Proposal: Nyr-dal

[bernmeister]

Rangers prospect goalie depth:

Shesterkin
Skapski
Huska
Halverson
Wall
Hellberg

This is very subjective, although Wall is way underdeveloped and newbie compared to the rest and Helllberg has ways, ways to go, obviously. I'm fine with playing him minimum with the big club and, since he had games last year and this, he satisfies need for an expansion draft listing.

The other 4, it's about the ceiling
Shesty thought highest atm, but others could emerge
Halverson has had steady improvement, Huska seems to have rocketed up lately, still giving edge to Halvy, but that is as to now.

Skapski, of course, an x factor, brilliant in 2 games subbing for Hank, but out last year with hip surgery. Once he's fully back, after Hellberg qualifies, if Raanta is moved, he's our #2.

 

[bernmeister]

If Dallas gets a fix they need it to be now, so no Halverson give us nothing now

Fair, but clearly he was as to your future.
Raanta, on whom we disagree, was your immediate fix.

Actually that's what you keep saying we want. You also keep pushing Raanta at us without taking back a goalie, and there are zero teams that want 3 goalies on their roster.

As I've said to you several times by now, Raanta isn't a starter and never has been. We need somebody who can handle at least 40 starts, he's never made more than 25 in the NHL and has made only 78 total starts in North America in the past 3 years. For the 3rd or 4th time, your backup isn't an upgrade over one of our starters.

1. can Raanta start?
Legit ask, but be fair, Raanta only did not start more because Hank plays as much as he wants/feels he can handle, and he tries to stay very active. When Hank has gone down, he has stepped in and played, to my memory, (almost if not) every game.

Bottom line. 2 year contract. young enough, not a guy 36+. Would have had more starts if offered but not for Hank, who is not just a goalie who is slightly better --- i.e., he sat down for arguably the best G in the league, and could handle 40+ if needed.

2. backup not an upgrade on a starter
assumption not supported by fact
your guys are erratic.
one night they are solid to the point of shining.
the next they not only suck, they gag and swallow.

On any SINGLE given night, Raanta could have an off night and be outplayed.
But night in and out, I take him over both your pair, and the starter may be adequate regular season, he shows ZIPPO for the playoffs.

Respect your right to a different opinion, but I must rebuff here.


3. pushing Raanta at us without taking back a goalie, and there are zero teams that want 3 goalies on their roster

not cramming either Raanta or 3 Gs down your throat
if Raanta is an upgrade, and I argue he is and he is on a sweet deal for 2 years, you should consider taking him. This is not an overpriced Mrazek that the Wings want to move type of situation.

If you have a better offer at a better price, please enlighten.
I put the Raanta-Halverson package vs most alternative options reasonable to anticipate.

as to taking a goalie back, you have to decide which one you want to keep and which you want to flip.

You have to clean up your own mess which you created.
It is not a given we have to oblige.

If we do in fact agree on Raanta, and you want to facilitate the removal of your odd man out, and want our help with that, NYR can possibly step in and broker a deal even if that is inconvenient at best and arguably useless at worst for us ....
PROVIDED
there is no NMC
buy out is doable
and you have to make it worth our while.

The deal is the deal.
If you want this side deal, no prob extending the courtesy to talk about it.
But it is not a freebie throw in.

And the currency for the main deal remains Gurianov.

 

[Shootertooter]

Fair, but clearly he was as to your future.
Raanta, on whom we disagree, was your immediate fix.




1. can Raanta start?
Legit ask, but be fair, Raanta only did not start more because Hank plays as much as he wants/feels he can handle, and he tries to stay very active. When Hank has gone down, he has stepped in and played, to my memory, (almost if not) every game.

Bottom line. 2 year contract. young enough, not a guy 36+. Would have had more starts if offered but not for Hank, who is not just a goalie who is slightly better --- i.e., he sat down for arguably the best G in the league, and could handle 40+ if needed.

2. backup not an upgrade on a starter
assumption not supported by fact
your guys are erratic.
one night they are solid to the point of shining.
the next they not only suck, they gag and swallow.

On any SINGLE given night, Raanta could have an off night and be outplayed.
But night in and out, I take him over both your pair, and the starter may be adequate regular season, he shows ZIPPO for the playoffs.

Respect your right to a different opinion, but I must rebuff here.


3.

Raanta is a good back up. Talbot was a good back up too, he made a case for himself when Hank went down. Had that not happened and he not had a really good season filling in for Hank, he might still be the Rangers back up.

I don't know if Raanta is as capable as Talbot but he played pretty well last season.

11-6-2 .919% 2.24GAA with 1 shut out.....not terrible. Considering the Rangers defense was a atrocious, maybe he is better than that.

 

[bernmeister]

Raanta is a good back up. Talbot was a good back up too, he made a case for himself when Hank went down. Had that not happened and he not had a really good season filling in for Hank, he might still be the Rangers back up.

I don't know if Raanta is as capable as Talbot but he played pretty well last season.

11-6-2 .919% 2.24GAA with 1 shut out.....not terrible. Considering the Rangers defense was a atrocious, maybe he is better than that.

Thank you for reconsidering the issue with an open mind.

I await a head count from Dallas fans on whether or not they feel Raanta/Halverson is improvement. That is the first step to determine if we have deal/no deal.

 

[Mr Misty]

Fair, but clearly he was as to your future.
Raanta, on whom we disagree, was your immediate fix.




1. can Raanta start?
Legit ask, but be fair, Raanta only did not start more because Hank plays as much as he wants/feels he can handle, and he tries to stay very active. When Hank has gone down, he has stepped in and played, to my memory, (almost if not) every game.

Bottom line. 2 year contract. young enough, not a guy 36+. Would have had more starts if offered but not for Hank, who is not just a goalie who is slightly better --- i.e., he sat down for arguably the best G in the league, and could handle 40+ if needed.

2. backup not an upgrade on a starter
assumption not supported by fact
your guys are erratic.
one night they are solid to the point of shining.
the next they not only suck, they gag and swallow.

On any SINGLE given night, Raanta could have an off night and be outplayed.
But night in and out, I take him over both your pair, and the starter may be adequate regular season, he shows ZIPPO for the playoffs.

Respect your right to a different opinion, but I must rebuff here.


3. pushing Raanta at us without taking back a goalie, and there are zero teams that want 3 goalies on their roster

not cramming either Raanta or 3 Gs down your throat
if Raanta is an upgrade, and I argue he is and he is on a sweet deal for 2 years, you should consider taking him. This is not an overpriced Mrazek that the Wings want to move type of situation.

If you have a better offer at a better price, please enlighten.
I put the Raanta-Halverson package vs most alternative options reasonable to anticipate.

as to taking a goalie back, you have to decide which one you want to keep and which you want to flip.

You have to clean up your own mess which you created.
It is not a given we have to oblige.

If we do in fact agree on Raanta, and you want to facilitate the removal of your odd man out, and want our help with that, NYR can possibly step in and broker a deal even if that is inconvenient at best and arguably useless at worst for us ....
PROVIDED
there is no NMC
buy out is doable
and you have to make it worth our while.

The deal is the deal.
If you want this side deal, no prob extending the courtesy to talk about it.
But it is not a freebie throw in.

And the currency for the main deal remains Gurianov.

The cognitive dissonance between believing Raanta can start and then saying assumption is not backed up by fact is pretty great.

There is zero evidence he can handle 40 starts, and if he was good he'd be a starter somewhere by now. He's already 27 and he lost his job to Darling in Chicago, he isn't some gem hidden by Lundqvist's brilliance. You are suggesting we take a huge risk of keeping one goalie who can't make 50 starts and replacing the other with one who can't make 30. All the evidence is that our system knocked 10 points off Lehtonen's save percentage; who knows how badly Raanta, who has never done anything as a starter anywhere in North America, will fare. The only possible upside is that Raanta puts a save percentage four points better than Lehtonen or Niemi which translates to one or two wins maybe at the cost of Gurianov. The downside is a huge mess, even bigger than the one we have now, and the odds of that are four to five times greater than even the Raanta=Lehtonen/Niemi scenario.

2 goalies is not a problem. We had these goalies last year and won our conference and made game 7 of the 2nd round of the playoffs. You seem to think that selling us your average backup for the low low price of last year's 1st round pick is a huge favor for us, but you are creating a problem for us that doesn't exist now. No hockey team would do that. Cleaning up our own mess doesn't involve making a much worse situation, stop suggesting that it does.

 

[FoxysExpensiveNYDigs]

Dallas only gives up top prospects for a clear upgrade to go for a cup IMO. So from NYR that means Lundqvist, who has a NMC and has never given any inclination that he will waive. Neither of Halverson/Raanta are enough of a proven upgrade to require payment like Gurianov/Honka.

 

[bernmeister]

The cognitive dissonance between believing Raanta can start and then saying assumption is not backed up by fact is pretty great.

There is zero evidence he can handle 40 starts, and if he was good he'd be a starter somewhere by now. He's already 27 and he lost his job to Darling in Chicago, he isn't some gem hidden by Lundqvist's brilliance. You are suggesting we take a huge risk of keeping one goalie who can't make 50 starts and replacing the other with one who can't make 30. All the evidence is that our system knocked 10 points off Lehtonen's save percentage; who knows how badly Raanta, who has never done anything as a starter anywhere in North America, will fare. The only possible upside is that Raanta puts a save percentage four points better than Lehtonen or Niemi which translates to one or two wins maybe at the cost of Gurianov. The downside is a huge mess, even bigger than the one we have now, and the odds of that are four to five times greater than even the Raanta=Lehtonen/Niemi scenario.

2 goalies is not a problem. We had these goalies last year and won our conference and made game 7 of the 2nd round of the playoffs. You seem to think that selling us your average backup for the low low price of last year's 1st round pick is a huge favor for us, but you are creating a problem for us that doesn't exist now. No hockey team would do that. Cleaning up our own mess doesn't involve making a much worse situation, stop suggesting that it does.

this ....

There is zero evidence he can handle 40 starts, and if he was good he'd be a starter somewhere by now. He's already 27 and he lost his job to Darling in Chicago, he isn't some gem hidden by Lundqvist's brilliance.

... is unfair

there is 0 evidence he cannot, either
he could be good enough, but be behind either a better guy (Hank)
or a guy (Crawford) who has higher upside but to whom a financial commitment has made, who though only marginally better at best, has proven he can win in playoffs, so Raanta not getting chance there either.
as to lost his job to Darling, is that REALLY that Darling is truly better, or so by any significant degree? Or is that it's close enough to coke and pepsi on Raanta and Darling, and Darling is younger/cheaper?

further...
Lehtonen or Niemi both have proven they can't cut the mustard.
last 2 years
You are putting a lot of investment at risk because you will not bend in your perception as to that fact
either you roll the dice and takes your chances
or
you upgrade

given the upside of Halverson and the $ on Raanta, I consider the value fair
if you want a sweetener we can talk
but we are not giving up useful assets without an incentive to do so
I did not say it is a huge favor I am doing you, it is a negotiation
if you don't want this deal, fine
roll with what you have and see where that gets you.

 

[bernmeister]

Dallas only gives up top prospects for a clear upgrade to go for a cup IMO. So from NYR that means Lundqvist, who has a NMC and has never given any inclination that he will waive. Neither of Halverson/Raanta are enough of a proven upgrade to require payment like Gurianov/Honka.

thanks for your 2 cents
disagree, Raanta is an upgrade
agree Raanta alone not enough for Gurianov
Raanta + Halverson is a solid enough core to be a reasonable ask

want to haggle, ask for a sweetener, fine, let's talk

but your assertion, IMO, respectfully is wrong

 

[David Bondra]

Dallas has absolutely no need for another top-6 winger. Klein also does not help out defensively all that much. Plus Honka looks like future top-4 defenseman which is something we could use and you never know with Nichushkin, he could still become an elite player. So nope

 

[bernmeister]

Dallas has absolutely no need for another top-6 winger. Klein also does not help out defensively all that much. Plus Honka looks like future top-4 defenseman which is something we could use and you never know with Nichushkin, he could still become an elite player. So nope

looking to get Dallas head count
what do you think of my alternative

core of Raanta + Halverson for Gurianov

 

[glovesave_35]

this ....

... is unfair

there is 0 evidence he cannot, either
he could be good enough, but be behind either a better guy (Hank)
or a guy (Crawford) who has higher upside but to whom a financial commitment has made, who though only marginally better at best, has proven he can win in playoffs, so Raanta not getting chance there either.
as to lost his job to Darling, is that REALLY that Darling is truly better, or so by any significant degree? Or is that it's close enough to coke and pepsi on Raanta and Darling, and Darling is younger/cheaper?

further...
Lehtonen or Niemi both have proven they can't cut the mustard.
last 2 years
You are putting a lot of investment at risk because you will not bend in your perception as to that fact
either you roll the dice and takes your chances
or
you upgrade

given the upside of Halverson and the $ on Raanta, I consider the value fair
if you want a sweetener we can talk
but we are not giving up useful assets without an incentive to do so
I did not say it is a huge favor I am doing you, it is a negotiation
if you don't want this deal, fine
roll with what you have and see where that gets you.

I feel like you are missing the boat here. Basically, our two turd goalies put our high flying team on the top of the WC last year. Unless you have a trade proposal which drastically improves our goaltending duo while subtracting one of the current ones without also shipping out a top prospect, there isn't much to talk about.

Btw, when someone says "so and so has not proven able to do such and such", a reasonable and effective counter is not "well he has not proven that he can't".

 

[Mr Misty]

this ....

... is unfair

there is 0 evidence he cannot, either
he could be good enough, but be behind either a better guy (Hank)
or a guy (Crawford) who has higher upside but to whom a financial commitment has made, who though only marginally better at best, has proven he can win in playoffs, so Raanta not getting chance there either.
as to lost his job to Darling, is that REALLY that Darling is truly better, or so by any significant degree? Or is that it's close enough to coke and pepsi on Raanta and Darling, and Darling is younger/cheaper?

further...
Lehtonen or Niemi both have proven they can't cut the mustard.
last 2 years
You are putting a lot of investment at risk because you will not bend in your perception as to that fact
either you roll the dice and takes your chances
or
you upgrade

given the upside of Halverson and the $ on Raanta, I consider the value fair
if you want a sweetener we can talk
but we are not giving up useful assets without an incentive to do so
I did not say it is a huge favor I am doing you, it is a negotiation
if you don't want this deal, fine
roll with what you have and see where that gets you.

What's unfair about it? He lost his job to Darling in Chicago during a season, not because of age or cost. They made the decision based on who could help them win. When Crawford struggled in the playoffs, Darling saved their bacon before he went on to struggle. Most people would say that a player who lost his spot to an average backup is probably not going to become an NHL starter. This isn't Cory Schneider waiting in the wings to become one of the best goalies in the NHL, this is a journeyman backup.

If we are talking about facts and perception, the fact is we did pretty good with Lehtonen and Niemi last year. 50 wins, #1 seed, 7 playoff wins. Another fact is that this system change shaved 10 points off Lehtonen's save percentage. 4 goalies have come through Dallas during it and none have been close to league average in boxcar stats. Enroth for example had a .906 with us, then he went to LA and put up better numbers than Raanta. If you believe in some kind of transitive property of goaltending this should raise a mighty red flag on Raanta.

Now that we have a neat comparable, lets see how much people value goalies. It says here, nobody wanted Enroth and he took a big pay cut to 750k in late August. If we could get a better, cheaper goalie for free that late in the summer, I don't see the part where you get a 1st rounder from 2015 for your backup. And don't kid yourself about Halverson, he is worthless. He'll be lucky to have the lofty career of journeyman backup Raanta, like 95% of goalie prospects that are also worth zero. We've already got 3 or 4 Halversons, we don't need yours. And if you thought he might be something, you'd never trade him to us instead of grooming him to eventually replace Lundqvist.

 

[Kshahdoo]

I'm not a fan of both teams, but those Dallas fans who against the trade are laughable. Zuccarello alone worths more, than this package.

 

[glovesave_35]

I'm not a fan of both teams, but those Dallas fans who against the trade are laughable. Zuccarello alone worths more, than this package.

Brilliant. Still does not explain why we would trade our valuable pieces to address a non-need. Real world trades are based on a perceived need, this deal is not.

 

[tony d]

Terrible deal here for both teams.

 

[Lindberg Cheese]

Don't know why NYR would trade assets for a player who will prob play in the KHL shortly

 

[David Bondra]

looking to get Dallas head count
what do you think of my alternative

core of Raanta + Halverson for Gurianov

Even that is iffy. It's not a bad deal on paper, but then Dallas has three backup goalies. Raanta was really good last year, but 24 games is a very small serving. This is not as bad as the original deal, but still a risky deal because of the inexperience of Raanta.

 

[Mr Misty]

Don't know why NYR would trade assets for a player who will prob play in the KHL shortly

They treated him like garbage last year because he wanted to come to North America, not sure he is in a hurry to go back to that.

 

[Kshahdoo]

Brilliant. Still does not explain why we would trade our valuable pieces to address a non-need. Real world trades are based on a perceived need, this deal is not.

When you get a solid 1st liner on a good contract for cheaper than he actually worth, it allways addresses your need.

 

[Chaos]

They treated him like garbage last year because he wanted to come to North America, not sure he is in a hurry to go back to that.

I think he's referring to Nichushkin, even though there's absolutely no evidence for it whatsoever.

 

[Rebels57]

Why the hell hasn't Dallas traded for Ben Bishop yet?

 

[Satan]

Why the hell hasn't Dallas traded for Ben Bishop yet?

I dont know..... maybe it has something to do with Tampa Bay wanting to keep him for the season

 

[WhatWhat]

this ....

... is unfair

there is 0 evidence he cannot, either
he could be good enough, but be behind either a better guy (Hank)
or a guy (Crawford) who has higher upside but to whom a financial commitment has made, who though only marginally better at best, has proven he can win in playoffs, so Raanta not getting chance there either.

Man I hate Chicago as much as anyone but this is selling Crawford short. He is a good goalie and calling marginally better than Raanta is a terrible judge of skill. Crawford is a much better goalie than Raanta and Raanta is not that great/has not shown the ability to play a starter role as shown by no none offering him more than back up money.

 

[WhatWhat]

looking to get Dallas head count
what do you think of my alternative

core of Raanta + Halverson for Gurianov

Absolutely no. Dallas is not trading their recent 12th pick for a backup goalie and a goalie prospect...

How about Buch for Oduya and a 3rd?

 

[FoxysExpensiveNYDigs]

thanks for your 2 cents
disagree, Raanta is an upgrade
agree Raanta alone not enough for Gurianov
Raanta + Halverson is a solid enough core to be a reasonable ask

want to haggle, ask for a sweetener, fine, let's talk

but your assertion, IMO, respectfully is wrong

Show me one Stars fan that agrees with you that Raanta and Halverson are enough of a core for a deal involving one of their top prospects and then we'll decide whose assertion is wrong. Respectfully.