Speculation: Roster Building Thread 2019-20: Part XXVII

[Edge]

Something @Edge pointed out to me that i feel a good amount of people on these boards should consider is cap inflation. Paying Kreider 6million 5 years from now will not be the same as paying a 33 year old 6 million today. There was a time when people like Zach Kassian would never make the type of bag he just secured. If the Rangers end up signing Kreids at 6x7 or something, those last 2 years where he is a bottom6 forward wont be as bad as they seem. It wont be a wonderful contract, but it wont be a Marc Staal situation.

And that is based is off feedback I received from people as well. They way they responded indicated that the concept wasn't entirely new or foreign. So that led me to strongly believe that its at least something that's been discussed internally and there are at least some who are okay with that idea. Whether that includes Kreider and Gorton remains to be seen. But we'll find out in fairly short order.

 

[NYR Viper]

I'd love $2.5m, I'd go up to $3m because of the versatility. But not beyond that.

If he wants to sign for $3m per, on a 3 year deal, I'm open to that.

If he's creeping north of that, I thank him for his service and move on.

I agree on the term. I'm not interested at beyond 3 years

 

[NYR Viper]

And that is based is off feedback I received from people as well. They way they responded indicated that the concept wasn't entirely new or foreign. So that led me to strongly believe that its at least something that's been discussed internally and there are at least some who are okay with that idea. Whether that includes Kreider and Gorton remains to be seen. But we'll find out in fairly short order.

It's why all cap hits should be given in percentages of the cap.

It's also why a guy like Trouba, while probably paid accordingly for his service currently, will more than likely be a good contract as it moves forward. Especially if the cap takes a large jump in the near future with the new TV deal and a new expansion team in a hockey area.

 

[Oscar Lindberg]

The team hasn’t had much of any desire to sign Kreider for anywhere close to his price for damn near close to a year.

He plays like he always plays (aka he’s streaky and got super hot near the deadline), and now they’re willing to bend and sign him to a contract they’ll probably regret in 2 years?

I don’t get it

 

[eco's bones]

I really wish they would talk deal with Kreider now, tell him they are trading him but would love to sign him later. We need a win like that out of all these guys we move.

That's something I've been thinking about too. To sign him in July I think you'd have to go 7 years X $7 mil at least. The other thing I've been thinking about is whether it's possible to keep him and sign him for 5 year and say something a bit over $6.

I'm going to miss him if we move him. He and Mika have really got a great chemistry between them and his speed and net front presence are the best on the team. This has been his best season. He's the one older player from the past 3 years I'd actually want to keep.

 

[RGY]

It's why all cap hits should be given in percentages of the cap.

It's also why a guy like Trouba, while probably paid accordingly for his service currently, will more than likely be a good contract as it moves forward. Especially if the cap takes a large jump in the near future with the new TV deal and a new expansion team in a hockey area.

Yep exactly. The cap % of the team for Kreider and Panarin will go down in just a few years. It just depends on if the terms are to Gorton’s liking or tolerable enough as well as him being part of the plan moving forward

 

[Fireonk]

I am curious how much the expansion draft is being factored into the Rangers plans. Previously I assumed the Rangers would protect 7F, 3D, 1G. But now I am thinking 8F/D might be the best route. Assuming Kreider is moved and there are no drastic changes to the roster, I only see a handful of MUST protect players. Mika, Panarin Chytil, Buch. Others to consider are Strome, Anderson, Lemuiex, and Howden. Assuming we move Anderson, we could protect all the forwards of value.

Where it gets interesting is our Defense we have.. Trouba, Skjei, DeAngelo, Lindgren, Hajek. When you add the must Protect forwards to this group, you have 9 people. So someone from this group of 9 really should be traded so we don't lose them for nothing. My predication is either Buch, Skjei, or DeAngelo. Rangers seem to be too high on Lindgren and Hajek. Here is an expansion tool if anyone is interested.

Seattle Expansion Draft Simulator - CapFriendly - NHL Salary Caps

There is no way going 8F/D is the best route. You can add Trouba to your list of must protect players because you literally must with his NMC. The roster is going to change enough over the next year and half that I am not sure coming up with a specific list really matters as too much will change. I don't see any realistic path where we are going to expose an extra 2 players though just so we don't have to match the 7F/3D criteria.

 

[eco's bones]

And that is ok. If they cannot get Kreider to sign on their terms then you trade him. Thats it. But I think they should be considering it for so many reasons that we have covered in circles. The team is in the middle of the transition, whether some want to believe it or not. Trouba. Fox. Kakko. Panarin. Gorton and JD are not going into next year being ok with missing the playoffs. I am sure they wanted to be there this season. Kreider is a key component to the top 6 and adds a different element to the makeup of the team. This isn’t a cut and dry decision. It will go down to the wire.

The one thing with that though is you got to give yourself a little time to negotiate. The longer the sides aren't talking a deal the less likelihood he stays.

 

[eco's bones]

I am curious how much the expansion draft is being factored into the Rangers plans. Previously I assumed the Rangers would protect 7F, 3D, 1G. But now I am thinking 8F/D might be the best route. Assuming Kreider is moved and there are no drastic changes to the roster, I only see a handful of MUST protect players. Mika, Panarin Chytil, Buch. Others to consider are Strome, Anderson, Lemuiex, and Howden. Assuming we move Anderson, we could protect all the forwards of value.

Where it gets interesting is our Defense we have.. Trouba, Skjei, DeAngelo, Lindgren, Hajek. When you add the must Protect forwards to this group, you have 9 people. So someone from this group of 9 really should be traded so we don't lose them for nothing. My predication is either Buch, Skjei, or DeAngelo. Rangers seem to be too high on Lindgren and Hajek. Here is an expansion tool if anyone is interested.

Seattle Expansion Draft Simulator - CapFriendly - NHL Salary Caps

I'm getting the idea that when expansion comes around the Rangers are really going to want to protect Lindgren.

 

[LORDE]

You have to ask yourself if you're approaching the corner or turning it. The Rangers are among the youngest teams in the league, have what some consider to be the strongest prospect pools of any NHL team, and have been fielding a ton of players 21 & under and actually winning more games than losing.

Why are we trading young guys like ADA, Zibanejad, Buch, & Skjei? These are the young vets of the team. I get trading Kreider, though I don't love it, because of the buyouts and bad contracts (Staal, Smith) on the books. I get trading Georgiev. I get listening to calls for Fast & Strome.

At some point the foundation is poured, the frame is in place, and it's time to hang the ****ing drywall.

That's where we're at. Drywall.

I sort of agree but I see the problem as Panarin is the drywall... just sitting on a truck when the foundation and frame aren’t done.
We need one sure fire, can’t miss, young stud forward before the drywall goes up.

How we get him is the hard part. Lowe’s? Home Depot? Draft? Trade?

 

[Edge]

It's why all cap hits should be given in percentages of the cap.

It's also why a guy like Trouba, while probably paid accordingly for his service currently, will more than likely be a good contract as it moves forward. Especially if the cap takes a large jump in the near future with the new TV deal and a new expansion team in a hockey area.

In the most basic of terms, every contract eventually becomes one of three things:

1. Good/Great Value

2. Fair Market Value

3. Bad Value

There can be some fluctation, and there can be changes over time, but inevitably a contract falls into one of those categories. Sometimes, over it's lifespan, it can be all three.

So when we look at contract offers or agreements, it's with an understanding that you're aiming for the first or second category. Sometimes you might have to pay a little more, and the deal evens out over time. Other times you pay a little more and the deal never really evens out. And in fortuitous circumstances, fair market becomes a hell of a deal for the team.

Players and their agents try to not only maximize the dollar value for their client, but somewhat insulate them from career archs. In other words, get your client his money on the front end, knowing that he might not be worth it on the back end. Or, if there's no way to get more money in the short-term, try to get over the long-term.

Trouba at $8 million is probably a little high, but not as much as some might believe. However, if he maintains his current level, it will more firmly be seen as fair market value. If Trouba takes it up a level, especially on a more fleshed out roster, it could very well trend toward the good/great value realm.

So when we talk about Kreider, and those last few years, there is at least some consideration that it could still be on the brink of fair market value, even if his role more closely resembles a bottom six forward.

 

[NYR Viper]

I sort of agree but I see the problem as Panarin is the drywall... just sitting on a truck when the foundation and frame aren’t done.
We need one sure fire, can’t miss, young stud forward before the drywall goes up.

How we get him is the hard part. Lowe’s? Home Depot? Draft? Trade?

I get the sense that Gorton will be big game hunting between the end of this season and the end of next season. he will have A LOT of cap space coming off the books at the end of next season and if he plays his hand correct,y trading guys like Kreider, Fast, Skjei and Strome should return solid assets and pieces that give him 'bullets in the chamber' should someone become available.

 

[NYR Viper]

In the most basic of terms, every contract eventually becomes one of three things:

1. Good/Great Value

2. Fair Market Value

3. Bad Value

There can be some fluctation, and there can be changes over time, but inevitably a contract falls into our of those categories. Sometimes, over it's lifespan, it can all three.

So when we look at contract offers or agreements, it's with an understanding that you're aiming for the first or second category. Sometimes you might have to pay a little more, and the deal evens out over time. Other times you pay a little more and the deal never really evens out. And in fortuitous circumstances, fair market becomes a hell of a deal for the team.

Players and their agents try to not only maximize the dollar value for their client, but somewhat insulate them from career archs. In other words, get your client his money on the front end, knowing that he might not be worth it on the back end. Or, if there's no way to get more money in the short-term, try to get over the long-term.

Trouba at $8 million is probably a little high, but not as much as some might believe. However, if he maintains his current level, it will more firmly be seen as fair market value. If Trouba takes it up a level, especially on a more fleshed out roster, it could very well trend toward the good/great value realm.

So when we talk about Kreider, and those last few years, there is at least some consideration that it could still be on the brink of fair market value, even if his role more closely resembles a bottom six forward.

Great post as usual. I could see $5.5-6m aging well as his play slows in years 5+6. I REALLY don't see aging well at $7m or in year 7.

I'm still firmly in the $6m x 5 years or $6.5m for 5 years. I don't love the idea of years 6 or 7. If he wants that commitment then the cap hit drops accordingly.

 

[CommaSynapse]

There is no way going 8F/D is the best route. You can add Trouba to your list of must protect players because you literally must with his NMC. The roster is going to change enough over the next year and half that I am not sure coming up with a specific list really matters as too much will change. I don't see any realistic path where we are going to expose an extra 2 players though just so we don't have to match the 7F/3D criteria.

Agreed. It might be a case where we bribe Seattle to take someone else. Losing any of the d-men for nothing would suck, and I'd rest assured that they'd be the targets.

 

[Oscar Lindberg]

I get the sense that Gorton will be big game hunting between the end of this season and the end of next season. he will have A LOT of cap space coming off the books at the end of next season and if he plays his hand correct,y trading guys like Kreider, Fast, Skjei and Strome should return solid assets and pieces that give him 'bullets in the chamber' should someone become available.

That’s what he should be doing. One last trade deadline to collect more assets to use for long term pieces.

Giving Kreider big dollars and term is not the way forward.

It puts a window on this team that it’s not ready for

 

[MadHookUp]

There is no way going 8F/D is the best route. You can add Trouba to your list of must protect players because you literally must with his NMC. The roster is going to change enough over the next year and half that I am not sure coming up with a specific list really matters as too much will change. I don't see any realistic path where we are going to expose an extra 2 players though just so we don't have to match the 7F/3D criteria.

When I said protect 8F/D, that is based on the assumption that we have the current roster minus Kreider/Anderson intact by then. Obviously things will change. Hopefully in the direction of moving our defensive depth for forwards. Even if they were to go the 7F/3D route, one of Lindgren/Hajek would need to be exposed at minimum.

I guess the point I am making is if its important to the Rangers to not go the 8F/D route, they really NEED to trade 2 of Skjei, DeAngelo, Lindgren, or Hajek. Because they almost surely will be the one chosen by Seattle. All the talk lately has been around Kreider and Georgiev. But the Rangers really need to deal 1-2 defenseman or risk losing them for nothing. Not necessarily by the deadline, but I think a lot of teams are going to be in a "Lets not lose this guy for nothing" mode a year from now, and their value will be significantly lower. If you have to move 1-2 of them, might as well do it at the deadline or the draft.

 

[Edge]

Great post as usual. I could see $5.5-6m aging well as his play slows in years 5+6. I REALLY don't see aging well at $7m or in year 7.

I'm still firmly in the $6m x 5 years or $6.5m for 5 years. I don't love the idea of years 6 or 7. If he wants that commitment then the cap hit drops accordingly.

And that last line is what we have to remember.

This board can love Kreider all it wants, but members can't assume Kreider is interested in signing on the board's terms.

For all we know, 6x5 or even 6.5 x5 is absolutely not on the table.

It's one thing to say, "We love Kreider. We need Kreider. I like him more than other guys we have on the team."

It's another thing to say, "Pay a premium, give him $6.5 annually for 6 years."

It's another thing to say, "Give him 7x7, or even 6.75 x 7."

And the reality is that there's a very good chance that the last line is very much what we're looking at, despite our love and our need for that player.

That's the tricky part.

 

[GoAwayPanarin]

The same arguments I heard for keeping Kreider are the same ones that were made for Zucc.

"He has such amazing chemistry with Zibanejad"
"Hes a leader in the locker room"
"Hes going to be really hard to replace"

None of those points had any effect on this team this year in regards to Zucc. Zibanejad is having an even better year, the leadership hasn't taken a hit and we've more than replaced him.

Only the last one will be a factor with Kreider. He is going to be really tough to replace, but they don't need an exact replicate to step into the spot that he would be vacating.

 

[Oscar Lindberg]

Also Larry is such a dummy.

“Trading Kreider means management thinks the future is still 4-5 years off”

No, it doesn’t mean that. Not sure how anyone sees trading Kreider as setting the team back half a decade

 

[nyrage]

You have to ask yourself if you're approaching the corner or turning it. The Rangers are among the youngest teams in the league, have what some consider to be the strongest prospect pools of any NHL team, and have been fielding a ton of players 21 & under and actually winning more games than losing.

Why are we trading young guys like ADA, Zibanejad, Buch, & Skjei? These are the young vets of the team. I get trading Kreider, though I don't love it, because of the buyouts and bad contracts (Staal, Smith) on the books. I get trading Georgiev. I get listening to calls for Fast & Strome.

At some point the foundation is poured, the frame is in place, and it's time to hang the ****ing drywall.

That's where we're at. Drywall.

I think we're still in the framing phase for one more trade deadline and off-season.

 

[True Blue]

I'm getting the idea that when expansion comes around the Rangers are really going to want to protect Lindgren.

I have maintained that all along. I think that 4 of the top 6 for the near and medium term are Trouba, DeAngelo, Fox & Lindgren. It could well be that as things progress, prospects like Keane & Lundqvist are moved at a part of a package to get an LD that can play with Trouba. Meanwhile, Gorton searches for a Lindgren-like player to pair with DeAngelo.

 

[Matt4776]

Also Larry is such a dummy.

“Trading Kreider means management thinks the future is still 4-5 years off”

No, it doesn’t mean that. Not sure how anyone sees trading Kreider as setting the team back half a decade

Larry probably reads the hysteria on these boards that suggest trading Kreider means we're basically Arizona or Buffalo or Edmonton and doomed to a perpetual rebuild.

 

[17futurecap]

Also Larry is such a dummy.

“Trading Kreider means management thinks the future is still 4-5 years off”

No, it doesn’t mean that. Not sure how anyone sees trading Kreider as setting the team back half a decade

Larry cracks me up, we literally used the pick we got for Hayes to get Trouba, just because we get a pick for Kreider doesn’t mean we are going to use the pick.

 

[Avery16]

Kreider playing hot but lets not forget the months at a time that Kreider completely disappears. Yes, lets risk losing ADA and lock Kreider up for 7 years.

 

[Edge]

The same arguments I heard for keeping Kreider are the same ones that were made for Zucc.

"He has such amazing chemistry with Zibanejad"
"Hes a leader in the locker room"
"Hes going to be really hard to replace"

None of those points had any effect on this team this year in regards to Zucc. Zibanejad is having an even better year, the leadership hasn't taken a hit and we've more than replaced him.

Only the last one will be a factor with Kreider. He is going to be really tough to replace, but they don't need an exact replicate to step into the spot that he would be vacating.

Rebuilding can feel like a war. As such, I think the longer it goes on, fear and despair start to play increasingly larger roles.

The gung-ho attitude at the start of a war wears off after a while - things don't always go according to plan, and multiples years feel a lot longer than you thought it would initially.

You start to wonder if it will ever end, or how you can possibly survive without something or someone you've had up until that point. You don't think you can ever replace what you've lost, and the human condition dictates you try to find the quickest path to mask, if not end your pain and discomfort. You start contemplating worst case scenarios a lot more. What if we become like that team, or those group of people? What if this is the best we can do?

People start to drop off. People who knew the plan for the start to say "Yeah, but I've given it some thought and I feel different. This is different."

And in some cases, there are new things to consider. But there are also a lot of instances where fatigue has set in and people just want it to be better....now.

People bristle at the notion, but the arguments for Zucc, Hayes, McD and Kreider have a lot of overlap. Some of the words get moved around a little, and the order of statements change, but I think most people would be surprised if we undertook an exercise where we posted a statement about losing/not re-signing a player and then gave them a multiple choice option to guess which player it was associated with.