UAGoalieGuy
Registered User
Going off Cap Friendly, Rangers have 8 total UFA/RFA after this coming season if no trades are made. Kreider, Names, Fast, McKegg and Beleskey (UFA) / Georgiev, Strome and Nieves (RFA).
Speculation: Roster Building Thread LIX: To trade or not to trade CK?
- Thread starter Gardner McKay
- Start date
- Status
Going off Cap Friendly, Rangers have 8 total UFA/RFA after this coming season if no trades are made. Kreider, Names, Fast, McKegg and Beleskey (UFA) / Georgiev, Strome and Nieves (RFA).
- Sep 17, 2007
- 24,967
- 22,936
Beleskey won't be on the team, so he doesn't need to be replaced. Names probably won't be either. Kreider will probably be gone by the deadline, if not sooner.
Panarin-Zib-Buch
Kravtsov-Chytil-Kakko
Andersson-Howden-
Lemieux-
4 spots in our bottom 6 that won't be expensive to fill. If Lemieux only signs a 1 year deal, so what? He isn't going to get a huge raise next year, regardless of arbitration. Fast, Strome or Nieves? Which of those guys is getting a big raise? Unless Strome goes off, he's probably looking at a pay cut. Fast will get a raise, but do you see him getting more than 2.5 mil per year?
Unless we intend to give out significant money in free agency, it won't be an issue.
darko
Registered User
- Feb 16, 2009
- 70,272
- 7,803
Calad
Section 422
4.6 - Kreider
4 - Namestnikov
3.1 - Strome (I think he goes at the deadline, has some value so his RFA status doesn't matter here imo)
1.9 - Beleskey
1.9 - Fast
2.5 - Girardi buyout goes down from 3.6 to 1.1
Thats ~18m.
edit- cap increase ~2m totals 20m in space next year.
Priority #1 in a Kreider trade is to get max value, IMO. He is the last premium asset from our rebuild that we can further stock the cupboards with. a 1st + prospect is my target. If we can get a 2nd for Namestnikov at 50% I think that'd be great for us.
2. See above, 18 mill in space. The upside to creating the extra cap space this season is we could sign DeAngelo & Buch to 3-4 year bridge deals. Lemieux I don't see getting a huge raise over 1m cause of his tool set.
3. Presuming Shattenkirk is healthy, I agree, he has the most upside for a trade. But thats a huuuuuge if. Smith at 50% for a mid-late pick next year isn't out of the realm of possibility though. As of now we have 9 Fs under contract for the 20-21 season (assuming both RFAs resign), our D core is fully fleshed out for that season. We would easily be able to fill out the roster with our prospects and cheap short term deals. We are talking easily 10m in cap space and probably closer to 15m. We have a lot of talented kids on the roster and our hope is that some of Chytil Howden Andersson Kakko Kravtsov can fill out the top 6 with Panarin Zib and Buch. Isnt that the plan, that all of our young budding stars should get increased minutes and responsibility after a season or two in the league? So realistically we only have to sign some depth players. This is why I don't see a problem with next years cap.
Last edited:
Irishguy42
Mr. Preachy
The absence of his on-ice negatives outweighs the dead cap space.
Also, the dead cap is NOT that much of an issue either short term or long term.
Amazing Kreiderman
Registered User
- Apr 11, 2011
- 45,075
- 40,935
- Sep 17, 2007
- 24,967
- 22,936
We have to clear cap space now. That space will be used on our RFAs. If we trade Namestikov at 50% and use that space to sign Buchnevich, then it isn't 4 mil coming off the books next year, it's 2 mil.
Calad
Section 422
Fair point. No way to tell who is going to be moved/bought out so I listed all of them. I should note that I forgot to include the expected ~2m in cap increase next season to make it an even 20m
Considering Shesterkin is in the system, it's not unreasonable to expect he won't be here next year. Georgie is on an ELC anyways so I wouldn't count that as money coming off. With Strome they could easily trade him to get his money off the books, or even not tender him a contract if they really want his money off the books. Anyways, if we resign him for another year or two at a similar price we still have ~12m to work with for 2-3 bottom 6 forward slots.
That would be shattenkirk.
Staal makes the most sense in terms of actual roster construction+flexibility.
Chalfdiggity3
Registered User
I dont think chytl is a center but that's based off what I've seen him play and my opinion that hes better off as a winger. This year will tell but if I'm right then we need a center. Also with everyone saying the cap is gonna increase like crazy. It has shown year after year that the cap has gone up but significantly less than expected each season. With that cap inflation so to are the cap hits of mediocre players. That 15m will go VERY quickly.
While I agree lemieux won't get a massive raise unless he breaks out you are forgetting about everyone's favorite dman in DeAngelo who people already want to throw 2.5m at. What if he breaks out? What if we have to pay him 3.5-4m aav?
A lot of question Mark's and honestly I like having the ability to be flexible in even being able again to make a trouba like deal for that possible 2nd line center we desperately need
Chalfdiggity3
Registered User
@Calad
RFA`s dont come off the books and you are forgetting the 6m of dead cap space from shattys buyout. Plus again I know people want to say the cap will skyrocket, the cap has been steadily decreasing in the amount that it goes up each year. It was supposed to be 83m. It's at 81.5.
RFA`s dont come off the books and you are forgetting the 6m of dead cap space from shattys buyout. Plus again I know people want to say the cap will skyrocket, the cap has been steadily decreasing in the amount that it goes up each year. It was supposed to be 83m. It's at 81.5.
Calad
Section 422
I didn't forget shatts buyout money. We get 5m extra this year but it stays the same next year, so buying him (or Smith out) is basically as if they were still on the roster for the 20-21 season. The money I counted coming off are only expiring contracts (including strome)
NHL and the players association made a deal that the cap increase will be only 2mill this year and next in effort to decrease escrow. Regardless, in 2 years, with the new TV deal and the Seattle expansion fees we will likely see a large cap increase in 2 years.
Tawnos
A guy with a bass
Expansion fees are not included in HRR.
I think they'd prefer to trade names with no retention for a lesser return to clear the extra $2 mil. the return isn't going to be that high so the cap space likely has more value than us then the drop off in value. I feel that if someone was offering enough that it wasn't worth the drop off he would have been dealt already
Irishguy42
Mr. Preachy
JC704
Registered User
- Jan 6, 2012
- 785
- 267
Namestnikov is definitely more valuable to a contender at this point. He was only a 30-point player with us last year, but the pieces we had with him weren't great.
He's probably slightly overpaid, but he is ideal to a team ready to go for it that needs a middle-six player who is capable of playing with talented players -- he played well with Stamkos-Kucherov in Tampa Bay.
I'd imagine if Vesey netted a third-round pick, because Namestnikov makes more, the pick straight up would likely be closer to a fourth/fifth-round pick. I think a conditional fifth makes sense for a few teams (Colorado, Dallas as the contenders, and Columbus, detroit and Edmonton as teams that could use an extra top nine player/production).
question is what is the value if you retain. if you are looking at a 3rd vs a 4th without retaining then I probably take the 4th. if you are talking a late 2nd vs a conditional 5th thats a different story
Calad
Section 422
The big Vegas increase must have been from ticket and merch from their first season. Not a big deal, still in time for the Kakko and Kravtsov extensions
GordonGecko
First Ping Pong Ball
Just package Brendan Smith with Lias Anderson in exchange for a 7th round draft pick and be done with it
GordonGecko
First Ping Pong Ball
The new US TV deal happens in 2 years, looking at $7M+ cap increase
GeorgeKaplan
Registered User
I’m still skeptical. I find it really hard to trust Bettman and co. with that stuff
I wonder if they would do a huge jump in 1 season since that would likely lead to the players that are free agents that summer getting hugely overpaid and then nothing left for the rest of the players. vs spreading out the increase over a couple years and paying all the players evenly via escrow to make up the difference to get to 50%. teams would want the immediate increase but is that best for the players as a whole?
- Status
