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

[GoAwayPanarin]

Gusev is turning 27 next week.

I know, but he'd still be a 1st year NHL'er.

Have we been confirmed as showing interest?

 

[Bruner4329]

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.

So everyone on this Board complains about the bad contracts we have and yet you want to give this guy a 4-5 year deal based on half a season of playing well? How about waiting to see if he can do it for a whole season before we start dishing out multi-year contracts. I would be more nervous if we signed him for 4-5 years and he was a bust.

 

[Raspewtin]

So everyone on this Board complains about the bad contracts we have and yet you want to give this guy a 4-5 year deal based on half a season of playing well? How about waiting to see if he can do it for a whole season before we start dishing out multi-year contracts. I would be more nervous if we signed him for 4-5 years and he was a bust.

if he would fall flat on his face, and there was no way to get him into a better situation, I imagine we'd mutually agree to terminate the deal and he'd return to the KHL. there is precedent.

 

[Amazing Kreiderman]

I know, but he'd still be a 1st year NHL'er.

Have we been confirmed as showing interest?

Gusev has played professional hockey for 9 years. In Russia. Saying he's a 1st year NHL'er is factually correct but it's hardly the same as Kakko, Kravtsov or Fox

 

[The Crypto Guy]

So everyone on this Board complains about the bad contracts we have and yet you want to give this guy a 4-5 year deal based on half a season of playing well? How about waiting to see if he can do it for a whole season before we start dishing out multi-year contracts. I would be more nervous if we signed him for 4-5 years and he was a bust.

I guess some people can just see potential and when a players has "it". DeAngelo has "it".

All contracts are gambles. One side isn't going to get bent over backwards. If he is a 50 point defenseman we will be laughing to the bank with that deal. If we give him a 1-2 year deal then he will be the one laughing to the bank when his contract is up. You take the risk. This isn't your NHL 19 game.

 

[NoQuitInNewMexico]

I think they could go after Gusev if they don't really believe in Buchnevich. Which, hey, isn't far away from where I'm from. But these kinds of things where you have to make 2-3 deals to clear salary first don't happen very often. Chances are, half the league is looking at Goose.

 

[haveandare]

I think they could go after Gusev if they don't really believe in Buchnevich. Which, hey, isn't far away from where I'm from. But these kinds of things where you have to make 2-3 deals to clear salary first don't happen very often. Chances are, half the league is looking at Goose.

Buch definitely leaves me wanting more too often but he's also 3 years younger and a proven NHL player. What's to suggest Gusev isn't a Shipachyov type scenario?

 

[mas0764]

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 ****, 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.

I don’t think anyone has been “propping up very heavily” the Seattle team as the main reason the cap is going up. It’s a factor.

If you are referring to my posts, I did not mean to imply it was anything more than a factor, and one which should be positive.

The biggest thing by far should be the new TV deal, which is going to be very, very large relative to what the league currently has.

Really, people should have to explain why the cap ISN’T going to go up. Saying “we don’t know” is a cop out. We are playing odds and projections.... the current wisdom is, the TV deal will be huge and the cap will rise dramatically compared to what we are used to. It happened in the NBA, it will see the same thing, speaking in terms of percentages, when the NHL gets their deal.

In theory, the economy could crash tomorrow and there could be no NHL next year at all. But that’s not really likely. The likely outcome is, the cap is going way up.

 

[mas0764]

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.

Yup. Now if one were to say, “THIS is the sacrifice we have made by signing Panarin,” I’d say that’s accurate.

But I’ll take Panarin over Gusev.

 

[NYR Viper]

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.

I mean the Gaborik and Gomez trades were pretty sweet

 

[Russian Collusion]

I mean the Gaborik and Gomez trades were pretty sweet

Stop giving me facts that go against my narrative!

 

[NYR Viper]

Stop giving me facts that go against my narrative!

In fairness, I agree, I wish Gorton could find a taker for one of the three defensemen this off-season. I think he will. Just a gut feeling.

 

[Russian Collusion]

In fairness, I agree, I wish Gorton could find a taker for one of the three defensemen this off-season. I think he will. Just a gut feeling.

I have a feeling that next year Staal will have value at the trade deadline. Smith is hot stinking garbage. I refuse to think Shatty has no value, despite all the reports. Even for as "bad" as hes been he is a discount compared to some of the other deals that have been thrown out there this offseason.

 

[Inferno]

Pionk and a first got I’d trouba

Shatty is definitely worth a draft pick

 

[TheBloodyNine]

Pionk and a first got I’d trouba

Shatty is definitely worth a draft pick

Although we gotta remember that that trade didn't happen in a vacuum. It's gotta be the right situation.

 

[True Blue]

Pionk and a first got I’d trouba

Shatty is definitely worth a draft pick

If he could have been traded, I think that he would have already.

 

[NYR Viper]

If he could have been traded, I think that he would have already.

I disagree. I think teams are trying to see where their RFA's come in and scouring the market for the remaining UFA's. That will take some time but the trade market will probably open a bit again here shortly.

 

[True Blue]

I disagree. I think teams are trying to see where their RFA's come in and scouring the market for the remaining UFA's. That will take some time but the trade market will probably open a bit again here shortly.

I certainly hope that you are right. But fear the opposite. Actually my biggest fear is how much time he will get starting in an effort to get is trade value to any kind of level.

 

[Thirty One]

Pionk and a first got I’d trouba

Shatty is definitely worth a draft pick

Yeah, but Trouba only brought back Pionk and a 1st!

 

[DutchShamrock]

If he could have been traded, I think that he would have already.

I'm starting to come around to the reality that Smith is bought out and Shatty starts here. Fox is no guarentee to start here. Maybe an injury opens up an opportunity, maybe he plays up his value.

I'm not going to argue ability, merit or what's right. But I think people aren't paying attention if they believe Staal and Shattenkirk are jettisoned before anyone proves to Quinn they can handle regular minutes. Quinn's perspective matters, not HF boards.

 

[bobbop]

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.

A lot can change in two years

 

[cheech70]

A lot can change in two years

And moving forward we will be in on any of the top players that become available whatever way. Of course its about cost but Gorts knows how to haggle the marketplace.

 

[redwhiteandblue]

I don’t think anyone has been “propping up very heavily” the Seattle team as the main reason the cap is going up. It’s a factor.

If you are referring to my posts, I did not mean to imply it was anything more than a factor, and one which should be positive.

The biggest thing by far should be the new TV deal, which is going to be very, very large relative to what the league currently has.

Really, people should have to explain why the cap ISN’T going to go up. Saying “we don’t know” is a cop out. We are playing odds and projections.... the current wisdom is, the TV deal will be huge and the cap will rise dramatically compared to what we are used to. It happened in the NBA, it will see the same thing, speaking in terms of percentages, when the NHL gets their deal.

In theory, the economy could crash tomorrow and there could be no NHL next year at all. But that’s not really likely. The likely outcome is, the cap is going way up.

I was mostly referring to your posts but had seen other nuggets in here towards it. I just don't see what I keep hearing about Seattle doing much for the Cap that we haven't seen already. Your original argument of not having to worry about the future of our payroll structure because the Cap will go up (you originally were saying $50 million in Cap space) was very much based around, propped up by or whatever way else to articulate it, the Seattle team helping increase the Cap.

I have no doubt the TV deal, especially the right one, will be beneficial towards the Cap. Let's just wait and see what that actual deal is before projection $50 million in cap space. I'm not saying the Cap is going down so I don't really need to provide a burden of proof. What I'm saying though is, outside of the TV contract, anyone mentioning Seattle as a reason (really at all in my opinion) is self-serving. I'm not trying to attack you or anyone else but it seems like when people ignore a primarily similar (and maybe stronger) scenario that just happened, they're doing it to make their point look better.

I'm not sure how anything short of Seattle winning a Cup it has a drastic effect over what the Cap increases to vs the effect Vegas had. Which was already accounted for when you originally had worked out the 4 year increase of 11.2%.

 

[TheBloodyNine]

We're entering into the beginning of the summer lull so let's spice this up a bit with a hypothetical - Let's say the Oilers brutally miss the playoffs again and McDavid asks for a trade (and assume in this situation that the Oilers ARE willing to trade him)- What would a realistic offer look like from the Rangers for him? Who are some other teams that you think would make a play and what would their offers look like? Who are your untouchables?

Let's also assume the following: Rangers 2020 1st is the a range of 15-20. Kreider has already been traded, The Rangers are a team that McDavid would like to play for, the cap is set at approximately $83 million for 2020-2021.


NOTE: I am not saying this is going to happen, or is even realistic or in the realm of possibilities. For the purposes of this exercise just pretend it could happen.

 

[Amazing Kreiderman]

Buch definitely leaves me wanting more too often but he's also 3 years younger and a proven NHL player. What's to suggest Gusev isn't a Shipachyov type scenario?

Because Shipachyov was never a player who was carrying his line. Gusev flatout dominated at every level so far, even the KHL, Worlds and Olympics