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

[Edge]

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)

To be fair, I think they were in a bit of a rock and a hard spot with those contracts.

You had two guys, age 26 and 23, who were coming off campaigns with 13 goals/41 points in 59 games, and 22 goals and 48 points in 81 games respectively.

Both guys' contracts were up, the Rangers needed guys who could step in and immediately contribute, and there weren't a ton of options on the free agent market or via trade that wouldn't have come in at similar price points. At least one was seen as more of a transitional piece, and the other maybe as a versatile support player. Walking away from either at the time really wouldn't have been any better from a management standpoint.

Though a tease, I don't think anyone expected Spooner to completely fall of a cliff the way he did, and Namestnikov never really built upon some of the promise he showed. If the latter clicks with Zibanejad and essentially gets the same rub he got in Tampa, we probably aren't having this conversation. But it didn't happen, so here we are.

At the end of the day, they moved both guys for Strome, a fourth, and the right to a 25 year old defenseman. Nothing that's going to lead to a championship celebration, but certainly not one of their bigger challenges either.

 

[HatTrick Swayze]

No it was not “Namestnikov for Miller”. But there is no way to break apart the pieces and conclude that Gorton got good value for McD and Miller. Felt that way at the time and certainly no reason to change that point of view.

Breaking down a deal into its components is not that outlandish of a concept. It is done all the time in the real world for a variety of reasons.

Yes McD for x, y, z doesn’t exist without Miller for a, b. But is the x,y,z “better enough” of a return vs other options to justify the trade off in receiving only a,b? Obviously no one on here can know, but I don’t thinks it outlandish to debate at all. And a logical way to think about it is looking at the sum of the parts.

 

[Machinehead]

Does that mean you will start posting in iambic pentameter?

Saving that for when it gets really ugly.

 

[rangersfansince08]

To be fair, I think they were in a bit of a rock and a hard spot with those contracts.

You had two guys, age 26 and 23, who were coming off campaigns with 13 goals/41 points in 59 games, and 22 goals and 48 points in 81 games respectively.

Both guys' contracts were up, the Rangers needed guys who could step in and immediately contribute, and there weren't a ton of options on the free agent market or via trade that wouldn't have come in at similar price points. At least one was seen as more of a transitional piece, and the other maybe as a versatile support player. Walking away from either at the time really wouldn't have been any better from a management standpoint.

Though a tease, I don't think anyone expected Spooner to completely fall of a cliff the way he did, and Namestnikov never really built upon some of the promise he showed. If the latter clicks with Zibanejad and essentially gets the same rub he got in Tampa, we probably aren't having this conversation. But it didn't happen, so here we are.

At the end of the day, they moved both guys for Strome, a fourth, and the right to a 25 year old defenseman. Nothing that's going to lead to a championship celebration, but certainly not one of their bigger challenges either.

Most of those points came with the Lightning and Bruins.

 

[LORDE]

Can of dead horses is certainly interesting imagery.

I love mixing up metaphors... makes it more interesting. Like "sharpest knife in the chandelier" etc

 

[Machinehead]

I just think people are against the team's habit of having to "make room" for NHL players at the expense of other NHL players instead of just filling our lineup with NHL players.

We have some of the worst forward depth in the NHL and the idea that this team needs extra space seems odd.

 

[Ghost of jas]

Most of those points came with the Lightning and Bruins.

They should have, since both were acquired with about a quarter of the season left. And, Spooner was productive in that brief time.

 

[EpicDing]

I just think people are against the team's habit of having to "make room" for NHL players at the expense of other NHL players instead of just filling our lineup with NHL players.

We have some of the worst forward depth in the NHL and the idea that this team needs extra space seems odd.

If you can move a 4th liner making $4mil you do.

 

[Filthy Dangles]

Re: cap flexibility...

^^ this thing still exists.

You can't convince me that NHL teams would trade for Namestnikov and not Strome who scored 21 goals last year.

So which one is it....your first post is basically 'Strome is awful' and the 2nd one is 'well he's more valuable than Namestnikov'

Then you say "just move NHL players for the sake of doing so". Same logic applies to Strome. Strome at least has more flexibility to play center, even if he's not very good at it (but neither is Namestnikov). he also carries less of a cap hit, one of the big motivators for the move.

Just dont' get the big deal made out of it and how moving Strome fits your logic anymore than Namestnikov does.

 

[Machinehead]

So which one is it....your first post is basically 'Strome is awful' and the 2nd one is 'well he's more valuable than Namestnikov'

Then you say "just move NHL players for the sake of doing so". Same logic applies to Strome. Strome at least has more flexibility to play center, even if he's not very good at it (but neither is Namestnikov). he also carries less of a cap hit, one of the big motivators for the move.

Just dont' get the big deal made out of it and how moving Strome fits your logic anymore than Namestnikov does.

As I've always said in response to the notion that my opinions drive value in the NHL: I wish I were that important.

I think Patrik Laine stinks. Somebody is giving him 12 million.

 

[Tawnos]

I just think people are against the team's habit of having to "make room" for NHL players at the expense of other NHL players instead of just filling our lineup with NHL players.

We have some of the worst forward depth in the NHL and the idea that this team needs extra space seems odd.

Do they need extra space to make the team better or do they need extra space to be able to give kids the ice time they need to grow?

 

[Edge]

Most of those points came with the Lightning and Bruins.

Well, yes, of course, they were TDL acquisitions. And 100 percent of the points scored by a free agent we bring in are from his former team as well.

I'm not really sure where we're going with this.

 

[Machinehead]

Do they need extra space to make the team better or do they need extra space to be able to give kids the ice time they need to grow?

It's going to be McKegg and Haley, not "the kids," one of whom they just scratched in the AHL.

 

[Tawnos]

It's going to be McKegg and Haley, not "the kids," one of whom they just scratched in the AHL.

That's who takes his roster spot, not his minutes or role.

 

[Machinehead]

That's who takes his roster spot, not his minutes or role.

Lemieux had already taken his minutes and role in Ottawa. So we cleared space on our 4th line to put McKegg on our 4th line.

 

[Tawnos]

Lemieux had already taken his minutes and role in Ottawa. So we cleared space on our 4th line to put McKegg on our 4th line.

In 2011, after an injury Michal Roszival lost his role to Ryan McDonagh. Yet, the Rangers didn’t keep him around even though he was still a better option than Matt Gilroy. Teams do this stuff all the time. Simply bumping players down the lineup isn’t always the right way to operate a team. The pieces have to fit and if the sentiment is that one doesn’t anymore, that player gets moved.

 

[Machinehead]

In 2011, after an injury Michal Roszival lost his role to Ryan McDonagh. Yet, the Rangers didn’t keep him around even though he was still a better option than Matt Gilroy. Teams do this stuff all the time. Simply bumping players down the lineup isn’t always the right way to operate a team. The pieces have to fit and if the sentiment is that one doesn’t anymore, that player gets moved.

The right-handed Michal Rozsival lost his role to left-handed Ryan McDonagh?

 

[Tawnos]

The right-handed Michal Rozsival lost his role to left-handed Ryan McDonagh?

Roster spots and roles aren’t the same thing.

McDonagh was called up when Rozy went down. The Rangers had 3 other viable right shot D. One of them had been playing on the left until that point.

 

[Ghost of jas]

The right-handed Michal Rozsival lost his role to left-handed Ryan McDonagh?

Yes. I’m fairly certain McDonagh was called up right after the trade.

 

[Karl Eriksson]

I’m fine with this. Will he have any value at the trade deadline?

 

[Machinehead]

Roster spots and roles aren’t the same thing.

McDonagh was called up when Rozy went down. The Rangers had 3 other viable right shot D. One of them had been playing on the left until that point.

And 3RW is such a particular role compared to 4RW that you need a worse player doing the latter?

I'm just not getting some of the logic in here. I can see the cap flexibility angle, but we didn't clear a roster spot for anyone and we didn't need to.

 

[Machinehead]

Yes. I’m fairly certain McDonagh was called up right after the trade.

Replacing a player you traded is different from one player taking another player's role.

 

[Tawnos]

Replacing a player you traded is different from one player taking another player's role.

Because it wasn’t after he was traded, it was before. McDonagh’s NHL debut happened because Roszival was out of the lineup due to an injury. After a couple of games, it was obvious McDonagh was ready to step in permanently and Rozy was traded shortly after.

 

[Machinehead]

Because it wasn’t after he was traded, it was before. McDonagh’s NHL debut happened because Roszival was out of the lineup due to an injury. After a couple of games, it was obvious McDonagh was ready to step in permanently and Rozy was traded shortly after.

Ok, so they were putting Ryan McDonagh in, not Greg McKegg.

 

[Tawnos]

Ok, so they were putting Ryan McDonagh in, not Greg McKegg.

To replace a mobile 2-way player who was the 3rd best D on the team. Not a 3rd line player being forced to play the 4th line.

It’s a different degree of the same concept.