Confirmed with Link: Rangers buy out Shattenkirk

[NYR713]

I have to imagine that they shopped Shatty with retention and found nothing. Taking on that $6M dead cap hit next season, on top of another $1.4M with Girardi+Spooner, seems risky and only opens up 1 spot. I was really hoping they'd be able to move him with as much as 50% retention, waive Smith and buyout Staal. Even though the dead cap space is a little higher next season, those 3 spots are all cleared out.

I guess Smith can still be waived opening up another $1M in space and that 2nd spot. I guess that depends on how good Hajek/Rykov/Lindgren look in camp and preseason and gives them a veteran safe guard in the case they don't want to rush any of them.

 

[Thirty One]

In all honesty at the end of the day I believe if it weren't for Shatty's cap hit next year most of us wouldn't mind this buyout.

I mean, yeah.

 

[GAGLine]

While it has been essentially 3 years where we've had an elite UFA get to free agency (I consider Stamkos having gotten there since he signed after being able to talk to other teams), you have to go several years further back to find the next one. Another way to look at it: of the top 50 contracts in the league by cap hit %, that were signed as UFAs, a grand total of 9 involved the player changing teams. That tells me that the vast majority of top players stick with their teams.

I think this trend is changing. Tavares left the Isles. Panarin only signed a 2 year deal after his ELC (to make him a UFA). Hall has 1 year left and no one except devil fans would blame him if he picked his own spot as a UFA. Matthews only signed for 5 years and apparently Marner is looking for a 5 year deal. Aho is signed for 5 years. All of these players could end up hitting the UFA market.

And that's just UFA. Does McDavid or Draisaitl want out at some point? Does Eichel? Does Meier re-sign long term when his contract is up? Does he opt for a shorter deal like Panarin or force a trade like Trouba?

I think elite players are going to be available more than they have been in the past.

 

[mas0764]

In the past ten years we have acquired:

Nash (star player)
Gaborik (star player)
Richards (one season removed from 90 points)
MSL (star player)
Panarin (star player)
Trouba (1st line D-man)
Shattenkirk (top FA in his class)
Hayes (most sought after prospect FA)
Vesey (most sought after prospect FA)

Sorry, but I don't have any fear that when we are actually ready to compete that

A) a star player in a position of need will be available

and

B) that we can acquire said player

Surely you can see why most of the players on your list are completely inapplicable comparisons to Panarin.

I mean, if your position is that "every year" we can acquire someone like a 39 year old winger by trading away 2 first round picks, or acquire a 28 year old winger by trading away a first rounder, two roster players, and a prospect, that's a different argument, but of course that doesn't score you as many points as saying "every year an impact free agent is available," which is just deceptive and/or untrue.

Hayes and Vesey do not compare - they were college FAs who came here because we had openings on a thin roster. Shattenkirk and Richards do not compare - they were lesser or older free agents, despite being the "best FA's on the market" - in fact I think that proves my point (sometimes a Shattenkirk is the best player on the market, but he's no Panarin). Trouba, Nash, and especially MSL do not compare; they were acquired in trades for assets we may not have or be able to give up in 2 years. Gaborik is the only true comparison. And we signed him literally 9 years ago.

So this is more like a once a decade indulgence on our part. Take issue with trading two firsts away for MSL, but that's a completely separate point.

I also don't have any fear that we'd be able to find a top 6-ish type player by overpaying at a trade deadline in two years. Yes, those guys come available.

Panarin is a true, elite, top 10 forward in the league type. And we didn't have to give up any draft picks. That simply does not come around most years.

So you're post that "We've been down this road, this comes available every year," is untrue. No, a Hayes or 39 year old MSL is "often" available. Panarin? Not so much.

 

[Tawnos]

1. You can continue to harp on only UFA (and it's kinda insane you don't consider Tavares an elite player), but the fact is elite players become available pretty much every season via trade or UFA (I included this to make you happy).

2. Brooks quite clearly reported they were looking at buyout out Staal and Smith. And considering he is like the #1 source for insider Rangers ****, I'd say that's pretty significant.

Tavares is one of the 3 I'm referring to... though I did misspeak. It's not 3 straight years, it's 3 of the last 4 (2016 Stamkos, 2018 Tavares, 2019 Panarin). And yes, elite players ARE often available in trade, but that has nothing to do with the Panarin conversation. He wasn't a trade acquisition. He doesn't involve making the team weaker in another area (like when we acquired Nash) or mortgaging parts of the future (like when we acquired MSL and Yandle). It's not really germane to the conversation when someone says "an opportunity like Panarin doesn't come along very often" to include trades.

Brooks said the literal opposite of what you're claiming.

But if Staal played the right side, where the club seems set one-two-three with Jacob Trouba, Tony DeAngelo and Adam Fox, then a buyout of No. 18 would likely have been under serious consideration

With the implication there being that Staal was never under serious consideration.

https://nypost.com/2019/07/28/kevin-shattenkirk-buyout-is-least-painful-solution-for-rangers-mess/

And the three previous articles from Brooks on this topic didn't even mention Staal as a buyout candidate. Only Shattenkirk and Smith.

 

[mas0764]

This year is the year that's the 'real crunch' because it's here right now.

It's absolutely possible that next year will also be a 'real crunch' and then we're stuck with a 6 million albatross for a guy who doesn't even exist.

No, that is not possible. Absent signing another massive FA contract, there will be no serious crunch next year.

And we're stuck with that $6m albatross whether he's here as a scratched defenseman or not. You seem to be missing that point. We are actually about half a million healthier on next year's cap now that he's gone.

By my math, paying $6.6 million to Shattenkirk and having him as a 6/7 defenseman who gets minimal time, versus paying him $6m in a buyout and $700k to Rykov to replace him on the active roster, is basically a wash. Except we are dressing Rykov and not Shattenkirk. It's like $100k difference.

Big deal.

Edit: Sorry, Rykov is getting $900k. So it's like an extra $300k to have Rykov and getting Shattenkirk out, versus actually keeping Shattenkirk and having him take a roster spot OVER a guy like Rykov. $300k.

 

[Blueshirt13]

Not sure why people are surprised or outraged about this.

1 - as noted multiple times, the trade market is just non-existent at the moment. JG tried to tried Shattenkirk (with retention), Names/Strome and Kreider and just couldn't find a taker or get back sufficient value.

2 - buying out Shattenkirk solved our problems this year AND next year with 1 shot, while not taking crappy returns in a trade market or taking on a bad contract from another team. Relying on a bounce back year from someone over 30 and with prior knee issues is always risky. Plus, the best aspect of his game is on the point on the PP and we now have Trouba, TonyD and maybe Fox (if he's ready) to fill that role. It's not about 2019/2020 but building to compete thereafter and longer term.

3 - keeping Names and Strome gives us options at center should one of Chytl/Lias/Howden not be able to fill the 2C role. Not ideal candidates but they give us more options

4 - at the deadline we have Kreider, Names, Strome and/or Fast as assets we can get some value back for. Their value at the deadline is likely higher than any offers we had now. With Panarin, Buch, Kakko and Kravtsov as our likely longer term wings, we all know Kreider will likely be traded at the deadline but by keeping him now, we can ease someone into that top 6 role over the first half of the season AND get more value for him at the deadline.

5 - by keeping Smith, we have some optionality on both D and upfront. He can play on the 4th line AND sub in on D IF needed. It can help give sheltered minutes to a kid that they want on the club but also want to move along slowly. He also adds some toughness to the lineup whenever they do play him. Obviously its not the best situation (and an expensive one) but it opens up options for the club.

While a buyout was not ideal, it was the best solution given the crappy trade market and our other buyout options, none of which would have been enough in itself.

 

[Jaromir Jagr]

Surely you can see why most of the players on your list are completely inapplicable comparisons to Panarin.

I mean, if your position is that "every year" we can acquire someone like a 39 year old winger by trading away 2 first round picks, or acquire a 28 year old winger by trading away a first rounder, two roster players, and a prospect, that's a different argument, but of course that doesn't score you as many points as saying "every year an impact free agent is available," which is just deceptive and/or untrue.

Hayes and Vesey do not compare - they were college FAs who came here because we had openings on a thin roster. Shattenkirk and Richards do not compare - they were lesser or older free agents, despite being the "best FA's on the market" - in fact I think that proves my point (sometimes a Shattenkirk is the best player on the market, but he's no Panarin). Trouba, Nash, and especially MSL do not compare; they were acquired in trades for assets we may not have or be able to give up in 2 years. Gaborik is the only true comparison. And we signed him literally 9 years ago.

So this is more like a once a decade indulgence on our part. Take issue with trading two firsts away for MSL, but that's a completely separate point.

I also don't have any fear that we'd be able to find a top 6-ish type player by overpaying at a trade deadline in two years. Yes, those guys come available.

Panarin is a true, elite, top 10 forward in the league type. And we didn't have to give up any draft picks. That simply does not come around most years.

So you're post that "We've been down this road, this comes available every year," is untrue. No, a Hayes or 39 year old MSL is "often" available. Panarin? Not so much.

I like how you pick out MSL (who is undoubtedly the exception and not the norm) and choose to conveniently ignore Gaborik, Nash, etc.

Also, are you that dense that you actually believe I was equating Vesey with Panarin? My point was that players always want to come here. I didn't think I had to spell that out to you. And as my previous list showed (the one regarding star players available via UFA or trade) these guys become available a lot more often than you and others claim.

I'm not even going to debate this with you anymore because your arguments are a joke and incredibly selective.

 

[Tawnos]

I think this trend is changing. Tavares left the Isles. Panarin only signed a 2 year deal after his ELC (to make him a UFA). Hall has 1 year left and no one except devil fans would blame him if he picked his own spot as a UFA. Matthews only signed for 5 years and apparently Marner is looking for a 5 year deal. Aho is signed for 5 years. All of these players could end up hitting the UFA market.

And that's just UFA. Does McDavid or Draisaitl want out at some point? Does Eichel? Does Meier re-sign long term when his contract is up? Does he opt for a shorter deal like Panarin or force a trade like Trouba?

I think elite players are going to be available more than they have been in the past.

That's a possibility, but that hasn't happened yet. These things go in spurts sometimes. We had Hossa in 2009, Richards in 2011, and Suter/Parise in 2012... then nothing until 2016.

 

[Jaromir Jagr]

No, that is not possible. Absent signing another massive FA contract, there will be no serious crunch next year.

And we're stuck with that $6m albatross whether he's here as a scratched defenseman or not. You seem to be missing that point. We are actually about half a million healthier on next year's cap now that he's gone.

By my math, paying $6.6 million to Shattenkirk and having him as a 6/7 defenseman who gets minimal time, versus paying him $6m in a buyout and $700k to Rykov to replace him on the active roster, is basically a wash. Except we are dressing Rykov and not Shattenkirk. It's like $100k difference.

Big deal.

Edit: Sorry, Rykov is getting $900k. So it's like an extra $300k to have Rykov and getting Shattenkirk out, versus actually keeping Shattenkirk and having him take a roster spot OVER a guy like Rykov. $300k.

Well, my hope was that he would rebound and we could retain him for 50% at the deadline. Again, that's a valid point. And then we would only be stuck with a 3 mil cap hit for one more year.

 

[SickNice]

Also re: Staal, it wouldn't surprise me if this was his last year playing (either retiring or LTIR).

 

[Jaromir Jagr]

Tavares is one of the 3 I'm referring to... though I did misspeak. It's not 3 straight years, it's 3 of the last 4 (2016 Stamkos, 2018 Tavares, 2019 Panarin). And yes, elite players ARE often available in trade, but that has nothing to do with the Panarin conversation. He wasn't a trade acquisition. He doesn't involve making the team weaker in another area (like when we acquired Nash) or mortgaging parts of the future (like when we acquired MSL and Yandle). It's not really germane to the conversation when someone says "an opportunity like Panarin doesn't come along very often" to include trades.

Brooks said the literal opposite of what you're claiming.



With the implication there being that Staal was never under serious consideration.

https://nypost.com/2019/07/28/kevin-shattenkirk-buyout-is-least-painful-solution-for-rangers-mess/

And the three previous articles from Brooks on this topic didn't even mention Staal as a buyout candidate. Only Shattenkirk and Smith.

The fact that you're ignoring elite players who come available via trade is because it helps your argument. It doesn't matter how they become availabe, they do. And very rarely are those trades straight up for other elite players. They are generally for picks and prospects, of which we will have many to move in the coming years.

Therefore, all that matters is that elite players become available often. And that the timing of signing Panarin, versus waiting until we're more ready to compete and thus can go after a player who will be a better fit for the club's needs (whether via UFA or trade), makes more sense (in my opinion).

The main point here is to reject the notion you and others are pushing that this was basically a 'once in a generation opportunity' which is just absurd.

 

[GeorgeKaplan]

No, that is not possible. Absent signing another massive FA contract, there will be no serious crunch next year.

And we're stuck with that $6m albatross whether he's here as a scratched defenseman or not. You seem to be missing that point. We are actually about half a million healthier on next year's cap now that he's gone.

By my math, paying $6.6 million to Shattenkirk and having him as a 6/7 defenseman who gets minimal time, versus paying him $6m in a buyout and $700k to Rykov to replace him on the active roster, is basically a wash. Except we are dressing Rykov and not Shattenkirk. It's like $100k difference.

Big deal.

Edit: Sorry, Rykov is getting $900k. So it's like an extra $300k to have Rykov and getting Shattenkirk out, versus actually keeping Shattenkirk and having him take a roster spot OVER a guy like Rykov. $300k.

You’re ignoring how much easier it would be to trade him next offseason regardless of what he did this season

 

[NYR Viper]

I have to say I very much disagree and dislike the idea that just because the Rangers currently don't have anyone major RFA's to re-sign next season right now and there aren't any major UFA names, that the Shattenkirk cap hit next year won't be an issue. With a more than likely somewhat flat cap next year, there will be teams looking to trade good players at less than market value. Because of this decision, they will be missing opportunities. It is what it is, I get that, but this thinking that there aren't any prime UFA's next year so the cap hit won't be troublesome is a poor way to look at it.

 

[jerseyjinx94]

I really don't care about this cap hit next year. Where are we allocating that money? It's not like the Rangers are going to go out and sign a $7M player. The roster is largely here barring some shakeups that may include a prospect for prospect type trade, or getting even younger.

The addition of Panarin does not signal that the Rangers are back in the buy everyone/win now mode of the past. It is acquiring an asset when it's available.

Banking on the fact that an asset "may" become available in the future is a fool's game. You don't know that and you can't rely on that.

If you argue that the Rangers should never have signed Panarin, and just rode out the prospects, that's a fine take. But it can't be coupled with a definitive statement about unknowns in the future.

The bottom line is Shattenkirk has no place on this team anyway, and after the hit next year, his buyout is minimal. It will barely affect the roster after next season. How is the team filling up all the cap space it will have next year? Shit, if anything, it will prevent the FO from doing something stupid, if that's what you're worried about.

 

[bbny]

Wow.... when you have basically min salary ELC players to replace roster spots (like we do with Rykov, Fox, Hajek, etc), this really shows that the better route was buyouts of Smith and Staal. Only costs you an extra $900k in years 3 and 4, but clears off two albatrosses, and gives you an extra $4m in savings the first two years.

Yeah, I think they are just married to Staal, is a big part of it. And Smith by himself wasn't enough. I think a Smith-Staal combo buyout was the way to go, but I'm not gonna freak out about it. Oh well.

Need to factor in the 1.1M that can be freed up by burying Smith. Now a Shattenkirk buyout + Smith bury frees up just as much as a Staal/Smith buyout. Additionally, as shown by the post you quoted, a Shattenkirk buyout costs less against the cap in 21-22/22-23.

 

[GeorgeKaplan]

I have to say I very much disagree and dislike the idea that just because the Rangers currently don't have anyone major RFA's to re-sign next season right now and there aren't any major UFA names, that the Shattenkirk cap hit next year won't be an issue. With a more than likely somewhat flat cap next year, there will be teams looking to trade good players at less than market value. Because of this decision, they will be missing opportunities. It is what it is, I get that, but this thinking that there aren't any prime UFA's next year so the cap hit won't be troublesome is a poor way to look at it.

Especially if they’re expecting to make some sort of a playoff push, that dead cap is a big hinderance on being able to make the team better

 

[bbny]

I like how you pick out MSL (who is undoubtedly the exception and not the norm) and choose to conveniently ignore Gaborik, Nash, etc.

Also, are you that dense that you actually believe I was equating Vesey with Panarin? My point was that players always want to come here. I didn't think I had to spell that out to you. And as my previous list showed (the one regarding star players available via UFA or trade) these guys become available a lot more often than you and others claim.

I'm not even going to debate this with you anymore because your arguments are a joke and incredibly selective.

He didn't ignore Gaborik or Nash. You just chose not to read his post with an open mind.

 

[mas0764]

Great response. I'd like to see some actual valid points as to what I wrote that's not true.

You think Staal and Smith can become valuable players?

You think Staal and Smith are better than Shattenkirk?

You think the Rangers are a playoff team or cup contender?

You think this team has financial flexibility this and next year?

You think if we sign Kreider that we won't lose some of our prospects (every one of which will be due a raise during the next 4 years)?

I said "not very much true," -- not "nothing true."

Staal and Smith of course will not become valuable players. I agree that the smarter move was buying them both out. It's also not anything to get worked up over. They clearly love Staal, it's irrational, but it's within the realm of discretion of a GM to have preferences for a player that the fans don't like, without raking them over the coals and announcing that the world is ending. So to answer your first two questions, no, I don't think Staal and Smith can become valuable, nor do I think they are notably better than Shattenkirk, but it's just not that big a deal.

Do I think the Rangers are a playoff team? It could happen. Cup contender? No. But who cares? This team isn't going anywhere right now. They need the savings.

Do they have financial flexibility this year? No.... that's why we are buying Shattenkirk out, duh. But will they have flexibility next year? Yes, enough to operate, re-sign their own, and maybe make some trades, as long as they are not taking on any big contracts. They will have about $16m in space, with only the need to sign, about 5 bottom-6 forwards, plus DeAngelo, plus Georgiev. Remember that guys like Gettinger and Elmer may be able to come up and take bottom line spots, they make $700k each. Plenty of space.

Do I think if we sign Kreider we won't lose a nice prospect? Well.... no, probably not within the next 2-3 years. If we give Kreider a massive contract, 7+ years, it may hamstring us at some point. But that's the thing to avoid, then. We should not re-sign Kreider more than 3-4 years. Frankly, we should trade him and not re-sign him at all. Panarin should be thought of as a sub-in for Kreider, and then we are fine. We will have plenty of cap room moving forward.

Obviously decisions will some day have to be made about free agents, but whether Panarin is here or not, a guy like Howden may someday not get re-signed. There is no worry whatsoever that we are gonna lose someone we really want. We are actually in excellent shape for the long term, what with the impending cap spike due to the new TV deal.

So to conclude, no, there's not really much of any substance in your post that you are correct about. Certainly not any of your panic-induced hysteria about cap mismanagement, such as when you said we are "destroying financial flexibility" and we will have to lose "several" of our top prospects.

No. We are fine.

We just made the hardest of the tough decisions. IMO, it wasn't the optimum outcome, but we'll be fine. More than fine, actually. We're in tremendous shape right now.

And once we use this newfound leverage to move Kreider for a premium package in-season, we will be able to re-load in next year's draft to get another top asset, be it top-pair defender or a top-6 center option.

 

[Tawnos]

The fact that you're ignoring elite players who come available via trade is because it helps your argument. It doesn't matter how they become availabe, they do. And very rarely are those trades straight up for other elite players. They are generally for picks and prospects, of which we will have many to move in the coming years.

Therefore, all that matters is that elite players become available often. And that the timing of signing Panarin, versus waiting until we're more ready to compete and thus can go after a player who will be a better fit for the club's needs (whether via UFA or trade), makes more sense (in my opinion).

The main point here is to reject the notion you and others are pushing that this was basically a 'once in a generation opportunity' which is just absurd.

I never said once in a generation. Just that it's uncommon. I just consider signing a UFA to be a totally different animal than trading for someone. I understand the timing arguments, though I don't really agree that timing is as important as others do. But I'll put it this way. Let's say in 21-22, the Rangers are ready to contend after having been competitive in 20-21. Would we be better off having Panarin already in place still playing at a high level in addition to all of the young pieces we've put into place? Or would we be better off with no Panarin and hurting our depth by trading 2 roster players, a prospect and a 1st round pick to try to upgrade our offense?

They're different approaches and both come with a certain amount of risk. The Rangers got worse when they acquired Nash, despite getting the best player in the deal. They had to trade Gaborik to make up for the gamble not paying off.

 

[Jaromir Jagr]

I really don't care about this cap hit next year. Where are we allocating that money? It's not like the Rangers are going to go out and sign a $7M player. The roster is largely here barring some shakeups that may include a prospect for prospect type trade, or getting even younger.

The addition of Panarin does not signal that the Rangers are back in the buy everyone/win now mode of the past. It is acquiring an asset when it's available.

Banking on the fact that an asset "may" become available in the future is a fool's game. You don't know that and you can't rely on that.

If you argue that the Rangers should never have signed Panarin, and just rode out the prospects, that's a fine take. But it can't be coupled with a definitive statement about unknowns in the future.

The bottom line is Shattenkirk has no place on this team anyway, and after the hit next year, his buyout is minimal. It will barely affect the roster after next season. How is the team filling up all the cap space it will have next year? ****, if anything, it will prevent the FO from doing something stupid, if that's what you're worried about.

I love how you start by claiming that the buyout for the next 3 years will pose pretty much no issue to the Rangers motives (therefore predicting the future of what the team will do)

Then go on to tell people not to predict that other assets will become available in the future.

The fact is, the future you predict is actually far less certain than those predicting that elite assets will be available in the near future.

 

[mas0764]

There doesn't look like there are going to be many or any major free agent targets anyway. Hall next year--maybe, probably not--after him it's a big falloff. The year after Landeskog looks like maybe he'll be the best player if he's still available and there's a good chance he won't be. Do I like him?--Yeah I do. Would I break the bank for him? **** no. I'm kind of thinking Panarin is going to end up being the best free agent signing not only this year but easily better than anyone the next two years.

Pretty much open and shut case, but the sky-is-falling crowd just hear "$6m in dead cap space" and think that it means they need to panic. I doubt any of them have bothered to even look at where we are with next year's cap. They can't articulate what the actual harm is. Just "BUT DEAD CAP SPACE!!!!"

Uh, and who are we gonna lose because of it? I want names.

Then come the crickets.

 

[NYR Viper]

Especially if they’re expecting to make some sort of a playoff push, that dead cap is a big hinderance on being able to make the team better

Agreed. I get that something needed to be done, but it's going to hurt next year. He and Girardi are going to account for over $7m in dead cap space. That's going to be around 7-8% of the cap

 

[NYR Viper]

Pretty much open and shut case, but the sky-is-falling crowd just hear "$6m in dead cap space" and think that it means they need to panic. I doubt any of them have bothered to even look at where we are with next year's cap. They can't articulate what the actual harm is. Just "BUT DEAD CAP SPACE!!!!"

Uh, and who are we gonna lose because of it? I want names.

Then come the crickets.

Well that's like asking what the stock market will close at in a years time though, no? Who knows what opportunities will be missed because of this move. It's the future...

 

[bbny]

Pretty much open and shut case, but the sky-is-falling crowd just hear "$6m in dead cap space" and think that it means they need to panic. I doubt any of them have bothered to even look at where we are with next year's cap. They can't articulate what the actual harm is. Just "BUT DEAD CAP SPACE!!!!"

Uh, and who are we gonna lose because of it? I want names.

Then come the crickets.

Carpinello said it best:

The $6.083 million he will be paid by the Rangers in ’20-21 will be painful as a dead cap hit, but if Shattenkirk were still on the team and not playing, it would be $6.65 million.