Confirmed with Link: Rangers buy out Shattenkirk

[Tawnos]

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...

But this is the thing... not doing this would have caused us to miss the same opportunities.

 

[jerseyjinx94]

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.

What I was saying is that the actual punishment of the buyout ($6M next year) is not going to hurt the franchise. If you’re continuously making decisions hedging your bets for what “could” happen 3 or 4 years from now, you will never act, because there are too many unknowns.

So if next year comes around and the Rangers can’t acquire a player who is available, so be it. We acted when it was available to us. There is just as likely a chance that no one of interest is available to us next year as there is that someone of interest is available next year. And after next year, the buyout will not affect our roster construction.

 

[mas0764]

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

Not ignoring it, just saying, we aren't screwed.

I already said, I agree that buying out Smith and Staal was smarter.

Or buying out Smith and Namestnikov.

Or trading Namestnikov and Kreider, if such a thing was possible (while still getting good value for Kreider, ie, a first and good prospect).

But some of those options may not have been available (ie, the trade).

And while I think buying out Smith and Staal was smarter, and am on record in this thread as saying such, it's not the end of the world.

My point is the dead cap space is bad, but it's not really that important. If we had kept Shattenkirk around, we are on the hook for that money ($6.6) next season. Instead, we are on the hook for $6m and his replacement next season (which, if an ELC player like Rykov, is about $6.9m). For $300k, we are getting a young player into the lineup that we actually have hope for the future in. It's basically break-even, but we get Rykov or Reunanon or whoever instead of Shattenkirk.

 

[Brooklyn Rangers Fan]

They’ve given themselves cost and cap certainty into the future. They no longer have to worry about the cap or getting squeezed by other teams. That to me is way more valuable than some perceived flexibility to make unknown acquisitions in the future contingent on creating space through deals that are somehow going to materialize in 6-12 months’ time despite not being available now...

 

[Edge]

As a companion piece to something I wrote earlier, the Rangers need to do a little soul searching in order to attain a higher probability of success in the 2020s.

When you have three defenseman on your current roster who are legit buyout candidates and for whom you cannot field an acceptable trade offer, and you factor in another defenseman whom you are paying while they play for another team, it's a blind spot and a major organizational issue.

They got lucky with Spooner, but haven't been as lucky with Namestnikov. Over the years they've somewhat dodged bullets with Richards, Gomez, Drury, and Naslund.

People talk about our amateur scouting, or worry about fleeced in trades. But for me, the evaluations and ROI on some of the contracts they're agreeing to are a bigger area of concern.

 

[jerseyjinx94]

They’ve given themselves cost and cap certainty into the future. They no longer have to worry about the cap or getting squeezed by other teams. That to me is way more valuable than some perceived flexibility to make unknown acquisitions in the future contingent on creating space through deals that are somehow going to materialize in 6-12 months’ time despite not being available now...

I 100% agree with this.

 

[Blueblood2]

I am ok with this as I don't believe we are as far along in the build as most people on this board and 21-22 is our time to really start being a contender again. Our current group of prospects will have more experience and we will add others next year (i.e Miller) to the mix. So the huge hit ($6+M) next year is just another last year albatross we will have on the cap. I don't think even with cap space next year there are many studs (other than Hall) out there to be had. Not that it should matter but having Shattenkirk sitting in the press box most of the time next year is not a good optic for the team and would bring far more criticism and noise than Smith. Not an ideal situation but when you see Zibby and Panarin together and how they will raise Buch or Kakko's game we will forget about this real quick.

 

[NYR Viper]

But this is the thing... not doing this would have caused us to miss the same opportunities.

Perhaps, unless the Rangers had been able to pay his bonus and retain a percentage of his cap hit to move him

 

[kovazub94]

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.

IMHO it gives an insight into elite players wanting to get continuously paid FMV instead of having a security of longer contracts. If they continue to perform at their levels then likely their current teams will find ways to keep them instead of allowing them to get to the open market.

 

[GeorgeKaplan]

Not ignoring it, just saying, we aren't screwed.

I already said, I agree that buying out Smith and Staal was smarter.

Or buying out Smith and Namestnikov.

Or trading Namestnikov and Kreider, if such a thing was possible (while still getting good value for Kreider, ie, a first and good prospect).

But some of those options may not have been available (ie, the trade).

And while I think buying out Smith and Staal was smarter, and am on record in this thread as saying such, it's not the end of the world.

My point is the dead cap space is bad, but it's not really that important. If we had kept Shattenkirk around, we are on the hook for that money ($6.6) next season. Instead, we are on the hook for $6m and his replacement next season (which, if an ELC player like Rykov, is about $6.9m). For $300k, we are getting a young player into the lineup that we actually have hope for the future in. It's basically break-even, but we get Rykov or Reunanon or whoever instead of Shattenkirk.

That’s the problem I have, look at the price for cap dumps so far, not exactly a high price for guys that don’t need to be instantly bought out. The only way they’d be stuck with him next season is if they didn’t want to give up a mid round pick

 

[alkurtz]

Players with Shattenkirk’s skillset would seem to be the most vulnerable to the aging process and the way the game is played today. Literally, they are always skating on thin ice. Throw in a knee injury and you have the formula for a player who goes from highly effective to ineffective very quickly. This is why I never begrudge a player from making as much as they can, while they can. It is highly doubtful that Shattenkirk will ever again be a quality NHL D.

The case for buying him out was straightforward. Aside from his ineffectiveness (even if he recovered fully from his injuries, he is on the wrong side of the aging curve), we need to create space for our younger D. Yes, the main motivation is cap relief, but there are hockey issues here too.

Management obviously feels that Staal has value beyond his on ice ability and I agree. Smith has some value as a Swiss Army Knife; you can plug him in anywhere. Believe me, I would be happy to see him go. Another season of watching him take dumb penalties is enough to make you scream.

Shattenkirk was the obvious one to go, as sad as it is to see a childhood dream die. Injuries robbed him of his effectiveness. His skillset was vulnerable to regression even before his injury. We would seem to have other options to fill his role. Other teams saw what we saw and he was untradable.

I hope he catches on elsewhere and revives his career. But, this was a move that made sense on many levels.

 

[jerseyjinx94]

As a companion piece to something I wrote earlier, the Rangers need to do a little soul searching in order to attain a higher probability of success in the 2020s.

When you have three defenseman on your current roster who are legit buyout candidates and for whom you cannot field an acceptable trade offer, and you factor in another defenseman whom you are paying while they play for another team, it's a blind spot and a major organizational issue.

They got lucky with Spooner, but haven't been as lucky with Namestnikov. Over the years they've somewhat dodged bullets with Richards, Gomez, Drury, and Naslund.

People talk about our amateur scouting, or worry about fleeced in trades. But for me, the evaluations and ROI on some of the contracts they're agreeing to are a bigger area of concern.

Oh, for sure. When you look at the contracts handed out, though...none of those guys are Artemi Panarin, except maybe Richards, who was older and viewed as the missing piece. He also almost helped the team win a Cup.

The lesson here is to avoid UFA now that we have our elite talent...we need to be smarter with the cap and focus on retaining our own players. In order to do that, this season, we had to buyout Shattenkirk. The organization's plan should not be to go outside the organization next offseason. Therefore, I don't care about the cap hit next year.

 

[Tawnos]

As a companion piece to something I wrote earlier, the Rangers need to do a little soul searching in order to attain a higher probability of success in the 2020s.

When you have three defenseman on your current roster who are legit buyout candidates and for whom you cannot field an acceptable trade offer, and you factor in another defenseman whom you are paying while they play for another team, it's a blind spot and a major organizational issue.

They got lucky with Spooner, but haven't been as lucky with Namestnikov. Over the years they've somewhat dodged bullets with Richards, Gomez, Drury, and Naslund.

People talk about our amateur scouting, or worry about fleeced in trades. But for me, the evaluations and ROI on some of the contracts they're agreeing to are a bigger area of concern.

Every single thing there has happened with Sather as President of Hockey Ops and most of it with him as GM. As much as I like what he did to turn to the team into a contender during that window, there's definitely a reckless quality to the way he manages.

And yes, the Rangers did just sign Panarin under JD's leadership, but overall I do expect a more measured approach to permeate the organization.

 

[DanielBrassard]

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.

Spot on. Say what you will about this being the easier buyout for this season which it is, all it has done is created more issues for next season when the team really should have been looking to take the next step in their evolution. Perhaps Hank retires, Staal goes to Robidas island and Smith is packaged to some other team with Georgiev and this whole point is moot. A bit skeptical about that but who knows.

 

[GeorgeKaplan]

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

Plus I bet they’ll be trying to get rid of Staal and smith and there’s either going to be some sort of dead cap from retention or buyout there or some other garbage contract coming back

 

[Jaromir Jagr]

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?

I'm glad we got here.

In my opinion, this team is clearly not ready to compete. At minimum, we are probably 2 years away. I would have preferred we see what we have and identify areas of need. Maybe we sneak into the playoffs this or next year. In 21-22, we begin our next window. At that time we should have a much clearer idea of which prospects are great, good and busts. Meaning, we will know what we need to address.

Signing Panarin was putting the cart before the horse. And just looking at what we have now, there is far more organizational depth at wing. KK, Kravtsov, Chytil, etc. This is undoubtedly our strongest area. I don't think it's a stretch to think we will require a top pairng LHD or Center when we are ready to compete, much more so than a winger. Therefore, I think it would have made sense to hang onto the cap space and avoid the potential of Panarin busting or aging poorly, in order to address the need when it exposed itself once were much closer to being a competative contender.

Yet, I think where we most disagree is with the prospect of trading for an elite player. You seem to have the mindset that it will be utterly destructive to the team at hand and our future. I just don't buy this.

The fact is, we have one of the deepest prospect pools in team history. There is absolutely no way we can keep all of these picks and prospects. At some point, we are going to have to move some good prospects/roster players both due to basic logistics and the inevitable cap casualty. I would much prefer we have the cap space flexibility to go after that 'final missing piece' when the time arises and leverage these pieces in a trade for them..

Think of this. Let's say a top C becomes available in 2 years. Are there many teams that can better offer a package of:

Buchnevich (assuming he stays at this level - cap casualty)
young 3rd/4th liner (I.E. Lemieux) or decent prospect
Robertson/Another B+ ish prospect
1st Rounder

If Kravtsov and KK develop as we expect, will that really harm our roster much? Will our prospect pool be destroyed? In my view, absolutely not. Add to this that we're going to accumulate more assets in the next few years and this becomes even more clear.

Look at what elite players go for. It's not some absurd package like Lindros commanded back in the day. It's usually rather underwhelming. And the package I proposed is basically as good as any of those.

 

[kovazub94]

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.

Nash was the closest to Panarin top non-UFA player from your list. So to you it's the same level field to consider signing Panarin for just cash vs. , for example, giving up Andersson, Howden and a 1rd pick to obtain him via trade?

 

[True Blue]

Look at the table I posted above. Buying out Namestnikov and Smith saved more money this year, and I doubt that Namestnikov will have enough value to make retaining him worth it.

That is a bet that Gorton may be willing to make. I posted this a while ago, but Namestnikov played very well when playing with top players. He can ride shotgun on a top line or be a pretty good third liner with the way that he reinvented his game last year. If it is the latter, if Boyle can get a 2nd, one would presume that Namestnikov could as well. If he is the opening RW on a line with Panarin and ZBad and produces the way he did in Tampa when the Rangers made the deal, he would make for a pretty attractive looking rental.

 

[GeorgeKaplan]

Every single thing there has happened with Sather as President of Hockey Ops and most of it with him as GM. As much as I like what he did to turn to the team into a contender during that window, there's definitely a reckless quality to the way he manages.

And yes, the Rangers did just sign Panarin under JD's leadership, but overall I do expect a more measured approach to permeate the organization.

JD’s past 6 months don’t really say ‘measured approach’ to me, especially when he gets to a team that has been incredibly measured in its approach for the past two years and they almost instantly change their approach to “I need everything right now”

 

[Tawnos]

JD’s past 6 months don’t really say ‘measured approach’ to me, especially when he gets to a team that has been incredibly measured in its approach for the past two years and they almost instantly change their approach to “I need everything right now”

You're confusing measured with timid.

 

[Brooklyn Rangers Fan]

As a companion piece to something I wrote earlier, the Rangers need to do a little soul searching in order to attain a higher probability of success in the 2020s.

When you have three defenseman on your current roster who are legit buyout candidates and for whom you cannot field an acceptable trade offer, and you factor in another defenseman whom you are paying while they play for another team, it's a blind spot and a major organizational issue.

They got lucky with Spooner, but haven't been as lucky with Namestnikov. Over the years they've somewhat dodged bullets with Richards, Gomez, Drury, and Naslund.

People talk about our amateur scouting, or worry about fleeced in trades. But for me, the evaluations and ROI on some of the contracts they're agreeing to are a bigger area of concern.

The interesting thing — in the Gorton era — is that it’s the medium term deals where we’ve been burned. One thing I really like about this off-season, and really every decision since the letter, is the decisiveness. They’ve clearly got a plan and are sticking to it. It’s the middle ground that’ll kill you.

 

[Tawnos]

I'm glad we got here.

In my opinion, this team is clearly not ready to compete. At minimum, we are probably 2 years away. I would have preferred we see what we have and identify areas of need. Maybe we sneak into the playoffs this or next year. In 21-22, we begin our next window. At that time we should have a much clearer idea of which prospects are great, good and busts. Meaning, we will know what we need to address.

Signing Panarin was putting the cart before the horse. And just looking at what we have now, there is far more organizational depth at wing. KK, Kravtsov, Chytil, etc. This is undoubtedly our strongest area. I don't think it's a stretch to think we will require a top pairng LHD or Center when we are ready to compete, much more so than a winger. Therefore, I think it would have made sense to hang onto the cap space and avoid the potential of Panarin busting or aging poorly, in order to address the need when it exposed itself once were much closer to being a competative contender.

Yet, I think where we most disagree is with the prospect of trading for an elite player. You seem to have the mindset that it will be utterly destructive to the team at hand and our future. I just don't buy this.

The fact is, we have one of the deepest prospect pools in team history. There is absolutely no way we can keep all of these picks and prospects. At some point, we are going to have to move some good prospects/roster players both due to basic logistics and the inevitable cap casualty. I would much prefer we have the cap space flexibility to go after that 'final missing piece' when the time arises and leverage these pieces in a trade for them..

Think of this. Let's say a top C becomes available in 2 years. Are there many teams that can better offer a package of:

Buchnevich (assuming he stays at this level - cap casualty)
young 3rd/4th liner (I.E. Lemieux) or decent prospect
Robertson/Another B+ ish prospect
1st Rounder

If Kravtsov and KK develop as we expect, will that really harm our roster much? Will our prospect pool be destroyed? In my view, absolutely not. Add to this that we're going to accumulate more assets in the next few years and this becomes even more clear.

Look at what elite players go for. It's not some absurd package like Lindros commanded back in the day. It's usually rather underwhelming. And the package I proposed is basically as good as any of those.

There's no guarantee that the trade you laid out makes the team better. It's essentially the same package we moved for Nash, which made the team worse. I don't have the mindset that trading for a player WILL be utterly destructive. I have the mindset that it's a gamble and that it's not more or less of a gamble than signing Panarin when we did. I'll also add that having signed Panarin isn't necessarily going to prevent us from making such a trade.

 

[Rangerfan4life90]

Actually, it does. And again, we've been down this road, but elite players become available basically every year.

Except that's not true. The only one even close to Panarin's age and ability over the next couple of seasons is Taylor Hall.

 

[mas0764]

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

I did no such thing, I specifically addressed both Gaborik and Nash in the post you quoted. Maybe you didn't read it closely enough.

Also, are you that dense that you actually believe I was equating Vesey with Panarin?

You are the one who put Hayes and Vesey on a list to support your point that, and I'm quoting you directly here, "but elite players become available basically every year." Vesey and Hayes are not elite players. Nor were Shattenkirk or Richards. And, I'm saying this part a second time, cause you missed it when I said it in my last post, Nash and MSL were trades that required multiple top assets, so they are not comparable to Panarin's acquisition.

Being able to trade 2 first rounders and a roster player for a 39 year old winger isn't my idea of "an elite player becoming available basically every year." We had to overpay to pry him loose. This transaction in no way supports rationale that "we can overpay for an aging winger later, so no need for Panarin now." It's a completely inapplicable scenario that has no business in a Panarin debate.

My point was that players always want to come here. I didn't think I had to spell that out to you.

So you are then retracting your statement that "we've been down this road, but elite players become available basically every year." ?

Because that statement was the one I took issue with, since it's so obviously false.

Of course SOME players always want to come here. We are an attractive organization. But a shot at a Panarin-like talent for nothing but cap space is available to us more like every half decade or so, when you factor in having the cap space to do it, and the player being willing to come here, often for less money than other teams are offering.

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.

And your previous list comes to an incorrect conclusion, if you are referring to any claim I have made.

I'm merely saying, no, a Panarin type does not become available to us "basically every year." Not even basically every other year. The only real comp to a Panarin FA signing is Gaborik. 9 years ago.

And after that, the closest players, in terms of impact and perceived value at the time they were acquired, would be Nash and MSL, and we had to pay out the nose for them. Sorry, I'm not persuaded that because we can trade for a guy in 2 years, it's a reason not to sign Panarin now for no assets.

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

Well, good. At least if you're not gonna debate this anymore, I no longer will have to read such falsehoods.

 

[True Blue]

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.

In all fairness, Brooks was also reporting that they would bring back Hayes.