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

  • Xenforo Cloud will be upgrading us to version 2.3.5 on March 3rd at 12 AM GMT. This version has increased stability and fixes several bugs. We expect downtime for the duration of the update. The admin team will continue to work on existing issues, templates and upgrade all necessary available addons to minimize impact of this new version. Click Here for Updates
  • We're expecting server maintenance on March 3rd starting at midnight, there may be downtime during the work.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Even if he can't be traded much easier after his bonus, which I don't see why he wouldn't and no one seems to feel compelled to give any reason why he wouldn't, a buy-out is still available next season and would of course be cheaper and less lengthy than it would be today.

You have to have a team willing to take that cap hit. Are you willing to take that chance? Buying him out cleans up most of our issues and it’s already been explained at nauseam that the dead space next year doesn’t hurt us at all. Don’t need it. It’s a no brainer

Fox is not starting in the AHL unless he completely falls on his face in camp and embarrassed himself. That’s not going to happen. But it’s naive to think his agent didn’t get assurance that he’d be on the nhl team if he left school. Happens all the time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ola
In a vacuum, yes. It doesnt hurt much.

The big picture is the concern. They are in on another wing. We are trying to move wings out, telegraphing it in fact, and another body doesnt help. Three teams are bidding for him. Are we confident he will come under $1.1m? Is he leaving the K for that?

If he takes ~$2m it's still a good risk to take. And Gorton knows the market for his guys, I'm sure he is far less concerned about it knowing what is available than we all are sitting in the dark.

There have been multiple comments on here about how relentless and calculating Gorton is. Edge even described him as 'the one guy you want to take with you to buy a used car'. He's very patient so the fact that he hasn't just made a reactionary trade shouldn't surprise anyone
 
In a vacuum, yes. It doesnt hurt much.

The big picture is the concern. They are in on another wing. We are trying to move wings out, telegraphing it in fact, and another body doesnt help. Three teams are bidding for him. Are we confident he will come under $1.1m? Is he leaving the K for that?

I have no idea if it will be that low, but if it's 1.075 mil or less, his contract (or someone else who makes similar money) can be buried in Hartford with no cap consequences. It won't have any affect on us in trade negotiations.
 
But sitting around clutching your cap dollars and refusing to sign impact free agents, because you are worried about something that will not happen, isn't "smart."

It's harmful to your team's chances of success.

Now if you want to argue that Panarin isn't worth the money he will be paid, that's another argument. But the argument that is currently getting play on this board isn't that Panarin isn't an elite, team-changing player. It's that he's great, but signing him will hamstring us from signing other players such as Kreider, Howden, Buch, DeAngelo, players who are clearly supporting players, to long term contracts.

And while it is true that all teams who end up having multiple superstars eventually have to pick who to pay and who to let walk, there simply is no evidence that would support the notion that we are not in a great position to re-sign all the players we will truly want and need to have a Cup Contender. Starting with the fact that there's no credible evidence that the cap will remain stagnant. All the evidence says, it's going up.

Worrying that it will stay stagnant is not smart, it's paranoid. Refusing to sign a guy like Panarin because you are worried about it is foolish, because there's no tangible likelihood that the cap doesn't increase dramatically to allow us to keep all our key, long-term guys.

As you went on to address, the real question is, how do we navigate the current year or two crunch we are in? Which is no big deal, because the worst case scenario is buyouts, and even that, as has been discussed here ad nauseum, does not really hurt us long term from signing everyone we want. These buyouts will be ending before most of our guys are off ELCs. A better option is to trade guys away now to make room, so we don't push it into the future, and there's a tangential debate surrounding that (should we take pennies on the dollar for Namestnikov? Etc). But maybe trading guys away even at discounts isn't possible.

If that's the case, oh well. We are not screwed. We'll be fine.

We need to get through this offseason. We need to sign Trouba and the RFAs. And I'd prefer to be able to lock up Buch and DeAngelo to more than bridge deals, if possible, because it saves a ton of money long term.

If we need buyouts to do that, then do it. If we can trade away Names and Strome for futures, so much the better.

And if we can trade away Names and Strome for futures, AND trade away Kreider + Buch + a middle-of-our-system defensive prospect (like Hajek or Lindgren) for a young top 6 center, then I'm ecstatic and I'm kicking in kickstarter money to build a statue of Jeff Gorton outside MSG.

i appreciate the novel you wrote lol. But when did i ever say that signing Panarin or other impact free agents was not my plan or that i didnt want to. Im all for the Panarin signing, ive made it absolutely clear every time ive posted that its a game plan of mine to clear out the full cap hits of players so that we can take advantage of teams that dont have cap space to sign THEIR impact RFAs and trade for them like we did with Trouba so we can sign them to a long term deal. Barzal is a RFA, Keller is an RFA. Both would solve our center issue. My statement is putting more dead cap space doesnt allow us that flexibility. Im for trading names for pennies on the dollar bc we are doing it for the cap space not the return. Krieder we can debate at nauseum.

Please pay more attention to what im saying, if youre going to say what you did from the start, the first few paragraphs should NOT have been directed towards me.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: egelband
Panarin
Zib
Buch
Kakko
Kravtsov
Howden
Andersson
Chytil
Lemmy
Boo (RFA 700k now)
Strome in this scenario

This gives us 11F. They usually carry 13/8, therefore we would only need 2 F, we already have 8 D under contract with ELCs. It's possible a youngster gets called up and wins a spot on the roster, which would be another player

As a corollary, if we do sign ADA to a 1 year deal, it will likely be at a price close to his QO. If that is the case we may not need to trade/retain a forward to make space for him, or potentially even not use a buyout. In either situation we will have more money to work with to extend him.

No matter which way you slice it, barring a very stupid move/contract, we will have 0 issues with cap compliance next offseason.

Fair enough, i guess we will see what happens. But i believe in Gorton and JD that they know what they are doing for the future of this franchise and we are all just along for the ride ha.
 
It's a scare tactic when it's a repeated high pitched shriek about what Shattenkirk will cost you. You were obviously wrong on Adam Fox.

You're making my point for me. Look at all those players the Rangers went short term on before Shattenkirk was around. What makes you think if Shattenkirk wasn't around they would go long term on:
- Buchnevich, who they appear to have issues keeping him motivated
- DeAngelo, who it's unclear how much they like having him around, or
- Lemieux, a veteran of 72 NHL games

I agree the Rangers should go long-term to RFAs more often. Not indiscriminately though. There's risk there. Toronto found a dumb team to take on Zaitsev, that doesn't mean every bad contract you give to a player in his 20s will be let off the hook.

You must confuse me with someone else on the Fox thing. Or? Have I said that Fox wouldn’t sign with us if we didn’t trade Shatty first? What I know that I’ve said is that we have problems attracting the top young free agents due to the log-jam at defense, like Butcher.

And what do you mean with high pitched shriek? One thing annoys me a bit, and that is that many argued that Shatty would prove everyone wrong and others said wait a minute, there are issues too. Now if you keep arguing the point that Shatty should be traded — it bugs the heck out of all former Shatty supporters. Is that my problem/fault? I didn’t force anyone to call out everyone who didn’t understand that Shatty was a very good No 1 D. I have never called out any of the posters who ridiculed me for not seeing that Shatty was a great skater and what not.

I don’t see anyone claiming that what I write about Smith or Staal is made with a “high pitched shriek”, is it just when I have the stomach to call out someone like Shatty that I cross the line? For me it seems totally random. And it’s not like I feel that I stick out that much just for calling out a player, this place is usually full of posters that doesn’t like certain players like say Girardi or Glass and so forth. For me it’s just odd when you guys attack me every single time i mention Shatty in a post. Not looking to start some long back and forth argument, I just ask because I don’t get this.

In addition, we bridged those guys when we had zero cap space. Right? When we had capspace we signed Skjei to a 6 year deal. Some of those contracts would have been longer if we had cap space.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: egelband
They gave Skjei 6 years and a year later half this board wants to trade him.

Yeah, but isn’t a big difference that we for the entire duration of Skjei’s contract can opt to do just that?

Like Toronto can move Zaitsev, I just think that Buch/ADA totally would have to collapse to become untradeable at the age of 23 to 28. And of course, I don’t know someone like ADA. Does some warning signs go off? Sure. But if he is a cancer — we should of course not resign him to a 6 year deal, but instead move him as fast as possible. But Gorton must be able to make those calls.
 
Burdasov reportedly made his choice so we are probably waiting for a cap compliance deal from one of the three teams in for him (us, Philly, and Fla) until the deal is announced, I’m guessing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: egelband and Ola
You must confuse me with someone else on the Fox thing. Or? Have I said that Fox wouldn’t sign with us if we didn’t trade Shatty first? What I know that I’ve said is that we have problems attracting the top young free agents due to the log-jam at defense, like Butcher.

And what do you mean with high pitched shriek? One thing annoys me a bit, and that is that many argued that Shatty would prove everyone wrong and others said wait a minute, there are issues too. Now if you keep arguing the point that Shatty should be traded — it bugs the heck out of all former Shatty supporters. Is that my problem/fault? I didn’t force anyone to call out everyone who didn’t understand that Shatty was a very good No 1 D. I have never called out any of the posters who ridiculed me for not seeing that Shatty was a great skater and what not.

I don’t see anyone claiming that what I write about Smith or Staal is made with a “high pitched shriek”, is it just when I have the stomach to call out someone like Shatty that I cross the line? For me it seems totally random. And it’s not like I feel that I stick out that much just for calling out a player, this place is usually full of posters that doesn’t like certain players like say Girardi or Glass and so forth. For me it’s just odd when you guys attack me every single time i mention Shatty in a post. Not looking to start some long back and forth argument, I just ask because I don’t get this.

In addition, we bridged those guys when we had zero cap space. Right? When we had capspace we signed Skjei to a 6 year deal. Some of those contracts would have been longer if we had cap space.
Not confusing you with anyone else, no.

Speculation: - Roster Building Thread: Part XXXI

Ola said:
If we can trade Shatty, great. Will Adam Fox sign here if we are set at RD and got there guys who can play PP there? Nope, I can basically guarantee you that he won’t.
 
giphy.gif
 
Fair enough, i guess we will see what happens. But i believe in Gorton and JD that they know what they are doing for the future of this franchise and we are all just along for the ride ha.

You and I are of one mind here. Whatever the outcome of this off seasons capcrunch, I trust they will make the best decision they can.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chalfdiggity3
As far as looking at the Zaitsev trade and using that as the yardstick for getting out from bad commitments, that's a dangerous game. It's like when this board would compare every trade proposal against the Gomez trade. Sometimes you don't find a sucker.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ola
As far as looking at the Zaitsev trade and using that as the yardstick for getting out from bad commitments, that's a dangerous game. It's like when this board would compare every trade proposal against the Gomez trade. Sometimes you don't find a sucker.

Fair, but it seems reasonable to believe that it is significantly easier to get out from a “bad deal” for a mid-tier cap hit for a “young ish” player that includes UFA years and ends at 30-32 than a UFA anchor deal owned by a player that extends through age 34-36.

It’s seems to be lot easier to justify taking a chance on a player like, I don’t know, JT Miller, “developing” at 26 with a ~$5M cap hit. Those players get moved, even if they are slightly overpaid, in Zaitsev’s case very overpaid.
 
Burdasov reportedly made his choice so we are probably waiting for a cap compliance deal from one of the three teams in for him (us, Philly, and Fla) until the deal is announced, I’m guessing.
Why would we need to make a cap compliance deal for him? We have more than enough room to sign him now.
 

Lol, that was before we traded for him and in relation to if he became a UFA next August?

Do you think he would have signed with a team next summer that didn’t guarantee him a spot in the NHL? Come on... ;)

@Irishguy42 You guys attack me all the time. Is that fair? There is no way he would have signed with a team that didn’t have an opening.

You are one guy who ridiculed everyone who didn’t think Shatty would be a great No 1 D. Is that my fault? Why do you need to take that out on me?
 
  • Like
Reactions: egelband
Lol, that was before we traded for him and in relation to if he became a UFA next August?

Do you think he would have signed with a team next summer that didn’t guarantee him a spot in the NHL? Come on... ;)
He wanted the Rangers specifically now. Why wouldn't he then?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ola
Because unlike the majority of people here, real GMs worry about tomorrow.
I don't really understand your point.

We have a cap crunch, that's a reality with or without Burdasov in the picture. Cap compliance moves will be coming one way or another. It seems unlikely to me that Burdasov would agree to sign with a club based on a promise that the team would eventually be able to work out its cap problems.

I could be wrong, though.
 
He wanted the Rangers specifically now. Why wouldn't he then?

Thirty one teams in the league would be bidding for him if he was a UFA next summer, thirty would have guaranteed him a spot in the NHL, you think he would go play in the AHL? It would have surprised me at least.

But who knows, maybe he would have. He is supposedly a NYR fan. Don’t know if it’s worth to make a big deal about though, and I definitely think the situation changed a lot after we traded for him and he could go to a place he wanted to go to a year before he could go anywhere else. Given what we gave up for him, it’s a clear sign that we weren’t planning on having him in the AHL going into next season. JMHO. And thanks for the civil response!
 
  • Like
Reactions: egelband
As far as looking at the Zaitsev trade and using that as the yardstick for getting out from bad commitments, that's a dangerous game. It's like when this board would compare every trade proposal against the Gomez trade. Sometimes you don't find a sucker.

Yeah I agree, and that is a fair point for sure.

But do I think it’s fair to say that it is a lot easier to trade someone that is 25 y/o with 4 years left on a contract and that is very talented — despite the player not having the best season behind him — than a 32 y/o in the same position? Definitely. I believe that the risk of signing a 23 y/o to a 6 year deal is a lot lower than doing the same with a 28 y/o. And it’s telling that it’s hard to find one single untradeable contract covering years 23-28 in the entire NHL, where there are a ton of 30+ players that have negative value.

But I can’t “prove” it, just my take on it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: egelband
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad