Speculation: Roster Building Thread I (2019/2020) - A Day in the Life

[NernieBichols]

Some of you want the 5 year tank rebuild.

Because of just how poorly Gorts and co managed their contract negotiations, you just might get that.

Not because they're doing a poor job of accumulating young assets, but because they cap crippled themselves.

I said it when it was signed- 2 Years for Names and Spooner?

Why?

Why? Take them to arbitration and get the 1 year deal.

Hopefully you get something for Names as a rental- but that signing- that extra year... guess what that cripples you next year cause of what you had to do to get around it.

The Spooner deal? Thank the lucky stars for Chiarelli.

How inept is your pro scouting to not see that guy wasn't worth a 2 year commitment? The 3+ seasons of play in Boston?

Do you keep track of what your athletes do off the ice?

These are structural issues you have to fix as an organization. The ship was a loosy-goosy under AV, but during the Torts days- we're going back to 2010-2012 where the focus was on building a culture of winning. You have to go back to that template. Not in terms of how you build the talent pool.

But in terms of how you manage their growth. Where you help the kids that you are drafting to become men.

That will help you avoid having to give multi-year, multi-million dollar deals to guys who are bound to be journeymen.

Come on man. This is still the blood and guts of the rebuild. You know what I mean. They were headed nowhere as constructed and still cap locked. The core players may have been pretty much auctioned off by now and yes we invested the money this summer bc there were plays worth pulling the trigger on to make and it brings the spotlight back on the cap mess they were locked into before the rebuild, but that was part of the cleanup part of the rebuild, so it makes sense we’re still feeling it. The easiest thing for gorts and company to do would have been to sit on their hands once they won the lottery, but they deemed trouba and panarin as necessary players and the same talent wasn’t gonna be available next summer. So they struck.

Shattenkirk and Smith is well understood why they happened, right or wrong, and what has happened since

Spooner and names were in my mind lazy signings, during a summer where gorts had excess money to begin with. He banked on the second year adding value for teams who would want a guy who had 2 years of service, what happened was that names started horribly and spooner never started. Gorts made a quick decision and swapped spooner for strome. But to me both contracts were lobs to the players as good will, we all know you’re likely to get traded so we will give you a good deal since we can.

But going forward as edge had said earlier and you kinda give example of just before with Nashville. The rangers need to identify the guys you know are becoming players, sign them long term early young, and be very conscious of how you spend and allocate the rest of the cap.

Honestly though creating and maintaining a revolving pipeline of prospects to nhl ready players is the key to staying out of cap trouble going forward once summer 2021 comes

 

[The Crypto Guy]

The average salary in the NHL is $3m. Namestnikov should be at it above that just due to his versatility. $3.25m or so is right. Gorton paid him accordingly with the info they had. I’m sure Namestnikov wanted a longer deal for bigger money but they ended up at 2x$4m.

This team isn’t in cap trouble because they overpaid Namestnikov by $750k.

It's much lower than 3M.

 

[nyr2k2]

It's much lower than 3M.

IDK, I just did some cursory research and found places saying $2.4M (2011), $3M (2017), and $4M (2018). All note a high level of variance. I'm sure they use some sort of method for determining who counts and who doesn't, like excluding some plug who plays 5 NHL games at the league minimum. Or maybe they don't--I don't know.

$3M seems pretty reasonable to me. If you just do stupid math and figure you've got a 23-man roster and an $80M cap, the players would make an average of $3.5M if you hit the cap ceiling.

I just went to Capfriendly and looked at their roster for us, since it adds up the salaries. I removed Beleskey, McKegg, and Smith and added Kravtsov. I threw in a million each for ADA and Lemieux. This gives you a 21-man roster coming in at around $71M for an average salary of about $3.4M. And this is, again, completely removing Smith's salary from the equation (I'm just counting salaries, not cap, so we can do that). And it includes both Fox and Hajek, which isn't a given.

Anyway, you could configure it however you want, really, but I can't see any way you'd get us below $3M for average salary. Of course there would be variation between teams, but I would imagine they're in the ballpark.

 

[Ola]

The problem with Namestnikov is that he is a player that a coach just isn’t keen on having on his team. The man behind the bench is trying to get some control of a chaotic game. To get where you want to be — it just takes so much.

Namestnikov is very skilled. So often, you will see him go deep and win a puck, step around a forechecker and put the other team on its heels given the burst of speed he has given. Then — consistently — Namestnikov short circuits when he gets time to think. He throws a pass 3 feet behind a winger not even looking for it. He skates right into someone just stepping up on him. He turns back when everyone is going forward. That is really twice as costly as just making a mistake. All players on the ice knows that there are two scenarios when a D have a bouncing puck coming at him. Either he can control it or he can’t. Instinctively everyone prepares for either scenario and will react darn fast whichever plays out. It’s the same with a cross ice pass or whatever, it’s not really a surprise if it’s picked off mid air or whatever. Everyone have been there many times before. But these kind of brain farts leaves your teammates totally exposed and unprepared. You lose the confident that you have control on the ice. It’s not good at all.

Hockey is a really fast sport. Anyone who played a lot of junior hockey should recognize the type. Bodies grows and older teenagers become really athletic. It’s not that you have to have the IQ of a fish stick to struggle in those situations. The game is just really fast. I am sure Names is a great guy, but he is just the classic play with your head under your arm guy. The brain don’t keep up with the foot and legs. The confidence isn’t there either, and never has been during his NYR stint, and that doesn’t help either.

So for me he isn’t a type who really is worth either 900k or 3m. Short term he can contribute fairly much in a game. But I don’t think DQ wants him.

Further, it is very annoying that our pro-scouting cannot spot this. Emerson Etem was another guy. That is two mistakes that just should not be made. It’s a bit scary.

 

[The Crypto Guy]

IDK, I just did some cursory research and found places saying $2.4M (2011), $3M (2017), and $4M (2018). All note a high level of variance. I'm sure they use some sort of method for determining who counts and who doesn't, like excluding some plug who plays 5 NHL games at the league minimum. Or maybe they don't--I don't know.

$3M seems pretty reasonable to me. If you just do stupid math and figure you've got a 23-man roster and an $80M cap, the players would make an average of $3.5M if you hit the cap ceiling.

I just went to Capfriendly and looked at their roster for us, since it adds up the salaries. I removed Beleskey, McKegg, and Smith and added Kravtsov. I threw in a million each for ADA and Lemieux. This gives you a 21-man roster coming in at around $71M for an average salary of about $3.4M. And this is, again, completely removing Smith's salary from the equation (I'm just counting salaries, not cap, so we can do that). And it includes both Fox and Hajek, which isn't a given.

Anyway, you could configure it however you want, really, but I can't see any way you'd get us below $3M for average salary. Of course there would be variation between teams, but I would imagine they're in the ballpark.

Going by this Average NHL salary by team 2018/19 | Statista the average player salary per team was 2.78M

 

[DutchShamrock]

We have a lot of forwards but how many of them are under 21? Unless they all look great in camp I don't see the point of penciling all of them in for 82 games. The way Howden was playing after he tapered off, I don't think it would have been worse for him to be in the AHL with Peter Holland or some waiver fodder on the Rangers, unless they just thought Hartford was so radioactive last year

Namestnikov is a luxury for a team with space. A utility guy at his salary is not a must. It's not a knock on him or an indictment of Gorton, just a fact that we can replace him very cheaply and benefit greatly from the space.

Bottom 6 of Andersson, Howden, Kravtsov, Lemieux, Fast, Letteri, Nieves, McKegg, Smith. He's not top 6. Is he better than some of those guys on the bottom 6? Yeah, but we are strapped. A luxury we can't afford. We have options but being conservative with youth was eliminated with the big acquisitions.

$4m for a redundant player is a killer. It cost us $6m in cap next season.

You make totally legitimate arguments about the best course for development and Hartford. But you can't have it all as we have seen. Playing it in the middle, as in loading up with a top 3 salary UFA and trying to protect kids with overpriced utility guys, led to a mismanaged cap in one month.

 

[nyr2k2]

Going by this Average NHL salary by team 2018/19 | Statista the average player salary per team was 2.78M

As I said, different places give you different numbers. I quickly broke down our team and came in well over 3, even excluding Smith and putting ADA and Lemieux at just 2 combined. The point is, I believe that the average salary IS very close to $3M, if not in excess of that number. The only thing that would drive it down is if you take a very liberal view on what constitutes an NHL player, like including all the 4A and ELC guys that play a few games each year.

 

[The Crypto Guy]

As I said, different places give you different numbers. I quickly broke down our team and came in well over 3, even excluding Smith and putting ADA and Lemieux at just 2 combined. The point is, I believe that the average salary IS very close to $3M, if not in excess of that number. The only thing that would drive it down is if you take a very liberal view on what constitutes an NHL player, like including all the 4A and ELC guys that play a few games each year.

I guess, but ELC should be counted, not sure why they wouldn't when factoring in average player salaries for the league. If they aren't then we should just look at player salaries for players on their 2nd+ contracts.

And players who play a few games are still NHL players whether they are good or not...if we arent counting them too then why not just look for salaries of players 3rd line or better.

Everything and everyone should be factored in.

 

[nyr2k2]

I guess, but ELC should be counted, not sure why they wouldn't when factoring in average player salaries for the league. If they aren't then we should just look at player salaries for players on their 2nd+ contracts.

And players who play a few games are still NHL players whether they are good or not...if we arent counting them too then why not just look for salaries of players 3rd line or better.

Everything and everyone should be factored in.

Yes, ELC's should count. I agree. I factored them into our calculation. It included Kakko, Kravtsov, Hajek, and Fox.

Excluding the guys who only play a few games is totally reasonable. Fogarty played 10 games last year and one the year prior. He's not an "NHL player" in my opinion (and I'm his biggest cheerleader). If you want to determine the average salary of an NHL player you need to make sure you're talking about actual NHL players. If you were talking about NFL salaries, would you count guys who are on the practice squad for 10 weeks, are active for a game, get cut, and signed back to the practice squad? Maybe some would, but I wouldn't consider them "NFL players" any more than I'd consider Fogarty an "NHL player" at this point.

But, whatever. The average salary of a regular NHL player is around $3M. If you want to knock that number down by including a bunch of plugs who skate for five minutes in a small handful of games, have at it.

And if we're factoring in "everything" then we should include Shattenkirk's salary and probably Smith and Beleskey's as well, since they'll be on our books in some capacity.

 

[Barnaby]

I was in favor of that signing at the time, and I still am, but the counter-arguments centered around overpaying him for an inflated secondary assist rate were very valid. I'm saying this in hindsight, but the more prescient move may have been to go long-term on Hayes and bridge Skjei. His powerplay time has significantly dropped each season since then also.

You have to make educated guesses, but sometimes you guess wrong. You can look back and wish they extended HAyes a few years ago. What if they'd extended MDZ long term wanting to lock up their offensive D of the future? No strategy is all right or wrong. Lock up your stars and be careful everywhere else.

 

[Mikos87]

Couldn’t agree more.

I don’t think people realize how much our current contract strategy is costing us. We have pissed away value equal if many many 1st round picks — easily — over the year.

Our rebuild is in good shape for three reasons; we got Kakko and we drafted Kravy and K’Andre. Sure nothing is a done deal, but that is three home runs by my book, at a batting average much much higher than you can count on.

And the worst thing of not forcing young players to take long contracts — is that you will eventually end up giving core vets long-term deals way into their 30s.

That's exactly what happens! The issue is that they are constantly robbing Peter to pay Paul with their current approach. Cap space is an asset in a hard cap league. You get to do a lot with it depending on your circumstance.

Outside of the McDonagh deal, you have Skjei which remains to be seen, but the Rangers are forced to bridge their players coming off of ELCs because of their bad contracts.

Zibs was on a bridge but the extension is an excellent one. Zibs was slow to develop and on his 2nd team so that helped. Kreider too, he was on a bridge, but signed a decent extension.

If Buch scores 30 in the next two years, he's going to demand $6M+. That's a guy you could have locked in if you had the space.

and nashville just had to give away pk subban for nothing because they are stuck paying kyle turris $6 mil per year for the next 5 years to be their 3rd line center. how is that a better strategy than giving names a 2 year deal?

people always talk about the benefits of signing guys to long term deals and then point out to the contracts that worked out in the teams favor as if 1) there aren't long term deals that turned out bad and 2)the players don't know that the deal could turn bad for them and therefore wants a shorter deal

Nashville gave away Subban because they wanted to sign Duchene and had a replacement in Fabbro. Did the Turris signing workout for them?

No, not so far. But you know what has?

The Josi, Jarnkork, Forsberg, Ekholm, Ellis deals. The good part of the core of their team that went to the finals run.

 

[Mikos87]

Come on man. This is still the blood and guts of the rebuild. You know what I mean. They were headed nowhere as constructed and still cap locked. The core players may have been pretty much auctioned off by now and yes we invested the money this summer bc there were plays worth pulling the trigger on to make and it brings the spotlight back on the cap mess they were locked into before the rebuild, but that was part of the cleanup part of the rebuild, so it makes sense we’re still feeling it. The easiest thing for gorts and company to do would have been to sit on their hands once they won the lottery, but they deemed trouba and panarin as necessary players and the same talent wasn’t gonna be available next summer. So they struck.

Shattenkirk and Smith is well understood why they happened, right or wrong, and what has happened since

Spooner and names were in my mind lazy signings, during a summer where gorts had excess money to begin with. He banked on the second year adding value for teams who would want a guy who had 2 years of service, what happened was that names started horribly and spooner never started. Gorts made a quick decision and swapped spooner for strome. But to me both contracts were lobs to the players as good will, we all know you’re likely to get traded so we will give you a good deal since we can.

But going forward as edge had said earlier and you kinda give example of just before with Nashville. The rangers need to identify the guys you know are becoming players, sign them long term early young, and be very conscious of how you spend and allocate the rest of the cap.

Honestly though creating and maintaining a revolving pipeline of prospects to nhl ready players is the key to staying out of cap trouble going forward once summer 2021 comes

I don't have a problem with adding Panarin and Trouba. Nor paying them.

What I have an issue is with how they manage their assets.

No early extensions, meaning signing a guy they value a year before that their contracts are up to lock down their future spend allocation, and get him on the cheaper.

And bridging all of their ELCs except for Skjei & McDonagh.

This has forced them to make transactions and overpay guys.

If you keep doing something that is causing you to make mistakes... repeatedly....

Sometimes you have to stop and ask yourself hmmm maybe I shouldn't keep doing that.

So I hope that guys like Kakko, Miller, Kravstov and co get term out of their deals.

 

[wafflepadsave]

Some of you want the 5 year tank rebuild.

Because of just how poorly Gorts and co managed their contract negotiations, you just might get that.

Not because they're doing a poor job of accumulating young assets, but because they cap crippled themselves.

I said it when it was signed- 2 Years for Names and Spooner?

Why?

Why? Take them to arbitration and get the 1 year deal.

Hopefully you get something for Names as a rental- but that signing- that extra year... guess what that cripples you next year cause of what you had to do to get around it.

The Spooner deal? Thank the lucky stars for Chiarelli.

How inept is your pro scouting to not see that guy wasn't worth a 2 year commitment? The 3+ seasons of play in Boston?

Do you keep track of what your athletes do off the ice?

These are structural issues you have to fix as an organization. The ship was a loosy-goosy under AV, but during the Torts days- we're going back to 2010-2012 where the focus was on building a culture of winning. You have to go back to that template. Not in terms of how you build the talent pool.

But in terms of how you manage their growth. Where you help the kids that you are drafting to become men.

That will help you avoid having to give multi-year, multi-million dollar deals to guys who are bound to be journeymen.

Pro scouting might still be a problem.

 

[I Eat Crow]

I don't have a problem with adding Panarin and Trouba. Nor paying them.

What I have an issue is with how they manage their assets.

No early extensions, meaning signing a guy they value a year before that their contracts are up to lock down their future spend allocation, and get him on the cheaper.

And bridging all of their ELCs except for Skjei & McDonagh.

This has forced them to make transactions and overpay guys.

If you keep doing something that is causing you to make mistakes... repeatedly....

Sometimes you have to stop and ask yourself hmmm maybe I shouldn't keep doing that.

So I hope that guys like Kakko, Miller, Kravstov and co get term out of their deals.

They will if they are worth it. If Kakko proves to be a 70-80 point forward by the end of his ELC, he's definitely going to get a multiple year extension out of the game. Same with the others.

I understand your concern regarding the robbing Peter to pay Paul approach. I do. But honestly, how many players in the last 10 years that have come through the system deserved multiyear extensions after their ELC's? Kreider? Very much a work in progress at the time. Miller? Ditto. Del Zotto? Played the best hockey of his career with us. Journeyman now. McIlrath? LOL. There had not been any high picks from 2013-2016 worth their salt. Basically, I understand your point, but what players were we supposed to lock up long term out of the gate?

 

[Leetch3]

If Buch scores 30 in the next two years, he's going to demand $6M+. That's a guy you could have locked in if you had the space.

thats not a guy we could have locked up long term though even if we had space because its been reported that buch wants a bridge deal. just like you know that he could be worth alot more in 2 years, buch and his agent know that too and he wanted to bet on himself with a short term deal. people always look at signings and trades like gorton is just negotiating with himself and not another party

and you are looking at it from the stand point of if buch scores 30...but we've been waiting for kreider to hit 30 for his whole career. what if 21g, 38p from last year is as good as it gets? then the next 2 years he doesn't top 40 points and is constantly a healthy scratch? I don't think that happens but if it does then people would be saying that we shouldn't have signed him to a long term deal and his contract is killing us. its a gamble that sometimes pays off and sometimes doesn't. a good GM knows which players to make that gamble on.

 

[Mikos87]

Pro scouting might still be a problem.

I think it is. Even if it's gotten better, they have very little flexibility with the cap. So you have to bank on your pro scouting to find guys that can effectively fill roles, especially for a rebuilding squad.

They failed at this last year. IMO guys like Chytil, Lias, & Howden needed time in the minors for stretches, but only Lias saw him down in HFD.

That's because they're pro scouts weren't good enough to find and identify guys who can come in and give you 8-12 NHL games.

When Brenden Smith has to play left wing because he's too bad to play defense, and he actually gets NHL ice-time doing that....

That means your pro scouting laid a major league egg in terms of helping you fill out your organizational depth.

 

[Mikos87]

They will if they are worth it. If Kakko proves to be a 70-80 point forward by the end of his ELC, he's definitely going to get a multiple year extension out of the game. Same with the others.

I understand your concern regarding the robbing Peter to pay Paul approach. I do. But honestly, how many players in the last 10 years that have come through the system deserved multiyear extensions after their ELC's? Kreider? Very much a work in progress at the time. Miller? Ditto. Del Zotto? Played the best hockey of his career with us. Journeyman now. McIlrath? LOL. There had not been any high picks from 2013-2016 worth their salt. Basically, I understand your point, but what players were we supposed to lock up long term out of the gate?

I'd start with Staal & Girardi. They got bridge deals before the onerous deals. If they were on long-term deals out of their ELCs... you don't have the buyout or the over-spend dollars hurting you today.

Stepan is another. Same deal, got the bridge, got the big deal, then they were worried the injuries would catch up, but they were able to trade him out because he had term on his deal to a team that can't get free agents.

Hayes. Got the bridge, and a monster UFA deal. Hayes on a 6 year deal under $5M after his ELC would be great on the roster now.

Hagelin. Would have given him term on a deal under $3.5M after his ELC.

That would have allowed them to keep their core together longer during their prime years and have more dollars for other pieces.

 

[wafflepadsave]

I think it is. Even if it's gotten better, they have very little flexibility with the cap. So you have to bank on your pro scouting to find guys that can effectively fill roles, especially for a rebuilding squad.

They failed at this last year. IMO guys like Chytil, Lias, & Howden needed time in the minors for stretches, but only Lias saw him down in HFD.

That's because they're pro scouts weren't good enough to find and identify guys who can come in and give you 8-12 NHL games.

When Brenden Smith has to play left wing because he's too bad to play defense, and he actually gets NHL ice-time doing that....

That means your pro scouting laid a major league egg in terms of helping you fill out your organizational depth.

Agreed. Pro scouting has to be able advise Gorton when it’s time to move our own guys. That being said, they have been better recently. I would agree with those who correctly stated Zuccarello should’ve been moved earlier.

 

[DutchShamrock]

They will if they are worth it. If Kakko proves to be a 70-80 point forward by the end of his ELC, he's definitely going to get a multiple year extension out of the game. Same with the others.

I understand your concern regarding the robbing Peter to pay Paul approach. I do. But honestly, how many players in the last 10 years that have come through the system deserved multiyear extensions after their ELC's? Kreider? Very much a work in progress at the time. Miller? Ditto. Del Zotto? Played the best hockey of his career with us. Journeyman now. McIlrath? LOL. There had not been any high picks from 2013-2016 worth their salt. Basically, I understand your point, but what players were we supposed to lock up long term out of the gate?

Miller. This has been re-shaping my thinking of assets. Not to boil your post down to one word, but it was on my mind.

We downgraded Miller to Namestnikov. Be it the upcoming extension, off ice concerns, pro scouting, whatever. We extend Vlad for 2, TBL extends Miller long term. We laugh, say they are stuck. Namestnikov will easily return good assets when it's time. Hmm, funny how that turned out. One got a 1st and one is hard to move.

I think this league values cost of younger players certainty over short contracts. Maybe that isn't it exactly but we need to identify what everyone wants. We should be less afraid of extending ADA, Del Zotto or Miller. Lock them up, move them later because some team will see potential and a contract written in stone.

This team has it very wrong. Mikos is right. We need to re-evaluate our philosophy on contracts.

 

[GeorgeKaplan]

Miller. This has been re-shaping my thinking of assets. Not to boil your post down to one word, but it was on my mind.

We downgraded Miller to Namestnikov. Be it the upcoming extension, off ice concerns, pro scouting, whatever. We extend Vlad for 2, TBL extends Miller long term. We laugh, say they are stuck. Namestnikov will easily return good assets when it's time. Hmm, funny how that turned out. One got a 1st and one is hard to move.

I think this league values cost of younger players certainty over short contracts. Maybe that isn't it exactly but we need to identify what everyone wants. We should be less afraid of extending ADA, Del Zotto or Miller. Lock them up, move them later because some team will see potential and a contract written in stone.

This team has it very wrong. Mikos is right. We need to re-evaluate our philosophy on contracts.

I wouldn't exactly use Miller/Namestnikov as the example for this point

 

[nyr2k2]

Some guys want the bridge and not the long term deal. They want to get to free agency as soon as possible. We can all sit and say "We should have signed so-and-so long term instead of the bridge" but the reality is players understand the massive bucks are in free agency and not in a longer deal at lesser money when they're a year or two out. So I agree with the principle that we should take more risks on locking guys up early, but it's not given that the player necessary wants that.

 

[Rangerfan4life90]

Some guys want the bridge and not the long term deal. They want to get to free agency as soon as possible. We can all sit and say "We should have signed so-and-so long term instead of the bridge" but the reality is players understand the massive bucks are in free agency and not in a longer deal at lesser money when they're a year or two out. So I agree with the principle that we should take more risks on locking guys up early, but it's not given that the player necessary wants that.

It's basically risk vs reward.

If they decide to go for the bridge and suffer a really nasty injury (knock on wood) or regress entirely, then they get screwed. Meanwhile, if they go for the long term deal at a young age, then they might get really good to the point where they may have wished they took a bridge deal instead.

 

[kovazub94]

Namestnikov is a luxury for a team with space. A utility guy at his salary is not a must. It's not a knock on him or an indictment of Gorton, just a fact that we can replace him very cheaply and benefit greatly from the space.

Bottom 6 of Andersson, Howden, Kravtsov, Lemieux, Fast, Letteri, Nieves, McKegg, Smith. He's not top 6. Is he better than some of those guys on the bottom 6? Yeah, but we are strapped. A luxury we can't afford. We have options but being conservative with youth was eliminated with the big acquisitions.

$4m for a redundant player is a killer. It cost us $6m in cap next season.

You make totally legitimate arguments about the best course for development and Hartford. But you can't have it all as we have seen. Playing it in the middle, as in loading up with a top 3 salary UFA and trying to protect kids with overpriced utility guys, led to a mismanaged cap in one month.

Namestnikov is overpaid and he’s redundant to some degree to a team that is rebuilding and also carries Strome and Fast. However, Namestnikov here is not to bring a depth to bottom 6 - that is what a contending team might need. To us he’s an insurance policy if our kids are not ready for a top6 role next year, and Namestnikov can do a half (pretty) decent job there for a stretch of time. Given how the situation is likely to unfold he’s here for no more than another season.

 

[ETTER DE]

I'd start with Staal & Girardi. They got bridge deals before the onerous deals. If they were on long-term deals out of their ELCs... you don't have the buyout or the over-spend dollars hurting you today.

Stepan is another. Same deal, got the bridge, got the big deal, then they were worried the injuries would catch up, but they were able to trade him out because he had term on his deal to a team that can't get free agents.

Hayes. Got the bridge, and a monster UFA deal. Hayes on a 6 year deal under $5M after his ELC would be great on the roster now.

Hagelin. Would have given him term on a deal under $3.5M after his ELC.

That would have allowed them to keep their core together longer during their prime years and have more dollars for other pieces.

Staal was signed for 5 years after his ELC. Girardi for 4 years. Lundquist had a 1 year bridge and then was signed for 6 years.

 

[eco's bones]

The problem with Namestnikov is that he is a player that a coach just isn’t keen on having on his team. The man behind the bench is trying to get some control of a chaotic game. To get where you want to be — it just takes so much.

Namestnikov is very skilled. So often, you will see him go deep and win a puck, step around a forechecker and put the other team on its heels given the burst of speed he has given. Then — consistently — Namestnikov short circuits when he gets time to think. He throws a pass 3 feet behind a winger not even looking for it. He skates right into someone just stepping up on him. He turns back when everyone is going forward. That is really twice as costly as just making a mistake. All players on the ice knows that there are two scenarios when a D have a bouncing puck coming at him. Either he can control it or he can’t. Instinctively everyone prepares for either scenario and will react darn fast whichever plays out. It’s the same with a cross ice pass or whatever, it’s not really a surprise if it’s picked off mid air or whatever. Everyone have been there many times before. But these kind of brain farts leaves your teammates totally exposed and unprepared. You lose the confident that you have control on the ice. It’s not good at all.

Hockey is a really fast sport. Anyone who played a lot of junior hockey should recognize the type. Bodies grows and older teenagers become really athletic. It’s not that you have to have the IQ of a fish stick to struggle in those situations. The game is just really fast. I am sure Names is a great guy, but he is just the classic play with your head under your arm guy. The brain don’t keep up with the foot and legs. The confidence isn’t there either, and never has been during his NYR stint, and that doesn’t help either.

So for me he isn’t a type who really is worth either 900k or 3m. Short term he can contribute fairly much in a game. But I don’t think DQ wants him.

Further, it is very annoying that our pro-scouting cannot spot this. Emerson Etem was another guy. That is two mistakes that just should not be made. It’s a bit scary.

I think there's something to this though I don't think it's nearly as bad as with Etem.....but I'd agree Namestnikov with the puck f***s up a lot. Where I think there's a big difference between him and Etem is Etem was lost on the ice whether he had the puck or not. Namestnikov without or away from the puck is a pretty decent player. The puck is kind of his ball and chain.