Speculation: Roster Building Thread LVII: On to Arbitration & the 2nd Buyout Window

[NYR Viper]

Even if we trade Kreider, other pieces need to fall for Buch (or DeAngelo) to sign long-term deals.

I think the majority here would prefer 4+ years for both. Whether that will be possible is another question.

I would be more inclined to give DeAngelo a short contract, 1-2 years, to see if he can reproduce his production from last year again. I think he would take that and it would kick the can down the road a bit until the big contracts are off the books.

 

[The Crypto Guy]

I would be more inclined to give DeAngelo a short contract, 1-2 years, to see if he can reproduce his production from last year again. I think he would take that and it would kick the can down the road a bit until the big contracts are off the books.

That's likely what will happen but i'd be very nervous he puts up 2 back to back 50 point seasons while playing steady defense...then he's going to get a kings randsom.

Rather try and give him 4-5 years at 3.5M per or something but I doubt he bites on that.

 

[Irishguy42]

Athletic story about Gusev: Trade or sign Nikita Gusev? Key factors the Golden Knights...

Rangers 2020 2nd is currently in limbo due to the Fox deal. So perhaps do a 2021 2nd and a couple of later picks to compensate for a later year, or two prospects instead of picks. Something.

Price seems do-able.

 

[FoxysExpensiveNYDigs]

We aren't going to have the Toronto problem when our young studs are t the end of their ELC, the cap will soar and we have all the dead weight gone. Again, this is why it is so important that we do not buy out any of the dead weight now and let their ghosts haunt us down the road. Trade Names, Kreider and one of the RFA's (if need be). JUST SAY NO TO BUY OUTS!

The problem with the cap will soar thinking is that as the cap goes up, so do the contracts. IMO it's better to think of contracts/negotiating as a % of cap.

 

[I Eat Crow]

Just remember...

Kane and Toews won the Stanley Cup in their third season. On entry level contracts.

The Rangers have no where near the supporting cast for Kakko and Kravtsov as Kane and Toews did in Chicago when they won in 2010.

 

[I Eat Crow]

Athletic story about Gusev: Trade or sign Nikita Gusev? Key factors the Golden Knights...

Rangers 2020 2nd is currently in limbo due to the Fox deal. So perhaps do a 2021 2nd and a couple of later picks to compensate for a later year, or two prospects instead of picks. Something.

Price seems do-able.

Gusev would have been a very solid plan B if Panarin went elsewhere. Think they fill the same role which would make Gusev redundant here.

Don't think the Rangers have the cap space for his reported asking price anyway.

 

[mas0764]

The issue with those contracts is that the Rangers don't get the added benefit of using their highly skilled young players on their ELC's while augmenting their core for the next 2-3 year because of those contracts. Basically, they waste the ELC's of Kakko, Kravtsov, Andersson, Chytil, and others as they are handcuffed from adding due to Staal, Smith, Shattenkirk and Hank.

Not ideal, but it's the world they live in currently.

True, but we just kinda did that by adding Panarin.

That is the sacrifice we made; not some misguided fear that we sacrificed being able to keep some other top player like Chytil or Kravtsov in 3-4 years.

We just hamstrung ourselves from importing any other big name free agents in the next couple years for similar money. Oh well. We gambled that Panarin is better than any option that will be available to us in that time.

We are probably right.

 

[mas0764]

I want to sign Buch long term and trade Kreider. That would have been my plan all along going into the off season.

I kinda want to see if I can package Buch for a young, cost controlled top 6 center prospect.

But absent that, if I can extend Buch long term, it would be great. Giving him a long term deal now would look like peanuts in 3 years, if we can swing it.

 

[Russian Collusion]

The problem with the cap will soar thinking is that as the cap goes up, so do the contracts. IMO it's better to think of contracts/negotiating as a % of cap.

The contracts will surely go up but that won't be immediate.

 

[mas0764]

We aren't going to have the Toronto problem when our young studs are t the end of their ELC, the cap will soar and we have all the dead weight gone. Again, this is why it is so important that we do not buy out any of the dead weight now and let their ghosts haunt us down the road. Trade Names, Kreider and one of the RFA's (if need be). JUST SAY NO TO BUY OUTS!

Yep, this is pretty much exactly what I’ve been arguing for the past 24 hours, and it is what will happen. Book it.

We have to belt tighten for the next two seasons, but after that, we are golden. We will have 29-30 year old Panarin, plenty of cap space, and a dominant Kakko/Kravtsov.

We are in great shape.

If we can extend some guys before the cap spike, we will be in amazing shape.

Trade Namestnikov for anything, like Vesey. Trade Kreider for a prospect and a first; or, include him in a package with Buch and a prospect for a top center prospect coming back.

We are fine either way.

 

[Amazing Kreiderman]

Gusev would have been a very solid plan B if Panarin went elsewhere. Think they fill the same role which would make Gusev redundant here.

Don't think the Rangers have the cap space for his reported asking price anyway.

He can replace Kreider

 

[Russian Collusion]

I wish the rest of the league would help us get out of bad contracts like they do for Tampa and Toronto or how they used to do for Pittsburgh.

 

[Irishguy42]

The problem with the cap will soar thinking is that as the cap goes up, so do the contracts. IMO it's better to think of contracts/negotiating as a % of cap.

Which is why you do your long-term deals for your good players NOW and not later when they see the cap has risen and want a bigger CH%

As for your second point, I believe Friedman or another pundit said that players were looking more towards using CH% in their negotiations as of late, which is good.

 

[mas0764]

Athletic story about Gusev: Trade or sign Nikita Gusev? Key factors the Golden Knights...

Rangers 2020 2nd is currently in limbo due to the Fox deal. So perhaps do a 2021 2nd and a couple of later picks to compensate for a later year, or two prospects instead of picks. Something.

Price seems do-able.

Someone is gonna have to explain to me the infatuation with adding this guy. As far as I can tell he’s a 26 year old winger who has never played in the NHL before. What’s his projection? Can he possibly be any better than Buch here? Isn’t that a little of a gamble?

I just don’t see the need or the fit for this guy. We need centers. Even if Chytil and Andersson are centers, our wing depth is Kakko, Panarin, Kravtsov, Buch in our top 6. Where does this guy fit?

And we already need to move about $6m-$8m out without taking back salary to resign all our RFAs. That’s like Kreider and Namestnikov for futures. Bringing in Gusev means we need to come up with another $4m+ and probably REQUIRES buyouts.

 

[FoxysExpensiveNYDigs]

Which is why you do your long-term deals for your good players NOW and not later when they see the cap has risen and want a bigger CH%

As for your second point, I believe Friedman or another pundit said that players were looking more towards using CH% in their negotiations as of late, which is good.

That's definitely the goal. To play devils advocate if/when player agents believe the cap will spike, they will advise their clients to hold off on signing long term. It's a delicate game.

 

[Fitzy]

Someone is gonna have to explain to me the infatuation with adding this guy. As far as I can tell he’s a 26 year old winger who has never played in the NHL before. What’s his projection? Can he possibly be any better than Buch here? Isn’t that a little of a gamble?

I just don’t see the need or the fit for this guy. We need centers. Even if Chytil and Andersson are centers, our wing depth is Kakko, Panarin, Kravtsov, Buch in our top 6. Where does this guy fit?

And we already need to move about $6m-$8m out without taking back salary to resign all our RFAs. That’s like Kreider and Namestnikov for futures. Bringing in Gusev means we need to come up with another $4m+ and probably REQUIRES buyouts.

It is, but if you look at his KHL and, as importantly, his international stats, you can understand. He has shredded the competition at the WC and olympics.

It's a gamble, but people see him as potentially another 60-80 point player.

Oh and BTW happy 27th birthday Nikita.

 

[mas0764]

Which is why you do your long-term deals for your good players NOW and not later when they see the cap has risen and want a bigger CH%

As for your second point, I believe Friedman or another pundit said that players were looking more towards using CH% in their negotiations as of late, which is good.

Which also really means it probably makes sense to buy out a guy; if it allows you to lock up someone like Buch or DeAngelo long term right now.

Because in 3-4 years, they will be making peanuts on their deal.

 

[JimmyG89]

Gusev could become Panarin 2.0. Honestly, Vegas should be clearing space to sign him, not trade him to another team. Rangers should be all over this. Someway, somehow. His KHL numbers should translate very well to the NHL. The other RFAs have some implications on this, but if we somehow got Gusev to go with our young wingers + Panarin, we could thrive with the current state of our centers.

 

[redwhiteandblue]

Seattle is a much, much bigger TV market than Vegas. That’s the main reason it was so desireable to the NHL. Just outside top 10 DMAs while Vegas was 41st ranked last time I looked. Seattle will also benefit from having great hockey towns Portland and Spokane in the vicinity as well as being two hours from Canada.

And not relevant to this point but interesting to note...Washington state has no income tax ( like Florida, Nevada. Texas etc.)

My media associates tell me NHL TV revenue will double at a minimum and probably go higher than that. The league is looking at having 3-5 different packages for networks to bid on (2 regular season including a once a week Hockey night designed for ESPN, 2 playoff packages (by conference) and SC Final for broadcast networks)

The TV deal and the way they are approaching it, if true, is a sigh of relief. They need to broaden the game.

Has the game really grown to the point though that ESPN is all of the sudden back on board and willing to ante up? They wanted nothing to do with being fair or paying the league, hence why they took the OLN deal. It definitely had its pros and cons.

Seattle being a bigger TV market is great, makes the team more marketable but aren't we really talking profit here? Ticket sales. Revenue. The Cap increasing. The Cap isn't some popularity board in a high school lunch room. TV ratings will be great and expand the brand of that team and the game in that region, but are we really saying the greater improvement on the Cap is going to be a team in Seattle with great TV ratings or a cash cow market like Las Vegas going on a Cup run and leading to an insanely popular team. Being the first team in Vegas, I would safely assume, has more of a profound effect on the Cap then potential TV ratings.

I'm not saying the league is in bad shape but there seems to be a lot being propped up behind the idea of the Cap going up. I'm not sure if its a poor representation of these aspects or if I'm completely missing something. Either way, I understand and embrace the right TV deal is going to boost the Cap but I'm going to need a bit more than TV ratings and a supportive market space for someone to tell me that Seattle is going to have a greater impact on the Cap and game then the first ever pro sports team in Vegas.

I'm not buying that and it's been propped up very heavily behind the whole point of the Cap increasing.

No one is going to argue whether the right TV deal will benefit the Cap. No shit, basic economics. Just seems almost false pretenses or hyperbolic trying to convince a group to follow you when your #2 point is kind of moot.

Maybe I'm wrong, I don't think I am, but I keep an open mind and I certainly don't know it all.

Thanks for the reply though.

 

[Oscar Lindberg]

I like Gusev but don’t see how he fits if he actually wants 4 million a year

Not feasible to take him on right now

 

[Avery16]

He can replace Kreider

Those dollars are already earmarked

 

[GoAwayPanarin]

He can replace Kreider

He won't fit under the cap unless they move Kreider and Namesnikov with no salary coming back AND buy one of Shatt/Staal out (with smith going to the minors.)

Thats a ton of moving parts.

 

[Amazing Kreiderman]

He won't fit under the cap unless they move Kreider and Namesnikov with no salary coming back AND buy one of Shatt/Staal out (with smith going to the minors.)

Thats a ton of moving parts.

Trade Kreider to Colorado, Namestnikov to Edmonton, Strome to any team willing to bite.

It can definitely work.

 

[GoAwayPanarin]

Trade Kreider to Colorado, Namestnikov to Edmonton, Strome to any team willing to bite.

It can definitely work.

Gusev is an older player with significant pro experience, but you'd be running a forward line up with more than half of it comprised of 1st or 2nd year players (Howden, Chytil, Lias, Kakko, Kravstov, Gusev, Lemieux.)

By moving Strome and Namesnikov, you've also essentially nuked your safety nets down the middle.

As others have said he would have been a solid plan B, but it doesn't make much sense to add him now IMO. Plus the addition of him would make us too Tampa Bay Lightning-y, We should be trying to avoid that.

 

[Amazing Kreiderman]

Gusev is an older player with significant pro experience, but you'd be running a forward line up with more than half of it comprised of 1st or 2nd year players (Howden, Chytil, Lias, Kakko, Kravstov, Gusev, Lemieux.)

By moving Strome and Namesnikov, you've also essentially nuked your safety nets down the middle.

As others have said he would have been a solid plan B, but it doesn't make much sense to add him now IMO. Plus the addition of him would make us too Tampa Bay Lightning-y, We should be trying to avoid that.

Gusev is turning 27 next week.