Confirmed with Link: NYR/OTT: Namestnikov ($750K retained) to Ottawa for 2021 4th Rnd pick and Nick Ebert

[Rongomania]

Opens the door to a Tony d 4 year 3 mil per contract? Pionk deal ?

 

[Leetch3]

Opens the door to a Tony d 4 year 3 mil per contract? Pionk deal ?

it opens up nothing long term...names was a UFA at the end of the year.

 

[LORDE]

It's Ottawa and they can be the worst team in the league this year. I rounded. Hence my use of the term "essentially a late third rounder".

Pick isn't for this year just FYI

 

[DanielBrassard]

No question replacing Namestnikov with McKegg in the lineup is a downgrade. Whether it was worth it to open up room for other players and for cap is debatable but probably is. Hopefully Chytil and/or Kravtsov can take the lineup spot quick.

 

[Deleted member 23124]

I never understood adding JT Miller to the MacD deal so we could get Namestnikov. Understand it less now.

I don't think Namestnikov needed to be here but I think he's proven that he can be useful when playing with talented players and I would have liked to have seen him on the 2nd line. I can't wait until we jettison Strome.

I still believe AV was the reason for JT being added to that deal...

 

[SingnBluesOnBroadway]

Who is the upside? Lemieux?



That's not what I said. I asked why does a movement need to be season altering to be discussed with you.


Surely that's a David Quinn problem isn't it? Did we have to take the coach's toys away?

I think putting Lemieux in a situation to be more effective and play a larger role is important. But the upside I was referring to is the team in general.

I guess I didn't understand your season-altering point. Still don't.

 

[Brooklyn Rangers Fan]

Maybe I'm dense, but I'm still – genuinely – not seeing the problem.

Did people think Namestnikov would retrieve more at some point between now and the TDL playing 8 min per night with grinders?

Or is it that you think Namestnikov playing 8 min per night on the 4th line in place of McKegg is the difference between making the playoffs?

'Cause if you don't believe either of the above... I'm don't see any other reason one might want to not do this deal



(Also, I should point out a factor that hasn't been addressed: this move is consistent with management's history of giving players a new opportunity elsewhere when it's become clear that they've fallen out of the org's plans, rather than hugging assets – which is one of the reasons the Rangers are seen as one of the best teams to play for in the entire NHL.)

 

[Edge]

He didn’t add Miller for Namestnikov, without Miller and Namestnikov, Tampa felt the deal was unbalanced, Rangers agreed to add Miller and then they also felt it was unbalanced so Namestnikov was added to even it out

I've never really understood why that deal continues to cause confusion. It's all part of one deal, not two separate deals.

It's not Hajek, Howden and two picks for McD, and then Miller for Namestnikov. The latter doesn't exist without the former, and the former doesn't exist without the latter.

 

[Brooklyn Rangers Fan]

No question replacing Namestnikov with McKegg in the lineup is a downgrade. Whether it was worth it to open up room for other players and for cap is debatable but probably is. Hopefully Chytil and/or Kravtsov can take the lineup spot quick.

Is it a downgrade in the role he'll be asked to play? Sure, he can't move up the way Namestnikov could have, but on the 4th line, he might actually be a better fit.

 

[Brooklyn Rangers Fan]

I've never really understood why that deal continues to cause confusion. It's all part of one deal, not two separate deals.

It's not Hajek, Howden and two picks for McD, and then Miller for Namestnikov. The latter doesn't exist without the former, and the former doesn't exist without the latter.

It's because of the quotes after the deal, where one of the GMs (can't remember which one) said Stevie Y asked for Miller, and Gorts then said, I need Namestnikov back, or something like that. People have interpreted that to mean it was a one for one expansion, instead of two iterative, counterbalancing moves.

 

[True Blue]

Who is advocating for "slick, finesse" players? In what world does that describe Namestnikov?

You seem to bemoan lack of offensive prowers on the 4th line, so guess I am looking at you.

What flexibility do we need for the kids? If Kravtsov is amazing and we need him, call him up and scratch someone. We didn't need a trade to create this flexibility.

Let' start with getting the flexibility of having Lemieux move up. We do not know for how long Namestnikov would stay there.

And again if we want it that bad, trade Strome who's terrible.

Do you think people are just lining up to ask for Strome and Gorton is beating them back with a stick? If Gorton wanted to move Strome, and could have, he would have. I am betting that the market for him is even less than that of Namestnikov.

Also, based on the way Strome finished the season, it is possible that Gorton and Quinn want to see if he can take another step forward.

Does the trade deadline not exist? The Namestnikovs of the NHL are always traded in that timeframe. It also gives the team time to evaluate who they really are what their roster building goals for the year should be.

The deal was available not and not at the deadline. Gorton seemed to prioritize cap relief and line flexibility ahead of taking a chance on what such a deal could possibly return at a point later in time.

More than garbage like Haley and McKegg but I'm not interested in continuing this conversation.

Nothing is still nothing. No matter how much better it smells.

 

[True Blue]

Pick isn't for this year just FYI

Yes, certainly true. Still, the sentiment holds of acquiring an asset.

 

[CommaSynapse]

I still believe AV was the reason for JT being added to that deal...

They may not have been on the same page, but we really have no way of knowing.

I liked a Miller not, but he looked to have consistency issues on the ice. There were games where he looked great. Then there were others with a real sub-par effort. I don't know that that's the guy I want to reward with a decent-sized, long-term at the start of a rebuild.

I'm convinced that NYR management knew what they were getting with Namestnikov. They're too smart for that. It wasn't meant to be a lateral move.

Would I rather have Miller than Nams? Absolutely, 100%, but if moving he and McD as a package to get what we did, then that's the cost of doing business. In a rebuild, we're in the business of aiming for those upper echelon players that we haven't had in a long time.

 

[Edge]

I think the hope was that Namestnikov could become a Nemchinov type player. Obviously that didn't come to a fruition.

 

[BKGooner]

I still believe AV was the reason for JT being added to that deal...

I believe JT was the reason for JT being added to that deal. 13 goals last year... sadly the Rangers would have been selling high on him if Vancouver wasn't foolish enough to give up a first.

 

[Oscar Lindberg]

Would I rather have Miller than Nams? Absolutely, 100%, but if moving he and McD as a package to get what we did, then that's the cost of doing business. In a rebuild, we're in the business of aiming for those upper echelon players that we haven't had in a long time.

I agree but it’s pretty easy to make the argument at this point that no upper echelon player has resulted/will result from that trade.

Lundkvist has the best shot at this point

Obviously things can change though

 

[Kovalev27]

Lemieux is getting Namestnikovs mins not McKegg. That was the real change. We want Lemieux in the top 9.

McKegg for now, maybe even just for Saturday will play on fourth line under 10 mins and will do a great job there.

you may see Chytil back before the back to backs on the 17th/18th.

 

[SA16]

How did he bring back a late 3rd? It's a 4th round pick.

Because the logic is if you get a 4th and the team is bad it's actually a late 3rd.

Conversely if you get a 4th and the team is good it's actually an early 5th.

Always just have to spin it to make it sound differently.

 

[NikC]

I'm sure the rangers have a good reason for this move, but its still bad asset management... essentially a 4th and ahl player for Miller... bad

 

[GeorgeKaplan]

I've never really understood why that deal continues to cause confusion. It's all part of one deal, not two separate deals.

It's not Hajek, Howden and two picks for McD, and then Miller for Namestnikov. The latter doesn't exist without the former, and the former doesn't exist without the latter.

That misconception might be my biggest pet peeve of anything Rangers related, it feels like it’s only held onto as some sort of ‘proof’ of mismanagement

 

[Tawnos]

I'm sure the rangers have a good reason for this move, but its still bad asset management... essentially a 4th and ahl player for Miller... bad

Except that it isn't.

 

[LORDE]

I've never really understood why that deal continues to cause confusion. It's all part of one deal, not two separate deals.

It's not Hajek, Howden and two picks for McD, and then Miller for Namestnikov. The latter doesn't exist without the former, and the former doesn't exist without the latter.

Personally I just don't like giving Spooner and Namestnikov the new deals. I get the concept of hopefully turning them into more assets, but at the end of the day that ONLY works if you don't overpay them (or over term them). In this case 2/4M to get a 4th in 2021 doesn't seem like good asset management to me, it seems like poor talent evaluation.

I have no issue with this move, I take issue with the evaluation that lead to this move.

Again, just to be clear, I am a Gorts fan and think he's doing a very good/great job (although I am scared that Panarin and Trouba were too soon but we're not opening that can of dead horses again lol)

 

[Tawnos]

Personally I just don't like giving Spooner and Namestnikov the new deals. I get the concept of hopefully turning them into more assets, but at the end of the day that ONLY works if you don't overpay them (or over term them). In this case 2/4M to get a 4th in 2021 doesn't seem like good asset management to me, it seems like poor talent evaluation.

I have no issue with this move, I take issue with the evaluation that lead to this move.

Again, just to be clear, I am a Gorts fan and think he's doing a very good/great job (although I am scared that Panarin and Trouba were too soon but we're not opening that can of dead horses again lol)

Can of dead horses is certainly interesting imagery.

 

[Gardner McKay]

Can of dead horses is certainly interesting imagery.

Reminds me of my favorite episode of Fraiser

Niles : When you feel yourself yielding to her, summon an image so repellent you'll be incapable of any desire. And... remember the summer we were at Uncle Henry's farm? We found that dead horse lying in the hot sun crawling with maggots?
Frasier : Yes, yes, of course.
Niles : Hold on to that picture. You can ride that horse to safety.
Frasier : Thank you, Niles. I think that might just do the trick. When it comes to an ugly image, you can't beat a dead horse.

But yeah, the entire subject has certainly been discussed to death.

 

[Tawnos]

Reminds me of my favorite episode of Fraiser

Niles : When you feel yourself yielding to her, summon an image so repellent you'll be incapable of any desire. And... remember the summer we were at Uncle Henry's farm? We found that dead horse lying in the hot sun crawling with maggots?
Frasier : Yes, yes, of course.
Niles : Hold on to that picture. You can ride that horse to safety.
Frasier : Thank you, Niles. I think that might just do the trick. When it comes to an ugly image, you can't beat a dead horse.

But yeah, the entire subject has certainly been discussed to death.

Frasier is underrated.