Confirmed with Link: Rangers buy out Shattenkirk

[GeorgeKaplan]

You're confusing measured with timid.

I assure you, I am not

 

[will1066]

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.

I understand this, but this is not exclusively a New York Rangers problem. There are other teams out there that each has multiple buyout candidates, any given season.

The point is, no one is clairvoyant and knows what will happen one year, two years, three years down the line with anyone. With Panarin, you know you're buying a Ferrari now that's in top condition and on a discount. But who knows if it will become a DeLorean.

We bust on Staal, I do too, but it wasn't his fault that his brother decided to teach him an on-ice lesson or that he took a puck to the eye. Shattenkirk was a good fit who took a discount, but we couldn't have predicted that he would blow out his tires.

 

[Tawnos]

I assure you, I am not

The Trouba and Panarin acquisitions are both measured moves. They're certainly bold, but bold and measured aren't mutually exclusive.

 

[GeorgeKaplan]

The Trouba and Panarin acquisitions are both measured moves. They're certainly bold, but bold and measured aren't mutually exclusive.

Then they came up short on the ruler when they find themselves being forced to buy out a player because it’s the only option in their mind

 

[Tawnos]

Then they came up short on the ruler when they find themselves being forced to buy out a player because it’s the only option in their mind

They knew that being forced to buy out a player was a possibility when those moves were made. Do you really think the JD and Gorton didn't game all of this out?

 

[GeorgeKaplan]

They knew that being forced to buy out a player was a possibility when those moves were made. Do you really think the JD and Gorton didn't game all of this out?

I think they were being very shortsighted in their planning

 

[Brooklyn Rangers Fan]

The Trouba and Panarin acquisitions are both measured moves. They're certainly bold, but bold and measured aren't mutually exclusive.

Exactly. They’ve said they’ll be “patient but aggressive.” In other words, they’ve laid out their long term plan, and won’t deviate from it — but will pounce on executing its elements when they present themselves (rather than risk getting too cute and miss out). So far, everything they’ve done has been 100% consistent with this approach.

 

[Edge]

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.

Well, yes and no. Spooner, Names, Smith, and Shattenkirk are all Gorton. Beyond that, Gorton and much of the front office was, at a minimum, heavily involved in the Girardi contract.

Certainly the hope is a more measured approach, but right now that's really what it amounts to...a hope.

Either way, we're going to have to be significantly better moving forward.

 

[mas0764]

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.

But you have no idea of knowing whether that was possible. Maybe Gorton ascertained it was unlikely.

Of the options we have right this second, that we know are actual options, I would agree buying out Shattenkirk was not the best one. But I think their reasoning for it was

1) It was only one move instead of two or more moves,
2) It did not require them to take less than they wanted to move Kreider and/or Namestnikov, and, not least of all
3) I think they like Marc Staal to an unreasonable, but not unforgivable or indictable, degree.

It's not the end of the world. Tap the breaks on the panic attack.

We are not in any way seriously impaired from doing whatever we want next offseason. And by the following offseason, we will have truly ridiculous levels of flexibility.

This year is the year that is tight, but guess what? We just solved it. Problem over.

 

[broadwayblue]

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.

What if he returned to form and we could trade him at the deadline or over the summer? What if he didn't and we bought him out next summer?

 

[Edge]

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.

I think we've had a very hard time (and some bad luck) evaluating the true long-term value of defenseman the past few years.

While we've changed GMs, Gorton and company remain largely intact from the time period when Sather was GM. They were involved in decisions and Sather wasn't operating in a vacuum. So that means over the last 5 years, we've handed out contracts to Girardi, Smith, and Shattenkirk on the blue line. A total of (I believe) somewhere around $15 million and a half a defensive corps of guys who are are/were buyout candidates. That's on top of carrying a guy like Staal as well. Simply put, that's not good enough.

Compound those decisions with Spooner and Namestnikov, and it goes without saying that they need to do a better job of talent evaluation. It's not to say they're awful, I don't typically operate in absolutes, but I believe there's work to be done in that department.

 

[eco's bones]

If that knee injury doesn't happen, he likely end up putting up a slew of points. Guy started with 18 points in 25 games. That's pace of 58-60 points per game--insane numbers... That injury however bad it was was a major problem, and I agree with you RB, it's it's way more serious than the rangers ever reported -- knee injuries should not take 6 months to heal, this one did, it's a fluke, but it's a bad one at the same time that cost us a lot in the end...

I want to be clear that this isn't an issue with free agents -- whatever shatts did to that knee was way more serious than one would expect to happen--this is a fluke injury

That's another way to look at all this but if the knee injury doesn't happen and he did put up 55-60 points maybe the Rangers would have hung in longer--been in position for that last playoff spot and maybe then there would have been no letter and maybe no big moves at the deadline and our drafts the last two seasons would have been entirely different kinds of drafts and we wouldn't near have the prospect depth and quality that we have now.

When the Rangers signed Shattenkirk as a free agent it was with the expectation not just of him putting up lots of point and power play production but he was going to be a major part of keeping the window open for a Stanley Cup run.....and maybe finally getting Henrik his championship. Those things have pretty much gone by the board for now. The team is in the middle of pretty much a total makeover--going younger and a guy who is making as much money as Shattenkirk has and has failed to meet expectations for whatever reason really has nothing to complain about and he's still going to get at least most of his remaining money.

 

[Tawnos]

Well, yes and no. Spooner, Names, Smith, and Shattenkirk are all Gorton. Beyond that, Gorton and much of the front office was, at a minimum, heavily involved in the Girardi contract.

Certainly the hope is a more measured approach, but right now that's really what it amounts to...a hope.

Either way, we're going to have to be significantly better moving forward.

Gorton is the one who executed those moves and bears responsibility, but the first few years of his tenure still bear the mark of Sather's management style. I do think things are already different.

Just as an example, JD talks about how big signings have to be the right fit and the player's history has to be taken into account. There was an implication that Karlsson, before he re-signed, wouldn't be someone they pursued. Then, when you listen to him talk about Panarin... this isn't a guy they just went out and signed because he was the best available. That's what Richards was. That's what Shattenkirk was. There are differences. What the results are remains to be seen, but already the approach is different than it was even 2 years ago.

 

[mas0764]

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.

True, but the decision was made that Panarin was their dip into this realm (and when you figure that he's a top-10 wing in the entire league, that's not a bad decision). They are really pretty booked, roster-wise, with openings for top 6 wingers. Panarin, Kakko, Kravtsov, Buch, and probably Chytil, they are already kinda full-up. Who are we looking to add? Unless it's a young top-6 center, it doesn't make much sense.

Similar to how we couldn't bite on Gusev for less than market value because we were strapped this year, that is what we are facing next year as well.... but again.... if we didn't buy out Shattenkirk, we are in no better cap shape either. If we had just traded Kreider and Namestnikov, we are facing pretty much the exact same situation next offseason. Because Kreider and Namestnikov are expiring after this year anyway, so whether we traded them to free up space now or not, they already do not factor into what we are able to do next offseason.

The only way we are in better shape to pursue such opportunities next year is if

a) we had bought out Staal and Smith, which I agree would have been better, but not drastically better, or....

b) we found a taker for one of these guys at the deadline or in the offseason before free agency.

After that, we are only looking at like $1.4m dead money two years from now. That won't hinder us from pursuing options at all. Next year is the only year that we could have done better with -- and it would have required finding a taker for one of these defenders in a trade with some money retained.

 

[Edge]

I understand this, but this is not exclusively a New York Rangers problem. There are other teams out there that each has multiple buyout candidates, any given season.

The point is, no one is clairvoyant and knows what will happen one year, two years, three years down the line with anyone. With Panarin, you know you're buying a Ferrari now that's in top condition and on a discount. But who knows if it will become a DeLorean.

We bust on Staal, I do too, but it wasn't his fault that his brother decided to teach him an on-ice lesson or that he took a puck to the eye. Shattenkirk was a good fit who took a discount, but we couldn't have predicted that he would blow out his tires.

Make no mistake, I don't think we've cornered the market on these type of decisions. I just think we're going to have be better in our approach.

One or two guys? Sure. But we're getting to the point where we've committed a half-dozen roster spots and more than $20 million to these type of deals. Right now it's not a deal breaker, but we can't keep missing this often on these contracts.

At some point, while you can't predict everything, you also can't swing and miss on half your defensive slots and 2/3 of a forward line either. Not if you're goal is to be a top team for the 2020s. So at the end of the day, what's done is done. The bigger question would be, "What have we learned, and how we can apply it to future decisions?"

 

[mas0764]

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

Exactly.

Buying out Shattenkirk and replacing him on the roster with an ELC ---> $6.9m.

Not buying out Shattenkirk and keeping him on the roster as a bottom pair D ---> $6.6m.

$300k difference next year. Not a lot of opportunities for $300k.

The only way to have really cleared him off would have been to find a trade partner to take him with money retained.

But we didn't have time to wait to do that.

It was either buy him out, buy out Smith and/or Staal (which I think was marginally better but not worth getting upset about), or make trades that we don't know are available.

The Smith/Staal route opens up about an extra $2-$3m next year, and only costs an extra $1.8 million TOTAL over the following 2 years. Makes more sense to me, but maybe they valued the extra $900k in 2021 and 2022 rather than the extra $3m in 2020.

 

[Rongomania]

How's that? Two more buyouts?

My bad I meant more in the 'buried contract' sense. And they totally could buy staal out, yeah ?

We're not in much trouble, 6 mil for one year. Seriously NBD.

 

[mas0764]

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.

This is true.

 

[Rongomania]

Immediate. Cap. Relief.

Avoided. Getting. Fleeced. For. Kreider.

It. Takes. Two. To. Tango. To. Make. A. Trade.

This f***in' guy gets me.

 

[mas0764]

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

But we also need the cap space now. And without knowing if there were takers for Namestnikov and/or Kreider at good value, it was either

1) buyout Shattenkirk, or
2) buyout Smith and Staal.

When I say "it's no big deal," when talking about the $6m in dead cap next year, I'm being flippant, but this is the decision the organization knew it would be faced with when it decided to sign Panarin and trade for Trouba. Yes, we will miss out on some opportunities next year, but we have a legit top-10 winger in the league and a legit top pair defender on our roster. A bird in hand was worth more than one in the bush. There is opportunity cost with everything. We weren't able to chase Gusev who was given away, we decided Panarin was better. And next year we won't be able to chase Hall, cause we have Panarin.

I'd say we made a good choice, frankly. Missing out on the likely opportunities next year doesn't really concern me -- we made our bed with Panarin and Trouba. The cost was, not being able to clear off Shattenkirk's $6m next year by waiting for a deadline trade this season. Oh well.

 

[alkurtz]

It is truly amazing how doctrinaire, conservative, slaves to a preset formula, and linear so many of you are in your thinking. If only we would do this, do that, in a predetermined order, they’ll be a Cup in our future.

Well, five year plans didn’t work in the Soviet Union and won’t work here.

Just as the game on ice is fluid, running a team also calls for creative thinking and the ability to go off script. Have a plan that looks to the future? Of course, and the Rangers do. This rebuild has been masterful. But if all you do is rigidly stick to a plan, you may find that five years have passed and you are still wallowing on the outside looking in.

There are no guarantees: stick to your plan and you may succeed....or not. Go off script and you may succeed...or not. That’s what makes sports so fascinating.

I have confidence that this management team knows what they are doing. That doesn’t mean I always agree with them. But, at this juncture, I am not going to cover them with bile and venom.

 

[Mac n Gs]

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.

Yes, I know he has the history of playing well with Stamkos and Kucherov, but I think it's a poor bet to try to spin him as an asset that will do that elsewhere. Besides, who else really has that need outside of Edmonton, and they're cap-strapped as it is. IMO, it all boils down to keeping him not being worth whatever mid-round pick we may get for him at the deadline. If we had just kept Shattenkirk and were unable to move him next summer, his buyout becomes much more palatable to manage. Plus, and I'm going to keep harping on this, you most likely don't lose the 2020 2nd to CAR for the Fox condition.

I'm honestly surprised more people aren't upset about losing that pick when there's a pretty high probability that we'll be missing the playoffs again this season. Keeping Shattenkirk would have pretty likely ensured that Fox would have stayed in the AHL for a long enough time period to avoid him reaching the 30 NHL game limit. Besides, a half-season stint in the AHL might be necessary for Fox's development.

 

[Brooklyn Rangers Fan]

Yes, I know he has the history of playing well with Stamkos and Kucherov, but I think it's a poor bet to try to spin him as an asset that will do that elsewhere. Besides, who else really has that need outside of Edmonton, and they're cap-strapped as it is. IMO, it all boils down to keeping him not being worth whatever mid-round pick we may get for him at the deadline. If we had just kept Shattenkirk and were unable to move him next summer, his buyout becomes much more palatable to manage. Plus, and I'm going to keep harping on this, you most likely don't lose the 2020 2nd to CAR for the Fox condition.

I'm honestly surprised more people aren't upset about losing that pick when there's a pretty high probability that we'll be missing the playoffs again this season. Keeping Shattenkirk would have pretty likely ensured that Fox would have stayed in the AHL for a long enough time period to avoid him reaching the 30 NHL game limit. Besides, a half-season stint in the AHL might be necessary for Fox's development.

Pretty sure if Fox needs it, they'll move him to the minors and replace him either with [minimum-salary RHD vet yet to be signed] or Smith.

 

[SingnBluesOnBroadway]

Turns out Shattenkirk and the Rangers were a better story than they were a fit.

 

[Mac n Gs]

Pretty sure if Fox needs it, they'll move him to the minors and replace him either with [minimum-salary RHD vet yet to be signed] or Smith.

And that's my other issue- both of those options are significantly worse than Shattenkirk considering who's available at the moment (McQuaid coming off a significant concussion, Petrovic, Girardi, and now Stone).