Speculation: Roster Building Thread: Part LV

[Edge]

but I think the norm for the nhl is lowest common denominator and taking care of the teams at the bottom. and so far the big $$ owners have stayed in line cause everything has come out of the players pocket and not their own in terms of revenue sharing or whatever

Unfortunately, watching the inner workings of the NHL is kind of like CSPAN.

You have some influential people with some vested interests that influence the direction of the entire league.

So while 80 percent of the owners might be in favor of having a limited cap amnesty, it only takes or two to block the motion.

I can tell you a big problem is that you have too many teams that frankly should not exist in their markets. They are never going to be draws, no matter how passionate their niche fan base is. But the league is determined to make them work. Especially when you consider that 4-6 of them didn't exist, or weren't in their current locations prior to Bettman.

You think anyone thinks Carolina will ever be more than an afterthought? Or Arizona? Or that Columbus isn't dicked when that roster turns over? Of course not. But the leadership isn't going to contract or move 20 percent of its franchises.

 

[Oscar Lindberg]

This article pretty much echoes what we've been told by @Edge about this situation.

Herman has worked for the Rangers and it's insinuated from previous dealings that he's tight with Allaire. Everyone is saying the same thing, Larry, Rick, our guys here.

Seems inevitable at this point, although I disagree with the decision

 

[Vitto79]

And who centers Panarin?

I’m saying they likely resign Strome

 

[Edge]

This article pretty much echoes what we've been told by @Edge about this situation.

Herman has worked for the Rangers and it's insinuated from previous dealings that he's tight with Allaire. Everyone is saying the same thing, Larry, Rick, our guys here.

Seems inevitable at this point, although I disagree with the decision

I think he has some of the picture, though I have too many people talking about the Rangers being open to moving Georgiev for that to be just be nonsense.

While the Rangers really like Georgiev, they are all too aware that because he is still a "developing" goalie, his value is far more likely to decrease than increase --- especially as Shesterkin is very likely to assume the starting job and never let it go.

What makes Shesterkin so different is that he's not a kid that's more or less come out of nowhere in the last two years because his development has taken its next steps. He's been dominant for so long, across so many leagues, and at 24, he's only continuing that trend (not establishing it for the first time).

So that's different than some other recent examples where goalies served more as shooting stars than long term solutions in net.

The Rangers like Georgiev a lot. But I've never heard the "love" echoed by anyone, either with the team or with another team, that certain...outlets/observers...indicate the Rangers have for him. He's going to be in play this summer. Now, whether or not something comes to a fruition is another matter. But I don't think there's some kind of unattainable price tag attached to him.

 

[EdJovanovski]

This article pretty much echoes what we've been told by @Edge about this situation.

Herman has worked for the Rangers and it's insinuated from previous dealings that he's tight with Allaire. Everyone is saying the same thing, Larry, Rick, our guys here.

Seems inevitable at this point, although I disagree with the decision

Never trust a word the Blueshirt Bozo’s utter!

 

[Oscar Lindberg]

Never trust a word the Blueshirt Bozo’s utter!

I don't like Herman either but he's clearly connected in some fashion

 

[Trxjw]

The Rangers could really love Georgiev but I can't see them loving the idea of rolling into a condensed season with a combined 90 games of experience between their two goalies.

 

[Gardner McKay]

I believe, just my belief, is that this year gets played to some sort of limited capacity, next year to full.

Absolutely agree. Either way, I think you are going to see teams in a crunch and some surprise moves made. If only we had the capspace to take advantage of some of these opportunities.

 

[GoAwayPanarin]

Buying out Hank over Staal is so stupid.

I don't like Herman either but he's clearly connected in some fashion

I guess some wounds just never heal?

 

[Vitto79]

Hank for Dubnyk , Foligno..... buyout Dubnyk? If Hank really wants out does it not have to be something like that ?

 

[Trxjw]

Buying out Hank over Staal is so stupid.

That's a false dilemma though. They're buying out Hank because the situation in net is untenable. They're not electing to buy out Hank over Staal. They're not connected whatsoever.

 

[GAGLine]

One thing not mentioned in the article is that we need a goalie to expose in the expansion draft. All of Shesty, Huska, Wall and Lindbom are exempt. Georgiev is the only one who qualifies, but I doubt we are going to keep him just so we can expose him.

I think the most likely scenario is we buy out Hank, trade Georgiev, and sign someone like Talbot for 2 years at like 1 mil per.

 

[GoAwayPanarin]

Hank for Dubnyk , Foligno..... buyout Dubnyk? If Hank really wants out does it not have to be something like that ?

Why would he want to play there though? That team is a graveyard. If he wants to pick his spot, a buyout would make more sense for him personally.

If it were up to me, I'd trade Geo and ride out Hanks last year. If he doesn't like being a back up here well, he signed up for this. Beyond the contract he was given the choice to move on when the letter went out and he chose to stay. I always kind of got the vibe that Hank didn't take the whole rebuild thing seriously and figured they were just selling that one year and would go back to trying to "contend" right away.

I get respecting the player's wishes especially when its someone who has been so important, but this isn't about him. The smart move to improve the team would be to remove Staal from the roster, play Hank in a back up role and then maybe visit the possibility of shipping him at the deadline.

 

[Clark Kellogg]

I think alot of people will look at this in terms of the impact on available players and a team like the rangers with $$ being able to take advantage to acquire players but of course the cap limits how much that can happen...but the place that those $$ teams could REALLY take advantage of would be swooping in and hiring staff let go by other teams whether it be scouting, player development or whatever. its a horrible situation you feel bad for non-players that could be out of work but it could lead to some organizational shakeups behind the scenes

Your post and something NYSPORTS posted started me to think outside the box on this issue.
As far fetched as this may sound the NHL will be forced to come up with drastic solutions to the meet the oncoming tsunami.
One might be the suspension of the cap altogether so wealthy teams can bailout weaker hands. Instead of organization thinking that they would be taken advantage of they would more likely believe that this is the Seventh Cavalry coming over the hill to rescue them. Also cash for player trades might be reinstated. If either of these two ideas require a modification of the current CBA I am confident that the Players Association will gladly agree.
I am not advocating either of these ideas just speculating on you thesis and how it will apply to all business matters in the NHL moving forward.

 

[Thirty One]

Hank for Dubnyk , Foligno..... buyout Dubnyk? If Hank really wants out does it not have to be something like that ?

I'd imagine Lundqvist doesn't want Minnesota and Minnesota doesn't want Lundqvist.

 

[GoAwayPanarin]

That's a false dilemma though. They're buying out Hank because the situation in net is untenable. They're not electing to buy out Hank over Staal. They're not connected whatsoever.

I guess it depends if you feel they're that attached to Geo. If they are hell bent on keeping him short of an insane offer, then sure.

I don't think they're at that point though. This comes down to a matter of dollars and unless they need every penny that they'd get from buying out Hank vs. Staal, I don't see how Hank is the correct choice here.

 

[Minmonster]

The NHL is a gate driven league and, if there's no gate, it's going to get complicated.

Maybe the nhl should consider getting rid of the cap ceiling and allow markets like ny Toronto Montreal la Chicago carry the league and particularly the players through the ramifications of COVID

 

[Edge]

So putting aside for a moment that Lundqvist is owed a large sum of money and that's not something to easily walk away from, I will admit that it is kind of a bummer to buy him out and potentially see him play for another team.

On the buyout side of things (again putting aside the fact that a deal is a deal and it's his money), it is sad if we can use that money for something that actually benefits this team on the ice next year. In many ways it reminds of the saying about it being better to get rid of a player a year too early rather than a year too late. In an ideal world, Lundqvist's contact ends in 2019 or 2020, and not 2021. Again, nothing we can do about that, but just freestyling some thoughts.

On the topic of playing for another team, it just feels like such a waste. I know, I know, athletes seldom gives us the happy endings we hope for. The same competitive nature that drives them to be the best often drives them to play beyond the amicable, happy ending that everyone else prefers.

But it's hard not to be enamored by the idea of Lundkvist hanging on for what is likely one or two years, either as a marginal starter for a poor team, or backup for a decent team, only to see a marginal uptick in results and an epilogue that no one fondly remembers.

Again, it's his right and his call. But I'd by lying if I didn't say these were my honest thoughts.

 

[Off Sides]

Any injury to or down stretch by Shesterkin and they need a good backup, if that happens to be Geo and he plays well his value likely goes up. I am not so sure that would be the case for any older goalie. I think teams are questioning whether or not Geo can be their long term starter and the more he was able to prove so the more he would end up being worth in trade.

Yet on the flip side sure if Geo ends up being the backup all season long and Shesterkin ends up playing nearly every game except when he is tired, then sure Geo's value does not improve and maybe diminishes. Yet if he is now worth, say a 2nd and that value dropped to a 3rd, I'm not so sure that drop in value really is going to mean all that much.

 

[Minmonster]

At least for a year or two

 

[Avery16]

That's a false dilemma though. They're buying out Hank because the situation in net is untenable. They're not electing to buy out Hank over Staal. They're not connected whatsoever.

If it was just about carrying three goaltenders, they'd make an announcement that Hank will not suit up and let him ride out the contract at home. Buyouts aren't to resolve issues like this. Buyouts are for the cap, and the fact is that buying out Hank just doesn't deliver much relief. Partner that with the points discussed re: Georgiev, and something doesn't add up about the buyout reporting.

 

[Minmonster]

will it be anything like the parade they threw when pegula bought the team in 2011 and they FINALLY had an owner with $$?

Buffalo is a ghost town. I don’t know how any owner would find success in that market

 

[Brooklyn Rangers Fan]

One thing not mentioned in the article is that we need a goalie to expose in the expansion draft. All of Shesty, Huska, Wall and Lindbom are exempt. Georgiev is the only one who qualifies, but I doubt we are going to keep him just so we can expose him.

I think the most likely scenario is we buy out Hank, trade Georgiev, and sign someone like Talbot for 2 years at like 1 mil per.

Been saying this since like a decade ago, back in 2019.

 

[GAGLine]

If it was just about carrying three goaltenders, they'd make an announcement that Hank will not suit up and let him ride out the contract at home. Buyouts aren't to resolve issues like this. Buyouts are for the cap, and the fact is that buying out Hank just doesn't deliver much relief. Partner that with the points discussed re: Georgiev, and something doesn't add up about the buyout reporting.

A buyout offers some relief, and we need every cap dollar we can find.

 

[Edge]

Any injury to or down stretch by Shesterkin and they need a good backup, if that happens to be Geo and he plays well his value likely goes up. I am not so sure that would be the case for any older goalie. I think teams are questioning whether or not Geo can be their long term starter and the more he was able to prove so the more he would end up being worth in trade.

Yet on the flip side sure if Geo ends up being the backup all season long and Shesterkin ends up playing nearly every game except when he is tired, then sure Geo's value does not improve and maybe diminishes. Yet if he is now worth, say a 2nd and that value dropped to a 3rd, I'm not so sure that drop in value really is going to mean all that much.

To the first point, I can't help but feel there are older guys who could carry us through something like that. The difference between them and Geo is there is no expectation for them to be long-term starters. They are what they are.

And ultimately, that leads to your second, which is the trade value of Georgiev. His value isn't so much as a backup, so much as it is a potential starter. A second round pick is probably more or less in the range for that kind of potential, albeit uncertain potential.

As for the difference between a second and third, it can be fairly significant. Your odds are better with second round picks vs. third round picks. And looking at our roster, you're looking at some interesting assets like Fox, Lindgren, Lemieux, even a trade up to grab someone like Miller in a draft. So I'm always hesitant to take that difference for granted.