Speculation: Roster Building Thread LIX: To trade or not to trade CK?

[Leetch3]

definitely interesting to see the different views on the impact of dead space...the view of dead space in year 2 certainly changes if you look at it from the perspective that all 3 contracts are dead space for the next 2 years even if the player is still physically on the roster

big question though is do any of them become tradeable with retention with only 1 year left instead of 2

 

[Leetch3]

And to think how quickly that will dry up having to sign 4 forwards and possibly lemieux and DeAngelo

whether those guys are moved out now or the deadline, how many of them need to be replaced for next year is very important in determine the risk of dead space on the roster...

going into 20-21 can we go with a top 9 of zibanejad, panarin, kakko, kravtsov, buchnevich, chytil, andersson, howden and lemieux? if those 9 or even 8 of the 9 make up the top 3 lines then the $$ that you need to spend to 'replace' guys should be minimal of course if you decided we need to go outside the organization to fill the 2C spot and that cap space could disappear in a hurry if there is a ton of dead space

 

[mas0764]

No he meant 2020. We have $20m coming off the books after this season, so the dead cap space from Shattenkirk next year will be irrelevant to us since we won't be near the cap anyways.

I’m not seeing those numbers. We have about $15m coming off after this year - Kreider ($4.6m), Namestnikov ($4.0m), Strome ($3.1m), and Beleskey ($1.9m), plus loose change.

The $20m+ that comes off from Shattenkirk, Staal, Smith and Lundqvist is after 2021.

Still, now that you think about it, if you have to buy out Shattenkirk, if you consider that you’ll replace Namestnikov, Strome and Beleskey’s $9m with essentially minimum deals (say, generously, $4m for 3 players to replace them), that gives you the $5m right there.

Your top lines are still under contract with Zib/Buch/Kakko/Panarin/Kravtsov/Howden/Chytil/Andersson/Lemiex, so you are only filling third and fourth lines there, really.

So I guess maybe buying out someone is not the end of the world.

Cause then the following year, you free up the rest of the guys you didn’t buy out (assuming one buyout, you are then freeing up another $17-$18m at least).

 

[mas0764]

@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.

Next year might be another slow increase, but its gonna go way up when the new TV deal begins.

 

[Chalfdiggity3]

Next year might be another slow increase, but its gonna go way up when the new TV deal begins.

I truly hope so but let's be real... can we all really trust bettman and do we really want to rely upon a possibility rather than just being smart with our money and being able to get even in trades ,after when our team is ready to compete for a cup and have so much cap space we can do another deal of our 1st rounder and more for a top line center or defenseman who is due for a big raise but the team cant pay it bc they are in cap hell

 

[Chalfdiggity3]

whether those guys are moved out now or the deadline, how many of them need to be replaced for next year is very important in determine the risk of dead space on the roster...

going into 20-21 can we go with a top 9 of zibanejad, panarin, kakko, kravtsov, buchnevich, chytil, andersson, howden and lemieux? if those 9 or even 8 of the 9 make up the top 3 lines then the $$ that you need to spend to 'replace' guys should be minimal of course if you decided we need to go outside the organization to fill the 2C spot and that cap space could disappear in a hurry if there is a ton of dead space

I completely get where people are coming from with thinking that's all we have to fill on the roster but ho estly I domt see chytl being a center and who knows if certain players work out. I'm not trying to be a downer here I just want to be sure rather than running through the if this happens and that happens and so on, it won't matter.. it's still a lot of what ifs....

 

[mas0764]

I truly hope so but let's be real... can we all really trust bettman and do we really want to rely upon a possibility rather than just being smart with our money and being able to get even in trades ,after when our team is ready to compete for a cup and have so much cap space we can do another deal of our 1st rounder and more for a top line center or defenseman who is due for a big raise but the team cant pay it bc they are in cap hell

But it’s not just a possibility. I’m not sitting here saying it like, well, this “could” happen but it’s just as likely that this other thing could happen, etc.

The NHL signed a $200/m a year deal in 2011 and the cap increases we’ve been seeing are on that basis.

A new deal is gonna be more than that. Way more. This isn’t speculation; if the league gets $200m again it might as well fold, pack up and go home.

It’s gonna get more like $450m-$650m/yr, this isn’t a guess, this is what the financial experts are saying will happen.

If that’s the expectation, and again, barring some sort of crazy unlikely financial collapse of the national economy, then that’s what they are gonna get.

And when they get that, it’s simple math. The new CBA will insist the cap goes up substantially in accordance. Escrow, different percentages of HRR to the players, whatever.... it’s going up.

Simple math. This isn’t guessing, it’s what happens when there are new TV deals.

Being unnecessarily frugal with our money is what the bad idea is. Don’t save your nickels because the cap might not be $100m in 2022. If the cap isn’t $100m or close to it by then, the league as a whole has huge unforeseen problems. Nothing unique to the Rangers.

Obviously this doesn’t mean you throw a big contract at every available free agent; there’s certainly a valid point about austerity and team building. But saying “the cap might not go up substantially after the new TV deal” just is not within the realm of realistic possibilities and thus you shouldn’t let that worry inform your personnel moves. If you do, you’re being left behind while other teams plan accordingly.

 

[Chalfdiggity3]

But it’s not just a possibility. I’m not sitting here saying it like, well, this “could” happen but it’s just as likely that this other thing could happen, etc.

The NHL signed a $200/m a year deal in 2011 and the cap increases we’ve been seeing are on that basis.

A new deal is gonna be more than that. Way more. This isn’t speculation; if the league gets $200m again it might as well fold, pack up and go home.

It’s gonna get more like $450m-$650m/yr, this isn’t a guess, this is what the financial experts are saying will happen.

If that’s the expectation, and again, barring some sort of crazy unlikely financial collapse of the national economy, then that’s what they are gonna get.

And when they get that, it’s simple math. The new CBA will insist the cap goes up substantially in accordance. Escrow, different percentages of HRR to the players, whatever.... it’s going up.

Simple math. This isn’t guessing, it’s what happens when there are new TV deals.

Being unnecessarily frugal with our money is what the bad idea is. Don’t save your nickels because the cap might not be $100m in 2022. If the cap isn’t $100m or close to it by then, the league as a whole has huge unforeseen problems. Nothing unique to the Rangers.

True but I see it as being smart with my money not frugal. I'd rather be prepared for the worst and hope for the best. And although it's a real possibility that the cap goes up like that with the expansion draft it's still 2 years away and I'd like to be in a good position by that year already and not be strapped for cap in year 2 by buying out shatty. I believe he is tradeable by this years deadline or even the start of 2020 when he has 1 year left. I've turned on the Smith buyout. But I dont see the reason for the staal or shatty one this year. Staal can still rotate in when our young defenseman cant handle a full 82 game schedule and it's up to Quinn to sit him when he isnt necessary to play. He will be a good mentor for the kids to learn from bc before the eye injury he was a top shutdown defenseman. Shatty again I think is horrible for our 2nd year of his buyout and no offense but 15m to fill 4 forward spots and resign DeAngelo is putting us right back to being right up against the cap. I dont see chytl as a center, hes better at wing and if that's the case then we will need a top 6 center and not having that money to be able to make a trade for one hurts tremendously bc we know there will be teams that cant afford to sign an rfa like trouba this offseason

 

[Leetch3]

I completely get where people are coming from with thinking that's all we have to fill on the roster but ho estly I domt see chytl being a center and who knows if certain players work out. I'm not trying to be a downer here I just want to be sure rather than running through the if this happens and that happens and so on, it won't matter.. it's still a lot of what ifs....

well the 2C spot is the biggest question mark....and that was my big concern before signing panarin is that we'll need to get a #2 center and can't. of course while that would use up the cap space its also not exactly replacing the guys that are leaving on the roster since none of them are 2C either.

and I'm not saying we won't need to replace anyone. but of the 4 guys we are talking about kreider is the only top 6 guys...strome, namestnikov and fast are 3rd or even 4th liners (being a place holder on the 2nd line doesn't make them a top 6 guy). buch gets to stay in the top 6 taking kreider's spot and if we can't replace the other 3 without spending alot we've got bigger problems then the cap...and you are also only talking about 1 year that this issue applies

and I agree that there are so many unknowns and what ifs which is why the #1 priority should be avoiding dead space and a buyout should only be a last resort...but I think you can look at the different scenarios and try to predict the likelihood to weigh the risk. you never know for sure but there are some risks/assumptions that you'd feel more comfortable making than others...

 

[Calad]

I’m not seeing those numbers. We have about $15m coming off after this year - Kreider ($4.6m), Namestnikov ($4.0m), Strome ($3.1m), and Beleskey ($1.9m), plus loose change.

The $20m+ that comes off from Shattenkirk, Staal, Smith and Lundqvist is after 2021.

Still, now that you think about it, if you have to buy out Shattenkirk, if you consider that you’ll replace Namestnikov, Strome and Beleskey’s $9m with essentially minimum deals (say, generously, $4m for 3 players to replace them), that gives you the $5m right there.

Your top lines are still under contract with Zib/Buch/Kakko/Panarin/Kravtsov/Howden/Chytil/Andersson/Lemiex, so you are only filling third and fourth lines there, really.

So I guess maybe buying out someone is not the end of the world.

Cause then the following year, you free up the rest of the guys you didn’t buy out (assuming one buyout, you are then freeing up another $17-$18m at least).

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.
cap increase ~2m totals 20m in space next year.

As someone else noted, a trade will "decrease" how much comes off the books pending how much of it is spent on RFAs. But barring any changes these are the numbers

And assuming no buyouts, Staal/Smith/Shattenkirk/Hank comes out to about $25m

 

[Chalfdiggity3]

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.
cap increase ~2m totals 20m in space next year.

As someone else noted, a trade will "decrease" how much comes off the books pending how much of it is spent on RFAs. But barring any changes these are the numbers

And assuming no buyouts, Staal/Smith/Shattenkirk/Hank comes out to about $25m

Ah but that does bc it's still 3m against the cap. Nobody is offering him more money so we dont have to match and since he makes 3.1m his contract remains that for the following year. You cant say that you think he will be traded so 3.1m is off the cap. It remains and its 15m cap space.

 

[Leetch3]

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.
cap increase ~2m totals 20m in space next year.

As someone else noted, a trade will "decrease" how much comes off the books pending how much of it is spent on RFAs. But barring any changes these are the numbers

And assuming no buyouts, Staal/Smith/Shattenkirk/Hank comes out to about $25m

Those are the contracts ending after this season but you can only count what’s on the cap this year as clearing space. Belesky should only count for the $800k after burial and if some combination of Kreider, names and Strome are traded this summer to get under the cap then its double dipping to count them again as coming off the books next summer. If they get removed this summer than that space is instantly gone and already spent

 

[Vitto79]

Do you take a bad contract like Wennberg at 4 yrs if they take say Smith , Namestnikov , Belesky ?

 

[Chalfdiggity3]

Do you take a bad contract like Wennberg at 4 yrs if they take say Smith , Namestnikov , Belesky ?

No bc Beleskey and names are gone after this year and Smith only has 2 years left. Why saddle ourselves with that type of contract for 4 years. The point is to get and stay out of cap hell.

Beleskey get buried in minors.. very minimal cap.

Smith can be bought out or just rotate in and I'd rather pay him for 2 more years and be completely done with the contract since we are a lottery team again.

Names can be traded full salary and I'd easily take a 4th and be happy, whole point is to get rid of cap space

 

[Mikos87]

Do you take a bad contract like Wennberg at 4 yrs if they take say Smith , Namestnikov , Belesky ?

Wennberg is one of the most passive players in the league. I don’t think he can contribute to a winning team. Very good on the PP though.

 

[HFsNumber1Heel]

The way to look at the Shattenkirk situation is, he's owed $6.65 for the next two years regardless and you're stuck with him as there's zero market, so a buyout saves $500K next year and you deal with the extra $1.4 million for two years extra which by the point with Girardi's $1.1 million isn't ideal, but with the cap hopefully going up, better than nothing.

The market will also change next year, and the year after for trades. Not everyone can stay.

The only year that would be a bummer is next offseason when the Rangers have $7.2 million in dead space but it would have been the situation anyway with Shattenkirk still here, and Namestnikov/Strome/Kreider/Belesky and I'll include Fast and McKeg adds up to just over $16 million minus the buyout nonsense, so that's actually $ 9 million to work with.

Let's say TDA/Lemiuex/Buch all bridged for two years this offseason, so in reality you're left with let's say $4million when your forwards are Panarin/Ziba/Kaako/Kravstov/Chytil/Anderson/Buch/Howden/Lemieux.

That's nine. One goes to an ELC like an Elmer/Gettinger/Newell/Barron/etc. a little can go to a Strome raise if he earns it or a bargain bin UFA hunting, and the other position will be when it's time to cash in on all of these DMen prospects and make a hockey trade for a forward or a forward from the Kreider and or Strome return. Nieves won't cost much to re up for one more year.

The "top" UFAs next summer are Taylor Hall/Nicklas Backstrom/Mikael Granlund/Mikie Koivu/Hoffman/Galchenuyk. Add Coyle and Pageau to that list.

I really doubt the Rangers are going after a big name UFA next offseason when guys like Barron/K. Miller/Lundkvist/Robertson/etc. could be joining the system.

The bottom line I'm trying to make is, while no buy outs are ideal, because of no trade market this summer, rather than go crazy, the most logical course of action is to buyout Shattenkirk and deal with the bottom three forwards in 2020-21 with a combination of trades of assets that will open up during this regular season (Namestnikov/Kreider and maybe Strome or Fast), ELCs, and bargain bin UFAs.

 

[Mikos87]

I’d say a Smith buyout, and a Names cap dump is still the best solution. Problem is that I can’t see any team helping the Rangers without an asset or two being ponied up with Names.

Minnesota needs a forward. They also need prospects.

Names and a prospect and pick for a late rounder helps them. They don’t have enough NHL bodies because they haven’t drafted or developed players well.

COL can punt some defensive depth on 1 way deals can balance the dollars if they want to get deeper up front, and that deal would help the Rangers organizational depth for a year.

LA needs a body upfront and more prospects.

Those are all better options than having $7M in dead space next year with a Shattenkirk buyout.

 

[Chalfdiggity3]

I’d say a Smith buyout, and a Names cap dump is still the best solution. Problem is that I can’t see any team helping the Rangers without an asset or two being ponied up with Names.

Minnesota needs a forward. They also need prospects.

Names and a prospect and pick for a late rounder helps them. They don’t have enough NHL bodies because they haven’t drafted or developed players well.

COL can punt some defensive depth on 1 way deals can balance the dollars if they want to get deeper up front, and that deal would help the Rangers organizational depth for a year.

LA needs a body upfront and more prospects.

Those are all better options than having $7M in dead space next year with a Shattenkirk buyout.

Names doesnt have negative value and we dont have to add anything to trade him. Normally I'd say he would get the same back as vesey did. If that's the case then the draft pick compensation with us being held over a barrel would be a 5th or 6th rounder.

You would rather add to names like a solid prospect or a pick for a 3rd. Or would you rather bite the bullet and trade him for a 5th or 6th rounder?

 

[Mikos87]

Names doesnt have negative value and we dont have to add anything to trade him. Normally I'd say he would get the same back as vesey did. If that's the case then the draft pick compensation with us being held over a barrel would be a 5th or 6th rounder.

You would rather add to names like a solid prospect or a pick for a 3rd. Or would you rather bite the bullet and trade him for a 5th or 6th rounder?

It’s not a matter of what I would rather have. What do you think the market is right now?

Teams with space are going to load up on players being dumped. There are a number of teams who have to clear space.

It’s a matter of supply and demand.

 

[Chalfdiggity3]

It’s not a matter of what I would rather have. What do you think the market is right now?

Teams with space are going to load up on players being dumped. There are a number of teams who have to clear space.

It’s a matter of supply and demand.

And after rfas are locked up and people are bought out teams will have cap space. Like you mentioned there are plenty of teams already that have the space and need capable players. Normally we would get a 3rd for names. But bc we have an issue those teams will want to give us less and if it's just a 5th 6th or 7th rounder then I'm fine with it. Idc what the return is.. it's all about getting the cap space.

Regardless of what others think we are still very much rebuilding, jd and gorton have said this several times even after what we did this summer. Trading prospect and a pick with names stepping away from the rebuild

 

[BBKers]

Bellesky sent down

Lemmy, Vinny and ADA lack arbitration rights. They all get 1 year deals slightly above their QO. Vinny to Hartford
Trouba signs long term at ~$7.5 M as reported
Buchnevich dealt for a heist of non roster (2019-2020) assets

Smith bought out

Everyone else stays until the TDL where new assessments are made

Capsspace solved
It even allows us to go discount bargain hunting on the remaining scrap heap of UFAs
We could then - (in theory) with some roster juggling/demotions- sign a vet #7 D at $1 M and a bottom sixer at ~$1.5 M and still be around $1 M below cap ceiling
They could both - after “redemption” - also eventually return some assets at the TDL. Along with Kreider, Names and maybe someone else. More assets = important
Say Brian Boyle/Derek Brassard and Adam McQuaid
Just thinking aloud

 

[Alluckks]

Just package Brendan Smith with Lias Anderson in exchange for a 7th round draft pick and be done with it

I'm sorry to hear about the brain damage, if you have a fundraiser please link it here

 

[Vitto79]

Just throwing around names from teams w cap space....never gonna happen but ... Namestnikov for Clifford

Does Shattenkirk for Kovalchuk make any sense just to open up RD for Fox?

 

[RangerBoy]

Shattenkirk would be the one player to redeem himself and have a bounce back season. He is due just $4M in 20-21. $2M is a signing bonus. The Rangers pay the bonus and Shattenkirk is a $2M player. His cap remains the same. The issue is where is the opportunity for Shattenkirk to have a bounce back year.

The Rangers have Trouba and Deangelo ahead of Shattenkirk. Quinn played Deangelo over Shattenkirk last season. Shattenkirk is a PP guy and the Rangers have players ahead of him on the depth chart. Fox could begin the season in Hartford. Shattenkirk is the 3rd pair RD for the time being.

The Rangers need the cap space. If Shattenkirk is bought out or traded, the Rangers could be in the market for a stop gap RD if they want Fox to play major minutes in the AHL to begin the season.

 

[Irishguy42]

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?

Depends.

I think the TV deal will just be a set amount divided evenly over the course of the deal, like the current one, which will cause the huge jump in year 1.

I highly doubt the NHL would like the new deal to start with a low amount being paid to them and then ramp it up over the next few years. Not sure the broadcaster would want to agree to that as well.