train every day, he's automatically a better prospect than Milo Horava was 32 years ago. The truth is they're more similar than meets the eye but because Horava came to America before the Berlin Wall came down and before the internet there was this perception he was Latka Gravas or something.

Most trades fall into the category of a wash or a slight edge to one team. Every couple of years there is a Gomez for McD or Erat for Forsberg type move but this isn't the 1980s and GMs know if they mess up bad they're out. No GM would ever be allowed to be as wreckless as Phil Espsito was. Even Jim Benning in Vancouver or Pierre Dorion in Ottawa, those guys take so much heat from their fanbases but other than a little of Shestyorkin, no young player on the Rangers has been as impactful as Peterson/Boeser or Tkachuk/Chabot. Maybe Fox but he's an older prospect and Chabot has more time in the NHL under his belt.

If TBL is a good regular season team makes the playoffs every year but doesn't win the Cup, and lets say Nils Lundkvist becomes an All star #1 d but all the other prospects bust, do the Rangers win that trade? If McD finishes out his contract and the stuff they get for Miller become key contributors, yet the Rangers win a Cup with Howden as Blair Betts 2.0 and Hajek as a #7 Dman, does Tampa win that trade?

 

[Crease]

Anyone who can name drop Milo Horava and Latka Gravas in the same post gets a like from me.

 

[cwede]

Horava sorta related to a funny NYR related mess-up by Hockey News.
In '88-89, 3 NYR D wore #6 at various times,
Horava, Dean Kennedy and Ken Hammond

THN ran a story about journeyman players, calling out Kennedy as one of those 'average' NHL playerts, and intending to put his photo on the cover.
But the NYR #6 on the cover was actually a photo of Hammond.

Los Angeles Kings Legends: Dean Kennedy
"In a cover story on the Feb. 3, 1989 issue of The Hockey News, Kennedy earned the dubious honor of being the NHL's "most average defenseman" as a result of a NHL average statistics analysis. Unfortunately, The Hockey News goofed in picking Kennedy's photo for the cover, accidentally choosing a photo of Ken Hammond."

 

[egelband]

I can't imagine Tampa is very happy with the trade either, though. McD was not good when they were getting swept in the playoffs last year, and he wasn't great this season either, while also struggling with more injuries. They are set to pay him over $40m over the next 6 years with a NTC. If they could trade him now, they'd probably be ecstatic if he brought back a prospect of Lundkivst's caliber.

Yep. And that’s the structural problem with the system. Players get paid for their past work. McDonagh is - on the whole - worth the salary he’s getting but Tampa is paying for the work he did with the Rangers. I’d say the most successful GMs are constantly shuffling out players almost as soon as they hit UFA. If they can buy out a year or two of UFA the player stays a bit longer. But for the most part they have to just cut bait. Occasionally you get the Kreider or Panarin and the GM deviates. But for the most part, it’s ‘sayonara’ at UFA.

 

[egelband]

They're called prospects for a reason. They are prospective players. Not every trade is going to be a home run. We all get so fixated on data and because we can follow Libor Hajek on Instagram or Twitter and see him train every day, he's automatically a better prospect than Milo Horava was 32 years ago. The truth is they're more similar than meets the eye but because Horava came to America before the Berlin Wall came down and before the internet there was this perception he was Latka Gravas or something.

Most trades fall into the category of a wash or a slight edge to one team. Every couple of years there is a Gomez for McD or Erat for Forsberg type move but this isn't the 1980s and GMs know if they mess up bad they're out. No GM would ever be allowed to be as wreckless as Phil Espsito was. Even Jim Benning in Vancouver or Pierre Dorion in Ottawa, those guys take so much heat from their fanbases but other than a little of Shestyorkin, no young player on the Rangers has been as impactful as Peterson/Boeser or Tkachuk/Chabot. Maybe Fox but he's an older prospect and Chabot has more time in the NHL under his belt.

If TBL is a good regular season team makes the playoffs every year but doesn't win the Cup, and lets say Nils Lundkvist becomes an All star #1 d but all the other prospects bust, do the Rangers win that trade? If McD finishes out his contract and the stuff they get for Miller become key contributors, yet the Rangers win a Cup with Howden as Blair Betts 2.0 and Hajek as a #7 Dman, does Tampa win that trade?

I remember having mildly high hopes for Horava and then as soon as he stepped on the ice it was clear he was just a journeyman. And softer than a pillow. Number six suited him well.

 

[The Crypto Guy]

I think it turns into a ok trade. Not terrible by any means but yea i wish Gorton didn't wait until the very last second to pull the trigger. If Nils turns out to be a #2-3 dman, and one of the other pieces turns into something it worked out well

 

[cwede]

and it will be one of the extended trade trees
as the pieces get "kick the can"ned down the road, like
NYR now have Ottawa's 4th in 2021 from the Namest trade,
and obviously Hajek (Rykov, Reunanen, Miller, Roberston)
and Howden (Lias, Richards, Kodorenko, Henriksson,...)
are parts of deep pipelines, and could be 'odd man out', moved for other guys or assets

 

[KirkAlbuquerque]

it was "bad" because what we got back turned out to be not so great, and the fact that Miller was included in the deal. But we were going to have to part with McD one way or another because he did not fit the timeline of the rebuild and we would have definitely regretted giving him an extension like the one Tampa gave him.

 

[Cruxial]

I remember having mildly high hopes for Horava and then as soon as he stepped on the ice it was clear he was just a journeyman. And softer than a pillow. Number six suited him well.

IIRC, Horava was Ludek Cajka's defense partner back in Czechoslovakia. Cajka was our prospect (drafted 115th OA in 1987) who "On 6 January 1990, Čajka suffered severe spinal injuries after colliding with Anton Bartanus of VSŽ Košice and crashing into the boards in an icing situation during Zlín's game against VSŽ Košice.[1] The injury left Čajka paralyzed and in a coma where he died on 14 February 1990." - Wikipedia

 

[Savant]

It was a cap deal. Mission accomplished. And they got an asset like Lundkvist.
Great deal

 

[JT Kreider]

it was "bad" because what we got back turned out to be not so great, and the fact that Miller was included in the deal. But we were going to have to part with McD one way or another because he did not fit the timeline of the rebuild and we would have definitely regretted giving him an extension like the one Tampa gave him.

Only to sign Trouba to an even worse contract and Winnipeg got a much better return than we did for McDonagh. Heinola is going to be really good.

 

[HFsNumber1Heel]

I remember having mildly high hopes for Horava and then as soon as he stepped on the ice it was clear he was just a journeyman. And softer than a pillow. Number six suited him well.

He was actually a big dude but yeah, finesse city.

 

[egelband]

IIRC, Horava was Ludek Cajka's defense partner back in Czechoslovakia. Cajka was our prospect (drafted 115th OA in 1987) who "On 6 January 1990, Čajka suffered severe spinal injuries after colliding with Anton Bartanus of VSŽ Košice and crashing into the boards in an icing situation during Zlín's game against VSŽ Košice.[1] The injury left Čajka paralyzed and in a coma where he died on 14 February 1990." - Wikipedia

Wow. How awful.

 

[Kakko Schmakko]

They're called prospects for a reason. They are prospective players. Not every trade is going to be a home run. We all get so fixated on data and because we can follow Libor Hajek on Instagram or Twitter and see him train every day, he's automatically a better prospect than Milo Horava was 32 years ago. The truth is they're more similar than meets the eye but because Horava came to America before the Berlin Wall came down and before the internet there was this perception he was Latka Gravas or something.

Most trades fall into the category of a wash or a slight edge to one team. Every couple of years there is a Gomez for McD or Erat for Forsberg type move but this isn't the 1980s and GMs know if they mess up bad they're out. No GM would ever be allowed to be as wreckless as Phil Espsito was. Even Jim Benning in Vancouver or Pierre Dorion in Ottawa, those guys take so much heat from their fanbases but other than a little of Shestyorkin, no young player on the Rangers has been as impactful as Peterson/Boeser or Tkachuk/Chabot. Maybe Fox but he's an older prospect and Chabot has more time in the NHL under his belt.

If TBL is a good regular season team makes the playoffs every year but doesn't win the Cup, and lets say Nils Lundkvist becomes an All star #1 d but all the other prospects bust, do the Rangers win that trade? If McD finishes out his contract and the stuff they get for Miller become key contributors, yet the Rangers win a Cup with Howden as Blair Betts 2.0 and Hajek as a #7 Dman, does Tampa win that trade?

Blair Betts is a nice comparison, except maybe Betts was better defensively and not as good offensively.

 

[Rangerfan4life90]

Only to sign Trouba to an even worse contract and Winnipeg got a much better return than we did for McDonagh. Heinola is going to be really good.

Trouba signed his contract at 25, McD signed his like 8 days away from his 30th b-day. Trouba's contract is far better just based on that alone.

Heinola could be good, but if Lundkvist himself pans out, it's likely a wash there.

 

[usekakkorightquinn]

McDonagh had the one great year but he never had much offense to his game. Not sure but I think the Rangers can still trade Trouba before next season starts and his NMC 's kick in. I'm not entirely sure the Rangers won't deal Trouba in the off-season. I can't stand when GM's give out NMC and NTC's. This would make the Rangers D on the right side midget like.

 

[bernmeister]

I dont think anyone in their right mind could argue that this was a good trade. It was terrible. But because so many here on the forum was so eager to get rid of all the old players and rebuild, they acted like the trade was OK. McDonagh was Rangers best trade chip. He was the best bet to bring something valuable back. Late first and seconds and decent prospects is not a good return. Not one major peace came back. And the worst part is that there was no hurry to trade him. He had a year left on his contract. Gorton could have waited and tried to maximize the return. There would not have been much to lose with being patient.

Yeah I'll go there and disagree, to extent it was necessary and the return was likely close to best that could be expected, for the most part.
Again a lot of this is we reap what we sowed, so we got what we deserved.
McD had ntc so that restricted options.
He was starting to get injured, that was a factor, bad luck, yes, but longer you wait > risk of that = a prob.
And he was gonna want huge swansong deal, and we should not have paid that $.
As noted part of the prob was we signed Staal + Girardi for too much, then told them, esp Danny boy, to play 2nd goaltender in idiot Torts system, accelerating breakdown of All Star quality to a lot less quickly.

Should never have dealt JT for pos Namest.

Not sure how anyone can look at this one and say it’s worked out thus far haha

Howden stinks, Hajek stinks

Lundkvist and Henriksson are unknowns still.

And they dumped Namestnikov for cap space

If Lundkvist is any good this trade goes from bad to just okay

Howden I see has productive 3c upside -- not a given, I grant you, but esp if he has correct Ws, will do well. Also, if Krav can pivot 1st line w/KK and breadman, and Zib pivots 2nd line w/Kreider, Chytil could be a superior 3C and that makes Howden potentially elite at 4C.

Hajek looked magnif for handful of games, got injured. Distressing he has not rebounded his game since healing, hopefully it turns around. But pre-injury, was a serious positive add.

Signing Staal and Girardi forced our hand. The writing was on the wall and you dont give long term deals to guys who eat pucks and get buried in their own end. Having that 10 mil back easily pays for McD next contract.

Part 2 of the situation was Brady Skjei and Brendan Smith. After that playoff run where they stepped up the team thought they had the "next Mcdonagh" and a solid top 4 dman. That didnt pan out either.

So that's 4 dman that got paid which forced us to trade our workhorse dman.

Could you imagine McDonagh with Fox or DeAngelo and then paired with Trouba for shutdown moments? Sigh.

McD had to go regardless.
Youth will be served, it is in the natural order of things, esp in a young(er) man's game. So unlike a goaltender, he was gonna go. All skaters, eventually.

Staal-Girardi was foolishness exacerbated by the NMCs. No more NMCs ever again, IMO; extensive ntcs, yes, but never give yourself zero options ever again.
Hopefully we dodge the Trouba bullet before that window closes. I wouldn't mind if we are not super restricted by flat uber tight cap, but that is reality we are. Worth most of his 8 per, but not almost 10% of team cap.

Peeps give grief but remember, I wanted not only to not extend DG for serious bucks [lowering extension for Staal, who we were keeping], I wanted to trade him to Ana for their OTT 1st [like 11OA ish].

Skjei was a little over, but we had to extend. Fortunately we unloaded timely.
Smith was an unmitigated disaster.
Thankfully, buh bye.

There’s a great amount of risk when you’re trading for futures. Hajek and Howden are both a couple of 22 year olds who are still very raw.

McDonagh had a modified NTC when Gorton moved him, so that limited his trade partners.

GM’s aren’t going to win every trade, especially an aggressive one like Gorton who’s made multiple moves when he kickstarted our rebuild. And it’ll take years to properly evaluate the trade itself since it had so many moving parts.

I’m just glad we avoided this potential disaster...
View attachment 349326

At the risk of promoting fear we are in end times, I admit I agree with this post.

 

[ETTER DE]

Yeah I'll go there and disagree, to extent it was necessary and the return was likely close to best that could be expected, for the most part.
Again a lot of this is we reap what we sowed, so we got what we deserved.
McD had ntc so that restricted options.
He was starting to get injured, that was a factor, bad luck, yes, but longer you wait > risk of that = a prob.
And he was gonna want huge swansong deal, and we should not have paid that $.
As noted part of the prob was we signed Staal + Girardi for too much, then told them, esp Danny boy, to play 2nd goaltender in idiot Torts system, accelerating breakdown of All Star quality to a lot less quickly.

Should never have dealt JT for pos Namest.



Howden I see has productive 3c upside -- not a given, I grant you, but esp if he has correct Ws, will do well. Also, if Krav can pivot 1st line w/KK and breadman, and Zib pivots 2nd line w/Kreider, Chytil could be a superior 3C and that makes Howden potentially elite at 4C.

Hajek looked magnif for handful of games, got injured. Distressing he has not rebounded his game since healing, hopefully it turns around. But pre-injury, was a serious positive add.




McD had to go regardless.
Youth will be served, it is in the natural order of things, esp in a young(er) man's game. So unlike a goaltender, he was gonna go. All skaters, eventually.

Staal-Girardi was foolishness exacerbated by the NMCs. No more NMCs ever again, IMO; extensive ntcs, yes, but never give yourself zero options ever again.
Hopefully we dodge the Trouba bullet before that window closes. I wouldn't mind if we are not super restricted by flat uber tight cap, but that is reality we are. Worth most of his 8 per, but not almost 10% of team cap.

Peeps give grief but remember, I wanted not only to not extend DG for serious bucks [lowering extension for Staal, who we were keeping], I wanted to trade him to Ana for their OTT 1st [like 11OA ish].

Skjei was a little over, but we had to extend. Fortunately we unloaded timely.
Smith was an unmitigated disaster.
Thankfully, buh bye.




At the risk of promoting fear we are in end times, I admit I agree with this post.

Like some other posters, you fail to address what was the main point with my post. At the time of the trade, there were no Kakko, Trouba, Fox, Shesterkin or Panarin.
De Anglelo was struggling, Strome was a bottom sixer in Edmonton. Even Zibanejad was a different player then today. If Rangers was going to hold on to their young players, McDonagh was the best bet to bring back something of significance. All rebuilds need something special to make it work. Because Gorton got lucky in the lottery and a couple of players wanted to play for Rangers only, has nothing to do with the trade. At the time it was a braindead decision to trade McDonagh one year before his contract was up for the return he got. To add Miller, I dont know what to say.

 

[NYSPORTS]

They're called prospects for a reason. They are prospective players.
?

They’re called prospects b/c their young. So long as you’re aiming at younger players you might at well get the better of the bunch. Sergachev was their best prospect while Namestnikov was actual roster player which didn’t work out.

we’re hopeful Lindy comes around b/c the return has been poor for a Captain South of 30 years and a former #1 pick entering his prime.

 

[bernmeister]

Like some other posters, you fail to address what was the main point with my post. At the time of the trade, there were no Kakko, Trouba, Fox, Shesterkin or Panarin.
De Anglelo was struggling, Strome was a bottom sixer in Edmonton. Even Zibanejad was a different player then today. If Rangers was going to hold on to their young players, McDonagh was the best bet to bring back something of significance. All rebuilds need something special to make it work. Because Gorton got lucky in the lottery and a couple of players wanted to play for Rangers only, has nothing to do with the trade. At the time it was a braindead decision to trade McDonagh one year before his contract was up for the return he got. To add Miller, I dont know what to say.

Thank you for a fair critique I consider otherwise valid.
However, regardless of status of the roster, the point has been proven that the win now crowd, obsessed with winning NOW at all costs, without consideration to responsibly build, were wrong, and those who wanted less vets and more balance were right.

We waited to sell high on McD and that was fine even if it lowered the return. Up to that point you could make the argument the production was worth it. He helped make an otherwise semi-competitive team into a legit contender.
However, going any longer would be folly.
It is unfortunate we did not get [due to timing?] better offer(s) which would have eliminated our capitulating to Stevie Y on JT. If we had to deal Miller, we could have hoped for at least a legit return instead of a giveaway. But GMJG bent over on that one rather than risk losing the McD deal, obv. Doing a deal earlier to a different trade partner should have eliminated that.
Conversely, holding McD, even if he were not injured, would not likely have increased the return.

 

[Edge]

Like some other posters, you fail to address what was the main point with my post. At the time of the trade, there were no Kakko, Trouba, Fox, Shesterkin or Panarin.

To me, that actually doesn't help your argument though.

If you want to go strictly by the time of the trade we traded an aging 29 year old LD and an inconsistent 25 year old LW for a 20 year old center who was a first round pick, a 20 year old defenseman who was a second round pick, an inconsistent 25 year old LW, a first round pick and a pick that was either going to be a first or a second round pick.

One of the challenges is the concept of another other deal that people think was there to be had. So we're comparing that return to the ambiguous concept of "better" which leaves a lot to the imagination.

Over the years we've seen people convince themselves that Sergachev was there to be had, or vague references to comments by other executives who felt their offer was better. But we know some players we like were never on the table, and the perception of namesless offers doesn't take into account that they could very well have included players that this board wanted no part of, and who have already busted/returned less than Howden and Hajek.

The Rangers have been pretty diligent in researching the market rates for their guys. It's the board that sometimes has a difficult time accepting those rates.

But a 2018 version of McD and Miller for a 2018 version of Namestnikov, a potential top 9 foward, a potential top 4 defenseman, and up to two first round picks really isn't a bad return.

 

[Tawnos]

Like some other posters, you fail to address what was the main point with my post. At the time of the trade, there were no Kakko, Trouba, Fox, Shesterkin or Panarin.
De Anglelo was struggling, Strome was a bottom sixer in Edmonton. Even Zibanejad was a different player then today. If Rangers was going to hold on to their young players, McDonagh was the best bet to bring back something of significance. All rebuilds need something special to make it work. Because Gorton got lucky in the lottery and a couple of players wanted to play for Rangers only, has nothing to do with the trade. At the time it was a braindead decision to trade McDonagh one year before his contract was up for the return he got. To add Miller, I dont know what to say.

That trade brought two assets of significance for a rebuilding team back: A recent 1st round pick and a future 1st round pick. Your argument hinges on the idea that those aren't significant pieces, but you're flat out wrong about that.

Waiting another year to trade McDonagh would've brought back less.

 

[ETTER DE]

That trade brought two assets of significance for a rebuilding team back: A recent 1st round pick and a future 1st round pick. Your argument hinges on the idea that those aren't significant pieces, but you're flat out wrong about that.

Waiting another year to trade McDonagh would've brought back less.

As I wrote in my first post. Yes, it could have brought back a little less. But nothing significant. Since there were no significant peaces in the trade in the first place. A late first and a conditional 2nd. Howden (a late first) and Hajek (a second rounder). But it could also been the other way round. Stepan and Raanta brought back a top 10 draft pick and Deangelo (a mid to late pick at #19).

 

[ETTER DE]

Thank you for a fair critique I consider otherwise valid.
However, regardless of status of the roster, the point has been proven that the win now crowd, obsessed with winning NOW at all costs, without consideration to responsibly build, were wrong, and those who wanted less vets and more balance were right.

We waited to sell high on McD and that was fine even if it lowered the return. Up to that point you could make the argument the production was worth it. He helped make an otherwise semi-competitive team into a legit contender.
However, going any longer would be folly.
It is unfortunate we did not get [due to timing?] better offer(s) which would have eliminated our capitulating to Stevie Y on JT. If we had to deal Miller, we could have hoped for at least a legit return instead of a giveaway. But GMJG bent over on that one rather than risk losing the McD deal, obv. Doing a deal earlier to a different trade partner should have eliminated that.
Conversely, holding McD, even if he were not injured, would not likely have increased the return.

See my post a couple of minutes ago.

 

[Tawnos]

As I wrote in my first post. Yes, it could have brought back a little less. But nothing significant. Since there were no significant peaces in the trade in the first place. A late first and a conditional 2nd. Howden (a late first) and Hajek (a second rounder). But it could also been the other way round. Stepan and Raanta brought back a top 10 draft pick and Deangelo (a mid to late pick at #19).

It wouldn't have been a little less. You would've gotten a prospect and a 1st... that's half of what they got. Also, Stepan is not a comparable type of trade. He had 4 years left on his contract. McDonagh was a rental... granted for 2 playoff seasons, but a rental nonetheless. You're severely overvaluing the worth of players in that situation. I should also point out that the Rangers didn't retain any salary on that transaction, which often inflates the value of other rentals.

My takeaway from your posts in this thread: you have no handle on the value of assets in today's NHL.