Toggle sidebar

Confirmed with Link: Rangers re-sign Vlad Namestnikov (2 years x 4.0M)

  • Xenforo Cloud has upgraded us to version 2.3.6. Please report any issues you experience.
WeNeverGetaGoodCoach said:
The only dumb stuff is when people are attacking fellow posters who disagree with a move that the team made. And then they whine how dumb all the posters are and how they need to learn NHL.
Click to expand...
There is a lot of respect and patience and goodwill around here extended to those who first read pros and cons on both side of an argument, make sure they know facts and THEN express their opinions.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Jeff Groten, Sarge13, broadwayblue and 2 others
Good deal, nothing worth complaining about. If he's not in their long-term plans and he plays well in the next calendar year then ship him out for assets.
 
Kreider Zibanejad Buchnevich
Ryan Chytil Zuccarello
Andersson Namestnikov Fast

No idea what 4th line will look like those jobs are up for grabs. I think Howden could be there I think he’s better than Nieves right now.

I can see Vesey Hayes Pionk and Tampa 2nd (potential 1st) going to Ottawa for Ryan and Karlsson.
 
Two years isn't that long, but I wouldn't have re-signed this guy. I would've rather traded him. I like Spooner better.

I think we clearly see with the contracts of Namestnikov and Miller how lopsided that part of the trade was. I guess the rational that favors us is that management might've never wanted to extend Miller, so getting something is better than nothing. But I don't think we would've gotten nothing. We could've traded him for picks/prospects, instead of a fringe 3rd line winger.

Namesntikov can not play center, he's not good defensively, he has a bad hockey IQ. I'm not worried about the 4M part. I think its an overpayment, but the cap-space for us doesn't matter this year, and if for some reason we were going to add to the cap next season, we could work around the issue. 1 year at 4M isn't going to stop us from signing Panarin or Karlsson.

Given this signing, Spooner and Vesey need to go. There's not enough room. Two of the three need to be traded, otherwise there won't be spots for Andersson and Chytil.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WeNeverGetaGoodCoach
I don't pay that much attention to salaries, but Names didn't strike me as someone I care about. I realize Hayes is a separate issue, but I will be disappointed if he is tossed. Would like to see him remain and given a shot at major power play time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: egelband and Brooklyn Ranger
They must have confidence in Names to play better and maybe drive up his Trade value.
4 million is a bit much but the term is fine. won't cause an issue when this team is really ready to compete. He will pretty much be a goner if he doesn't perform
 
bl02 said:
They must have confidence in Names to play better and maybe drive up his Trade value.
4 million is a bit much but the term is fine. won't cause an issue when this team is really ready to compete. He will pretty much be a goner if he doesn't perform
Click to expand...

The term is closer to "perfection" than merely "fine".
 
Pavel Buchnevich said:
Two years isn't that long, but I wouldn't have re-signed this guy. I would've rather traded him. I like Spooner better.

I think we clearly see with the contracts of Namestnikov and Miller how lopsided that part of the trade was. I guess the rational that favors us is that management might've never wanted to extend Miller, so getting something is better than nothing. But I don't think we would've gotten nothing. We could've traded him for picks/prospects, instead of a fringe 3rd line winger.

Namesntikov can not play center, he's not good defensively, he has a bad hockey IQ. I'm not worried about the 4M part. I think its an overpayment, but the cap-space for us doesn't matter this year, and if for some reason we were going to add to the cap next season, we could work around the issue. 1 year at 4M isn't going to stop us from signing Panarin or Karlsson.

Given this signing, Spooner and Vesey need to go. There's not enough room. Two of the three need to be traded, otherwise there won't be spots for Andersson and Chytil.
Click to expand...
I think signing him doesn’t mean he won’t be traded at some point, and if he is you’ll get better value out of a guy with a contract than without one (Hagelin). Also, the Miller/Namestinkov thing wasn’t a 1 for 1 tacked onto the trade, Gorton wanted Hajek, Yzerman wouldn’t do it without adding Miller, Namestinkov was added to even things out
 
GeorgeKaplan said:
I think signing him doesn’t mean he won’t be traded at some point, and if he is you’ll get better value out of a guy with a contract than without one (Hagelin). Also, the Miller/Namestinkov thing wasn’t a 1 for 1 tacked onto the trade, Gorton wanted Hajek, Yzerman wouldn’t do it without adding Miller, Namestinkov was added to even things out
Click to expand...

It still looks like a very lopsided trade. Miller is a first liner. Namestnikov is a third line guy. There's a big difference in ability between the two. I realize we don't want to pay Miller, but I don't think it made any sense to trade him for Namestnikov.

I'm not sure Hajek, Howden and Lundkvist even equals McDonagh, so I don't see the part to even out. Seems more quantity than quality we acquired, which is a theme under Gorton.
 
Pavel Buchnevich said:
It still looks like a very lopsided trade. Miller is a first liner. Namestnikov is a third line guy. There's a big difference in ability between the two. I realize we don't want to pay Miller, but I don't think it made any sense to trade him for Namestnikov.

I'm not sure Hajek, Howden and Lundkvist even equals McDonagh, so I don't see the part to even out. Seems more quantity than quality we acquired, which is a theme under Gorton.
Click to expand...

the rangers had no interest in resigning either guy long term. so its not as simple as miller vs namestnikov. its more like namestnikov vs the draft picks we could have gotten for trading miller's rfa rights at the draft. same with the other part is hajek/howden/lundkvist/2nd vs what we could have gotten at next deadline
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheTakedown and SnowblindNYR
Leetch3 said:
the rangers had no interest in resigning either guy long term. so its not as simple as miller vs namestnikov. its more like namestnikov vs the draft picks we could have gotten for trading miller's rfa rights at the draft. same with the other part is hajek/howden/lundkvist/2nd vs what we could have gotten at next deadline
Click to expand...

I agree. But do you really think we couldn't have acquired more for Miller's RFA rights than Namestnikov?
 
Pavel Buchnevich said:
It still looks like a very lopsided trade. Miller is a first liner. Namestnikov is a third line guy. There's a big difference in ability between the two. I realize we don't want to pay Miller, but I don't think it made any sense to trade him for Namestnikov.

I'm not sure Hajek, Howden and Lundkvist even equals McDonagh, so I don't see the part to even out. Seems more quantity than quality we acquired, which is a theme under Gorton.
Click to expand...

You can’t make the straight comparison of Miller and Namestnikov. Extremely short sighted to consider Miller a 1st liner and Namestnikov a 3rd liner considering all of the variables as well.

We’ll see how Hajek, Howden, Lundkvist, as well as whatever prospect we attain with the potential 1st/2nd next year before we can even think about breaking down the trade.

McDonagh was extremely unimpressive for Tampa in his stint so far, and considering the lack of offers for Karlsson - I think we got great haul looking through that optic.

Lastly, they could very well still trade him before the season even starts. That whole KHL tweet, and then the agent follow up seemed all too strange.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SnowblindNYR
Buchnevich89 said:
Agreed. I like Spooner better. Even though neither of the two plays good defense, at least Spooner is more consistent offensively. And Namestnikov seems like he doesn't want to be here.
Click to expand...

I think Spooner will have more trade value at the 19-20 trade deadline. I could definitely see him scoring like 40-45 points per season the next two seasons, which could net us maybe what we got for Holden. Long term, I don't think either are Rangers. Vesey in that category, as well.

Their spots will go to guys like Andersson, Chytil, Howden, Kravtsov.

This is how I would've gone about the forward spots for the next number of years.

19-20 forward lines:

KZB
Spooner-Chytil-Kravtsov
Andersson-Hayes-Howden
?-?-Fast

Hopefully we get an early pick in 2019, take one of the many good centers in that draft, and we could have something like this going into 20-21.

Kravtsov-high draft pick-Chytil
KZB
Andersson-Hayes-Howden
?-?-Fast

If that high draft pick turns into a real 1C, I think thats a cup-contending offense. Two big offensive lines, a shutdown defensive line, and then find two decent fourth liners to compliment Fast. That would be a well built defense. Only thing I think we are missing with the team we are building is a 1C and a 1D.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Buchnevich89
The term is pretty worthless. If he does well he will at best be a rental, looking at 7-8mil after 2 years. If he sucks again, it’s another 3-4 mil for him as a UFA...
 
TheGuarantee said:
You can’t make the straight comparison of Miller and Namestnikov. Extremely short sighted to consider Miller a 1st liner and Namestnikov a 3rd liner considering all of the variables as well.

We’ll see how Hajek, Howden, Lundkvist, as well as whatever prospect we attain with the potential 1st/2nd next year before we can even think about breaking down the trade.

McDonagh was extremely unimpressive for Tampa in his stint so far, and considering the lack of offers for Karlsson - I think we got great haul looking through that optic.

Lastly, they could very well still trade him before the season even starts. That whole KHL tweet, and then the agent follow up seemed all too strange.
Click to expand...

Namestnikov per 82 games for his career: 36.9 points
Miller per 82 games: 43.2 points

Just by their career averages, this is what they'd be classified as if we took last season's PPG averages. Miller's career average would've resulted in about 155th last season, which is a low end 5th forward. Namestnikov's career average would've resulted in about 193, which is a high end 7th forward.

155-5th
193-7th

But I think its important to consider that if you take Miller's PPG average the last two years combined where he's clearly playing improved hockey, of which only 19 games came with the Lightning's great forwards, his average is about 84th, which is a low end 3rd forward. Thats a first liner. Some will claim thats partly due to playing some games on Tampa, but if we take away his Tampa stats, he still comes in at 114th, which is about one forward slot higher. If this guy isn't a first liner, he's very close to it. If we consider Namestnikov's career not counting the games he played this season for Tampa, considering he played on a line with two elite NHL'ers, he comes in as about 251st, which is a 9th forward. And I think thats what the guy is.

84th
114th
251

Thats before we even consider other parts of their games. Miller is a much better defensive player. I don't care what the corsi stats say. I've watched both of them play enough to say that Namestnikov plays very soft and has a low hockey IQ. He can't play center either. Miller certainly has his defensive issues, and its fair that he had a falling out with management so they wanted to trade him. But he is not soft, he plays a lot more physical than Namestnikov, he can play center better than Namestnikov, and at least his defensive issues are coachable. His defensive issues are trying to do too much. When he doesn't do that, he can have some very effective defensive games, evident by his usage on the PK for two years now. Namestnikov is just a bad defensive player. You aren't coaching the soft and bad hockey IQ out of the guy. The best you can try to do is limit his defensive responsibility by putting him on the wing, and asking him to just be an outlet guy who carries the puck out of the zone.

I don't think its a stretch to say that Miller is a low end 1st liner, and Namestnikov is a low-end 3rd liner. If we want to quibble and say Miller is a good 2nd liner, and Namestnikov is an average 3rd liner, go ahead, but I don't think there's much more of a realistic case against what I'm saying than that. Miller is a considerable better hockey player. Its not even close.
 
Pavel Buchnevich said:
Namestnikov per 82 games for his career: 36.9 points
Miller per 82 games: 43.2 points

Just by their career averages, this is what they'd be classified as if we took last season's PPG averages. Miller's career average would've resulted in about 155th last season, which is a low end 5th forward. Namestnikov's career average would've resulted in about 193, which is a high end 7th forward.

155-5th
193-7th

But I think its important to consider that if you take Miller's PPG average the last two years combined where he's clearly playing improved hockey, of which only 19 games came with the Lightning's great forwards, his average is about 84th, which is a low end 3rd forward. Thats a first liner. Some will claim thats partly due to playing some games on Tampa, but if we take away his Tampa stats, he still comes in at 114th, which is about one forward slot higher. If this guy isn't a first liner, he's very close to it. If we consider Namestnikov's career not counting the games he played this season for Tampa, considering he played on a line with two elite NHL'ers, he comes in as about 251st, which is a 9th forward. And I think thats what the guy is.

84th
114th
251

Thats before we even consider other parts of their games. Miller is a much better defensive player. I don't care what the corsi stats say. I've watched both of them play enough to say that Namestnikov plays very soft and has a low hockey IQ. He can't play center either. Miller certainly has his defensive issues, and its fair that he had a falling out with management so they wanted to trade him. But he is not soft, he plays a lot more physical than Namestnikov, he can play center better than Namestnikov, and at least his defensive issues are coachable. His defensive issues are trying to do too much. When he doesn't do that, he can have some very effective defensive games, evident by his usage on the PK for two years now. Namestnikov is just a bad defensive player. You aren't coaching the soft and bad hockey IQ out of the guy. The best you can try to do is limit his defensive responsibility by putting him on the wing, and asking him to just be an outlet guy who carries the puck out of the zone.

I don't think its a stretch to say that Miller is a low end 1st liner, and Namestnikov is a low-end 3rd liner. If we want to quibble and say Miller is a good 2nd liner, and Namestnikov is an average 3rd liner, go ahead, but I don't think there's much more of a realistic case against what I'm saying than that. Miller is a considerable better hockey player. Its not even close.
Click to expand...
:eek:
 
  • Like
Reactions: Brooklyn Ranger
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom