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

[Machinehead]

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.

"Hey we have this better player" is not the same concept as "I guess we'll just play McKegg."

We didn't clear a spot for anyone. We already had McKegg.

 

[kovazub94]

No. Cap space is calculated and accrued on a daily basis. The example was 500k cap space per day, in a 200 day season (100 mil cap), where we were only spending 475k for the first 100 days.

Let's say Names was making 25k per day. He was traded 6 days into the season, so he cost us a total of 150k against the cap. If he were instead traded at the halfway mark, he would have cost us 2.5 mil against the cap.

On CapFriendly, you can view the cap tracker for each team, which shows the to-date cap totals for each player:

New York Rangers Daily Cap Tracker - CapFriendly - NHL Salary Caps

Namestnikov, Vladislav

Standard

$4,000,000

$2,925,000

6

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

$129,032

$4,021,505

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Namestnikov was on the roster for 6 days. During that time, he cost a total of 129,032 against the cap.

Since we retained 750k, he will continue to accrue against the cap each day at a rate of 750k / total days in season.

Continuing with the example, if the Rangers were to bring a 8m player (double Namestnikov) at a half point then his salary would be $50k per day thus the early season savings would be spend on the excess of this player (over Namestnikov) if the team was at the cap level with Namestnikov, right? Again I’m not very well versed in cap mechanics, just want to understand how to think about the art of bringing expensive contacts later during a season.

 

[Tawnos]

"Hey we have this better player" is not the same concept as "I guess we'll just play McKegg."

We didn't clear a spot for anyone. We already had McKegg.

You really didn’t understand the comparison at all.

We traded Roszival even though he was a better player than Gilroy. And we did it because he had lost his role to McDonagh.

We traded Namestnikov even though he’s a better player than McKegg. And we did it because he lost his role to Lemieux.

Both moves also cleared cap space.

 

[Machinehead]

You really didn’t understand the comparison at all.

We traded Roszival even though he was a better player than Gilroy. And we did it because he had lost his role to McDonagh.

We traded Namestnikov even though he’s a better player than McKegg. And we did it because he lost his role to Lemieux.

But again, you're comparing the role of a top 4 defenseman (a #1 defenseman, really, which is what McDonagh shortly became) to a couple of interchangeable bottom 6 wingers.

 

[Tawnos]

But again, you're comparing the role of a top 4 defenseman (a #1 defenseman, really, which is what McDonagh shortly became) to a couple of interchangeable bottom 6 wingers.

Roles are roles. And I’m not comparing the players involved, only the circumstance. I was never trying to say “this is of equal impact”... I was just saying that the situations are similar outside of the degree of that impact. A pretty good indicator of that degree is that Rozy returned a potentially valuable piece. Wolski was struggling in Phoenix, but he was coming off a 65 point season. Turned out he would only regress from there. Meanwhile, we got next to nothing for Namestnikov.

 

[Machinehead]

Roles are roles. And I’m not comparing the players involved, only the circumstance. I was never trying to say “this is of equal impact”... I was just saying that the situations are similar outside of the degree of that impact. A pretty good indicator of that degree is that Rozy returned a potentially valuable piece. Wolski was struggling in Phoenix, but he was coming off a 65 point season. Turned out he would only regress from there. Meanwhile, we got next to nothing for Namestnikov.

I just don't see the need to fit everyone into a "role" that far down in the lineup.

It seems to me more likely a case of the Rangers thinking they have too many players when they don't once again, which is why some people are annoyed.

 

[Tawnos]

I just don't see the need to fit everyone into a "role" that far down in the lineup.

It seems to me more likely a case of the Rangers thinking they have too many players when they don't once again, which is why some people are annoyed.

The best teams fit every player into a role everywhere in the lineup. And the further down in the lineup, the more important the concept itself becomes. It’s part of how a coach maximizes the impact those lower tier players end up having.

It only seems that way to you because you’re talking about the roster as if it’s simply a list of hockey players with varying ability, with the main strategy being to only make decisions based on ability level. It doesn’t work that way.

I understand why some people are annoyed. I also don’t think taking that position is defensible.

 

[Machinehead]

The best teams fit every player into a role everywhere in the lineup. And the further down in the lineup, the more important the concept itself becomes. It’s part of how a coach maximizes the impact those lower tier players end up having.

It only seems that way to you because you’re talking about the roster as if it’s simply a list of hockey players with varying ability, with the main strategy being to only make decisions based on ability level. It doesn’t work that way.

I understand why some people are annoyed. I also don’t think taking that position is defensible.

The best teams have more players than they need because they understand that injuries and cold streaks are "when" not "if" over the course of 82 games.

 

[Tawnos]

The best teams have more players than they need because they understand that injuries and cold streaks are "when" not "if" over the course of 82 games.

While that’s true, what does this have to do with the 2019-20 Rangers?

 

[Machinehead]

While that’s true, what does this have to do with the 2019-20 Rangers?

It's been a habit of their's for years to understaff.

This isn't really about just Namestnikov. If it was, there wouldn't be as much discussion about it.

 

[Machinehead]

HFNYR when people were mad about Howden starting over Andersson: "lines literally don't matter."

HFNYR today: "the team will disband if all of our third liners aren't exactly on the third line always."

 

[Tawnos]

It's been a habit of their's for years to understaff.

This isn't really about just Namestnikov. If it was, there wouldn't be as much discussion about it.

Yeah, I’ve seen you say that. It’s based on ridiculous statements like “McKegg isn’t an NHL player” which make it impossible to take seriously.

 

[Machinehead]

Yeah, I’ve seen you say that. It’s based on ridiculous statements like “McKegg isn’t an NHL player” which make it impossible to take seriously.

I mean, he really f***ing sucks and makes Namestnikov look like a good second liner, if you wanna put it that way.

 

[GAGLine]

Continuing with the example, if the Rangers were to bring a 8m player (double Namestnikov) at a half point then his salary would be $50k per day thus the early season savings would be spend on the excess of this player (over Namestnikov) if the team was at the cap level with Namestnikov, right? Again I’m not very well versed in cap mechanics, just want to understand how to think about the art of bringing expensive contacts later during a season.

If we are spending 475k per day for the first 100 days, we can spend up to 525k per day for the final 100 days. So yes, we could afford to add someone whose cap hit is 50k per day.

If it helps, just think of the player's cap hit as an estimate. The actual number is based on how many days the player is on the roster. If we trade for someone, take their cap hit, divide it by the total number of days in the season, then multiply by the number of days remaining in the season. That's the expected cap hit for that player. Example:

If there are 200 days in the season (the actual number is around 186), and we trade for Tyler Bozak (5 mil cap hit) on the 151st day, Bozak will count toward our cap for the final 50 days.

5 mil / 200 days * 50 days = 1.25 mil

That's the actual cap amount we will have to account for. If we were spending 475k per day for the first 150 days, we would have banked 3.75 mil, which would easily pay for Bozak's cap hit.

Being able to bank cap space is one of the key differences with LTIR space. You can't bank LTIR space. So say we start the season with a player on LTIR and we are allowed to spend up to 510k per day (10k over the cap ceiling). We are actually spending 505k per day. We still have 5k in LTIR space, but we can't bank it. It doesn't accumulate. That 5k on day one is still just 5k on day 200. Performance bonuses also can't be paid via LTIR space. These are reasons why teams would rather avoid it, if they can.

BTW, if you look at each player's page on CapFriendly, it lists their daily cap hit and season-to-date cap hit:

Mika Zibanejad - CapFriendly - NHL Salary Caps

Daily Cap Hit: $28,763
Accumulated Daily Cap Hit

: $172,581
Remaining Daily Cap Hit

: $5,177,419

 

[Tawnos]

I mean, he really ****ing sucks and makes Namestnikov look like a good second liner, if you wanna put it that way.

He will give you about as much as Namestnikov would’ve given you from the 4th line.

 

[Machinehead]

He will give you about as much as Namestnikov would’ve given you from the 4th line.

This is a garbage take and shows absolutely no nuance in understanding what a 4th line does.

 

[Tawnos]

This is a garbage take and shows absolutely no nuance in understanding what a 4th line does.

Yeah, YOU’RE going to accuse ME of not understanding nuance after this conversation

 

[kovazub94]

I personally liked Namestnikov on the Rangers and wish him all the best going forward. However, there was so much angst during offseason putting together lines when clearly the team had an excess of bottom 6 forwards. Namestnikov’ value was in his versatility and ability to step in top 6 role on a short term. But considering how much cap space the Rangers can start banking on now and a potential return it can bring before the TDL vs how much value was “lost” by trading him now vs, say, at TDL, this move clearly made sense. And Gorton explicitly confirmed the cap space was the main motivation here. Pretty simple, really.

 

[Machinehead]

Yeah, YOU’RE going to accuse ME of not understanding nuance after this conversation

Namesnikov had 31 points last year. McKegg has 24 in his NHL career. You think that doesn't matter because the 4th line does #GrinderThings.

Again, reprehensible take.

 

[Machinehead]

I personally liked Namestnikov on the Rangers and wish him all the best going forward. However, there was so much angst during offseason putting together lines when clearly the team had an excess of bottom 6 forwards. Namestnikov’ value was in his versatility and ability to step in top 6 role on a short term. But considering how much cap space the Rangers can start banking on now and a potential return it can bring before the TDL vs how much value was “lost” by trading him now vs, say, at TDL, this move clearly made sense. And how Gorton explicitly confirmed the cap space was the main motivation here. Pretty simple, really.

 

[kovazub94]

???

 

[Machinehead]

???

Where is this excess of bottom six forwards?

Somebody explain to me who on the fringes of this roster is just beating the doors off.

 

[kovazub94]

Where is this excess of bottom six forwards?

Somebody explain to me who on the fringes of this roster is just beating the doors off.

Check out summer roster threads pages if you forgot. I hate when you start PLAYING obtuse.

 

[Machinehead]

Check out summer roster threads pages if you forgot. I hate when you start PLAYING obtuse.

I'm not playing anything.

I didn't see this glut of depth we have then and I don't see it now.

 

[Fitzy]

I don't love agreeing with Machinehead, but yeah. We're short bottom 6ers. Didnt see much from Gettinger or Fogarty last year.

I'd call up Beleskey, to be honest. Give him a shot at 4LW. We've got the cap space to play him now.