Speculation: Roster Building Thread LVI: Artemi, where art thou? In NY.

[Inferno]

And not focusing enough attention on putting together a good D to go along with their great forwards.

Yep. But that's no need to let a what...23 year old elite winger walk.

I'd rather have marner at 12.5 for 7 years than panarin at 11.6 for 7 years

 

[Tawnos]

Yep. But that's no need to let a what...23 year old elite winger walk.

I'd rather have marner at 12.5 for 7 years than panarin at 11.6 for 7 years

Me too, though I'd rather have Panarin at 11.6 for 7 years and 4 first round picks than Marner at 12.5 for 7 years and no 1st round picks for 4 years.

Either way, Toronto did manage to address their D somewhat in the Kadri trade.

 

[DutchShamrock]

I don't think Lou would offersheet to acquire Marner, he would do it to mess up the Leafs' situation. Marner wants Matthews money and a term around 5 years. Leafs want 8 years or an AAV under Matthews.

Lou can give Marner anything up to $13 or $14m with the 10% summer overage. 5 years. Leafs will match, dump Nylander and probably a depth guy to just get compliant enough to match. Or Horton's contract with another huge sweetener. Marner will hit UFA at the same time as Matthews. Then they will have to do more work to just complete the roster. Lou is competing with the leafs to win a cup now. He is 77, he got kicked to the curb by an upstart. He doesn't have to worry about future cap hell or retribution.

 

[NYR Viper]

4 years ago the Rangers were in the ECF. It's impossible to predict, and too big a risk. No team is going to give up four 1st round picks. It's never going to happen

This is not entirely factual in comparing the situations though. What is still on the roster from those (4) 1st rounders? Trading 4 st rounders for rentals is an entirely different concept than trading 4 1st rounders for a 22 year old superstar in Marner.

I'm not saying it's a smart approach, just that they can't really be compared simply

 

[dapowl]

Yep. But that's no need to let a what...23 year old elite winger walk.

I'd rather have marner at 12.5 for 7 years than panarin at 11.6 for 7 years

*12,5 x 7 without 4 1st rounders (2020 21 22 23)

 

[GAGLine]

Someone’s filing for arbitration today which gives them another buyout window

Deal Smith for Gagner and buy 1 yr of Gagner out

I don't think Edmonton would do that. They need every bit of offense they can get. Even if they would, we wouldn't be able to buy out Gagner. To buy out a player outside the regular buyout period, that player has to be on the team's reserve list as of that last trade deadline:

Moreover, a Club shall not be entitled to exercise an Ordinary Course Buy-Out outside the regular period for: (i) any Player who was not on the Club's Reserve List as of the most recent Trade Deadline

If we are trading with Edmonton and not sending them a forward, then Shatty might be the guy, since he can provide some offense on the PP at least. We'd have to take back Russell though, or one or both of Manning and Benning. With Russell, we'd save 2.65 mil both this year and next. 3.725 mil if we bury him. With Manning and Benning, we'd save 2.4 mil, but we could bury them both, saving another 2.15 mil.

 

[FIRE DRURY]

Kreider isn’t a “unicorn.” Every player is expendable. Despite his inconsistencies, he still scored 28 goals last season on a bad team. Which is why, me included, some of us want to see what he does with this roster this season with his $4.6 million cap hit.

It shouldn't matter what he does. Kreider shouldn't be in our long term plans. Not with Panarin on the roster plus all the winger prospects we have.

I’ve already made this point in multiple threads. If Marc Staal AND Brendan Smith are here on opening night and Kreider isn’t, specifically for cap reasons, and they needed to “dump him” to get under for whatever the return is, it’s dumb. He makes $4.6 million in his final season. If they trade a top-six forward before unloading the dead weight, via buy out or, in Smith’s case, attaching a draft pick/prospect in a trade, they are essentially making this season a much more uphill battle.

Staal and Smith are contracts we likely can't move. Staal has a full NMC, and Smith has negative value. If they're on the roster next season it's because we're stuck with them. Kreider on the other hand does have value.

Look at the dumb contract Hayes got. Kreider will get around that.

They absolutely can make the playoffs as constructed this season. Trading Kreider is way different than trading Hayes/Zucc. Last year’s team was never going anywhere. This year, we are going to get a significant look at just how much further we came along in regard to reaching the Cup goal. If the Rangers don’t take advantage of playing guys like Zibanejad/Kreider with the cap hits they have and trying to take step forwards with the kids on ELCs, they’re going to be the Winnipeg Jets AKA where everything comes together for that one fruitful season, and that’s that. Then... everybody needs to get paid, and when you accumulate so many assets, they all can’t get paid.

This years team might finish lower than last years team. You're concerned about making the playoffs, where my biggest concern is seeing some type of forward development with our young guns. That's the only thing that matters next year. Progress and growth for our prospects.

There's a reason JD and Gorton have continuously preached patience, patience, and more patience.

At this point, moving Kreider for a 2nd and a prospect or a first doesn’t move the needle for me, at all. It won’t move the needle for the team next season either. Kreider is that rare case where he is way too talented not to see what he can do with a vastly improved roster. BTW, he is absolutely NOT Ryan Callahan. Two entirely different players. People cried about Callahan because he was the “captain” and felt like that was bad juju. There is no guarantee Kreider ages well.... but there is also no guarantee everybody is 100% wrong on that and he remains consistent through his early 30s. Every player is different. If he gets traded and churns out 4/5 straight 60-point seasons while possibly playing for a contender, this forum won’t stop crying about it.

Like everything, it’s a calculated risk. They should retain him until the trade deadline. If they’re in the midst of a postseason return, keep him aboard.

You want to talk about calculated risks? What if CK gets injured this season? What if he's hurt during the deadline? We lose a prime asset and let him walk for nothing.

As talented as you claim Kreider is, tell me when he has taken control of games? When has he been that guy that teams prioritize shutting down in order to win?

I didn't want Panarin, but he's at least a game breaker. He's talented enough where he can change the flow of a game. He's talented enough where he can makes his linemates better.

My Callahan comment wasn't so much about his play on the ice. It's more about people getting attached to players. The people here who whined about Callahan getting moved would have gladly offered him the contract Tampa did. Remind me what Callahan accomplished in Tampa? They regretted that contract immediately and we knew how Callahan was going to break down. But even if he didn't, he never would have been worth that much money.

Neither will CK.

 

[NernieBichols]

Hey maybe like everything else this summer..... this will turn into a ranger coup. Lou sends a. Offer sheet, we get nlyander for 70 cents on the dollar, so dubas can match

(No, I have no idea about the leafs summer cap or if they can match an offersheet as they stand without shedding contracts)

 

[NYR Viper]

Also, someone pointed out that there is a salary cap hit minimum for the player being bought out in the 2nd window and I don't believe Gagner reaches that

 

[NYR Viper]

Gorton should really be pushing to create cap space however it's possible at this point.

 

[RGY]

This is not entirely factual in comparing the situations though. What is still on the roster from those (4) 1st rounders? Trading 4 st rounders for rentals is an entirely different concept than trading 4 1st rounders for a 22 year old superstar in Marner.

I'm not saying it's a smart approach, just that they can't really be compared simply

I cant get behind giving up (4) 1st rounders for one player.

Ive said it before this is how you fail in the NHL. The teams that stay in contention for several years are the ones that can fill the bottom lines with cheap young talent on ELCs. You likely wont have that available if you offer sheet Marner and surrender the four 1sts.

 

[Amazing Kreiderman]

This is not entirely factual in comparing the situations though. What is still on the roster from those (4) 1st rounders? Trading 4 st rounders for rentals is an entirely different concept than trading 4 1st rounders for a 22 year old superstar in Marner.

I'm not saying it's a smart approach, just that they can't really be compared simply

There are so many examples though. Tampa went from winning the Cup to picking top-3 twice in the next 5 years. Edmonton went from playing in the Cup final to picking 1st overall 4 years later, and then picking top-3 a few more times in the 5 years afterwards.

I am sure I can find more examples. It just shows that the parity in the NHL, makes it really hard to predict where you are 4-5 years from now. This is why we will never see an offer sheet for four 1st round picks

 

[Tawnos]

Gorton should really be pushing to create cap space however it's possible at this point.

He does need someone to file for arbitration, but otherwise most of our trade chips are forwards. There are still a bunch out there in UFA, and then others who are being eyed for offer sheets. I'm sure the trade market is soft right now.

 

[NYR Viper]

I cant get behind giving up (4) 1st rounders for one player.

Ive said it before this is how you fail in the NHL. The teams that stay in contention for several years are the ones that can fill the bottom lines with cheap young talent on ELCs. You likely wont have that available if you offer sheet Marner and surrender the four 1sts.

I agree, I wouldn't take that approach, however, comparing the Rangers sending out (4) 1st rounders for rentals to a team like the Isles who would be getting a 22 year old superstar for his entire prime (most likely) seems like apples and oranges

 

[Inferno]

Me too, though I'd rather have Panarin at 11.6 for 7 years and 4 first round picks than Marner at 12.5 for 7 years and no 1st round picks for 4 years.

Either way, Toronto did manage to address their D somewhat in the Kadri trade.

Yes but that's an anti Lou argument...I'm saying the leafs will match no matter what

 

[Tawnos]

Yes but that's an anti Lou argument...I'm saying the leafs will match no matter what

Seems likely, yeah. I hope it happens, just because it'd be interesting to see. The Aho one was too.

 

[NYR Viper]

There are so many examples though. Tampa went from winning the Cup to picking top-3 twice in the next 5 years. Edmonton went from playing in the Cup final to picking 1st overall 4 years later, and then picking top-3 a few more times in the 5 years afterwards.

I am sure I can find more examples. It just shows that the parity in the NHL, makes it really hard to predict where you are 4-5 years from now. This is why we will never see an offer sheet for four 1st round picks

Wouldn't there be more examples of perennial contenders than teams bouncing in and out of the playoffs like that? The specific circumstances would need to be looked at and, for example TB, would they have bounced to the top-5 if they had already offer-sheeted a guy like Marner?

I am not saying I would employ the strategy, just that it's not as black and white as we are all making it out to be. Getting a guy like Marner for (4) 1st rounders would be a franchise changer no matter how you slice it.

 

[Amazing Kreiderman]

I agree, I wouldn't take that approach, however, comparing the Rangers sending out (4) 1st rounders for rentals to a team like the Isles who would be getting a 22 year old superstar for his entire prime (most likely) seems like apples and oranges

I was not even mentioning those picks. I was just referring to the Rangers going from the ECF to the 2nd overall pick in 4 years. There was never even talk of a rebuild, until the letter was sent in 2018.

 

[FIRE DRURY]

If we were stacked and our core was signed long-term, then maaaaaybe it might make sense considering those 1st rounders will be late picks. But no rebuilding team should consider moving 4 1st's. Ouch.

 

[NYR Viper]

Seems likely, yeah. I hope it happens, just because it'd be interesting to see. The Aho one was too.

I agree with this 100%. It would definitely make things more exciting and I would love to see Dubas on the hot seat.

 

[RGY]

I agree, I wouldn't take that approach, however, comparing the Rangers sending out (4) 1st rounders for rentals to a team like the Isles who would be getting a 22 year old superstar for his entire prime (most likely) seems like apples and oranges

It is. But still the concept of giving up (4) 1sts overall is a bad one no matter who the player is unless its McDavid. And in this case it isnt.

Marner isnt even a center. So now you are stuck with two elite wingers in Marner and Barzal. Barzal is going to want similar money to Marner too once this happens. Who is playing center for them? Who is playing on their 3rd and 4th line? Even their defense?

You would have to bank on finding diamonds in rounds 2 through 7. Not a good plan.

 

[Amazing Kreiderman]

Wouldn't there be more examples of perennial contenders than teams bouncing in and out of the playoffs like that? The specific circumstances would need to be looked at and, for example TB, would they have bounced to the top-5 if they had already offer-sheeted a guy like Marner?

I am not saying I would employ the strategy, just that it's not as black and white as we are all making it out to be. Getting a guy like Marner for (4) 1st rounders would be a franchise changer no matter how you slice it.

That doesn't change the fact that there are quite a few teams over the years who went from "1st to worst" so to speak in 4-5 years. Just because some teams avoided that scenario, doesn't mean you can completely ignore it

 

[Inferno]

There are so many examples though. Tampa went from winning the Cup to picking top-3 twice in the next 5 years. Edmonton went from playing in the Cup final to picking 1st overall 4 years later, and then picking top-3 a few more times in the 5 years afterwards.

I am sure I can find more examples. It just shows that the parity in the NHL, makes it really hard to predict where you are 4-5 years from now. This is why we will never see an offer sheet for four 1st round picks

But you're speaking In absolute terms without factoring that GM's need to save their jobs, that owners want playoff revenue etc.

It's not always about the big picture.

 

[FIRE DRURY]

I am not saying I would employ the strategy, just that it's not as black and white as we are all making it out to be. Getting a guy like Marner for (4) 1st rounders would be a franchise changer no matter how you slice it.

Drafting a kid like Lafreniere, Byfield, Holtz, Raymond, or Perfetti can also be a franchise changer, but at a fraction of the cost + the additional 1st round picks for the following three years.

 

[NYR Viper]

I was not even mentioning those picks. I was just referring to the Rangers going from the ECF to the 2nd overall pick in 4 years. There was never even talk of a rebuild, until the letter was sent in 2018.

Yes but you used them as an example of a team dropping (4) 1st rounders and bouncing from competing to top-2.

There isn't really a precedent of this happening anywhere. What type of effect would Marner have on any contending team? How would that effect those next (4) 1st rounders?

4 years ago the Rangers were in the ECF. It's impossible to predict, and too big a risk. No team is going to give up four 1st round picks. It's never going to happen

I was following up on this post. Yes, the Rangers dropped to top-2, but if they had instead used those past (4) 1st rounders on a player like Marner, their fortunes most likely would have changed.

All I'm saying is that it's not as cut and dry as to say it's not a good idea. Would a team like San Jose (if they had the cap space) not be better ff offer-sheeting a guy like Marner in lieu of drafting in the latter parts of the 1st round for (4) years in a row? Would Pittsburgh have been better off doing that 3-4 years ago? What about Washington? There seem to be, or have been, teams in the past where it would have made some sense due to the position of their team. Again, this would all be predicated by having the cap space to do something like this.