Speculation: Roster Building Thread Part VIII: Autumn in New York

[Ail]

Thanks for the feedback.
Feel free to add any constructive analysis.

Should change your name to BURNmeister.

 

[GAGLine]

I'd trade Nash for a 1st but, sadly, I doubt that offer is out there... nor will it be.

If players like Hanzal and Vermette can garner a 1st at the trade deadline, Nash absolutely can.

 

[bernmeister]

When I hear the word "Zucc" in a trade proposal, I hang up the phone stat.

Thanks for the explanation.
I would counter w/Zuc is up in 2 years, he may do us a solid and re-sign a year at a time for 4-5m, and if he goes there, we may be able to afford him til his body breaks, even if we have Chytil, etc, coming on.

But there is also a scenario where he says, look, I love it here, but I already took one contract for the team, it's now or never. He may seek and get 3 years for 21-22m. Now, to safeguard against that, if we get acceptable value, we should go with my deal, and then we have a seed for the future, and if Zuc pulls a Chapman back to Yankees and returns, the welcome mat is open at the right number [which, btw, was made easier 'cause we added 2 elcs of quality replacing 2 quality vets].

 

[Off Sides]

Cap space is a good thing to have, the more a team is under the cap the more space they built up as the season goes on. Should any trade come up at any point until the deadline, having space to possibly take on more cap than is outgoing is a good position to be in.

A team with extra cap space can take on a contract some other team does not want, the motivation would be a good prospect or pick being attached to that deal.

There are going to be a decent amount of teams at or near the ceiling, some using LTIR to go beyond the ceiling. Cap space is a commodity.

If people believe this year is the year, I get that, there is no changing that opinion.

But for some other people, I am one of, who believes this team has basically the same playoff potential Nash or no Nash, using him to get a good pick or prospect and then using that cap space to possibly get another good pick or prospect, is good asset management compared to holding on to Nash, hoping he stays healthy, plays well and has a playoffs that goes beyond anything he has done in them to date.

 

[GAGLine]

Wouldn't look at it like that. Mcdonagh has 2 years left on his contract. Hank has 2 years of above average play, Shattenkirk and Smith are in their prime right now, Zib is trending up.

If there was ever a time for the rangers to trade for Duchene, now would be a good time especially considering how far sakic has tanked duchenes value.

Imagine this lineup

Kreider-Duchene-Zuccarello
Miller-Zib-Buchnevich
Vesey-Hayes-Nash
Grabner-Deharnais-Rotating forward

That's a cup contending team, especially with this defense.

The reasoning for the stepan trade was to a) replenish the system, b) clear cap space to fix the defense, and c) mitigate the risk of a guy that would slow down in 2 years with 2 years left on said contract at a high cap hit.... Duchene having only 2 years left on his contract mitigates that risk almost completely.

So, you are giving up what to get Duchene for 2 years? How are we fitting him under the cap? Are you just letting Duchene walk after 2 years?

 

[Mac n Gs]

So the same school of thought that thinks:

1) 7.8 million is fine for a thirty-ish point player
2) that a cap hit has no effect on other personnel decisions
3) that players solidly in decline spontaneously perform at peak
4) and Gorton can't improve the team with added cap room,

Is also having a lot of trouble with a simple analogy. You don't say...

And you also refuse to speculate on any return in a Nash deal, while also ignoring the point I made about needing everything to break correctly for our younger guys to make Nash "redundant." Your response was about Grabner playing on the 4th line, which is 1) impossible to tell right now and 2) didn't happen that often last year, unless you consider Miller and Hayes 4th liners. And while we're at it, that JT Miller kid may end up being a C this year since our C depth is so poor, which ya know if he's moved to C just further weakens our winger depth.

So like I said originally, moving Nash other than for the fact that we're completely out of the playoff hunt is just silly. It's expecting everything to go well enough for kids like Vesey, Buch, Hayes, Miller, Chytil/LA (if they even make it) that we somehow don't need a top-6 forward.

 

[bernmeister]

Dallas doesn't consider that

Too much value surrendered?
Heiskanen is untouchable?
He is potentially the best player by far, but I think Dallas comes out ahead short term, and then uses cap savings = roster flexibility to offset short term loss of youth.

Dallas with a big hell no.
They wouldn't do it for Heiskanen alone.

Wow. "big hell" no.
egelband valued Zuc so much he made it a non-starter.

Do you consider it a matter of insufficient value to Stars?
or
Do you disagree with the premise that Dallas finds the deal profitable if the cap savings over 6 total contract years = roster flexibility which allows temporary offset while they adjust on other new deals to reacquire youth?

either way, pls elaborate. Thanks.

Everyone else, keep it coming. ... but play nice.

 

[Avery16]

I'm not going down a rabbit hole on trades. The position that a trade to improve this team can't be made unless that trade is specifically identified is absurd. Gorton has pulled several amazing trades that no one was tracking on. I don't make the trades, but I do know that the cap exists, and it's something Gorton has to take into account with every trade he considers. If you asked him right now why we don't have two bonafide top Cs, I'm sure he's going to mention the cap. You don't have to predict what trade he makes with cap space to determine that he could use cap space. It's a basic and obvious fact.

 

[bernmeister]

Should change your name to BURNmeister.

I am remembering some lyrics of the song "(It's a) Family Affair" by Sly and the Family Stone.

 

[Avery16]

And you also refuse to speculate on any return in a Nash deal, while also ignoring the point I made about needing everything to break correctly for our younger guys to make Nash "redundant."

I ignored these because they weren't my positions. I said trade Nash for assets and use the cap space to a separate deal for a C. The whole Nash discussion was premised on a one line post from me, saying that IF (emphasis now added to draw attention) Chytil and Andersson can make the third line THEN you move Nash. Nothing is being counted on to break correctly. You're just reading what you want to read, not what I am writing.

 

[TheTakedown]

So, you are giving up what to get Duchene for 2 years? How are we fitting him under the cap? Are you just letting Duchene walk after 2 years?

At this rate, the most I offer is a 2018 1st and Ryan Graves ...

Sakic won't accept that though.

 

[rangers1314]

John Mitchell, released by Chi yesterday, signed a PTO with Columbus today.

 

[Amazing Kreiderman]

Thanks for the feedback.
Feel free to add any constructive analysis.

1. You don't trade a player you just signed
2. Why would Dallas make that trade? They have no cap space?
3. Why would Dallas trade away Heiskanen?

Your obsession with top-3 drafted players is insane

 

[haveandare]

Thanks for the explanation.
I would counter w/Zuc is up in 2 years, he may do us a solid and re-sign a year at a time for 4-5m, and if he goes there, we may be able to afford him til his body breaks, even if we have Chytil, etc, coming on.

But there is also a scenario where he says, look, I love it here, but I already took one contract for the team, it's now or never. He may seek and get 3 years for 21-22m. Now, to safeguard against that, if we get acceptable value, we should go with my deal, and then we have a seed for the future, and if Zuc pulls a Chapman back to Yankees and returns, the welcome mat is open at the right number [which, btw, was made easier 'cause we added 2 elcs of quality replacing 2 quality vets].

I get the cap logic here, but man some guys have to be sacred and Zucc is one of those guys if anyone ever was.

If he weren't performing, okay, forget the emotional attachment and think strictly cap-wise, but the guy is a stud, he helps his line go, he helps our scorers score, he's repeatedly taken team friendly deals and if he's not the heart and soul of the team himself, he's gotta be close.

This isn't like a Callahan situation where you can see the downfall on the horizon but he's a good guy who is important to the team's identity - Zucc has light NHL mileage on him, he had a fantastic year last year and shows no signs of slowing down, doesn't play an overly physical or punishing game.

Again, I get the point you're making from a strictly business standpoint, but the current guys on the team are people and there is some emotional angle at play. Especially with Step out, Nash and Staal likely out next year... might be wise to hold on to the well liked vet who is earning his money and then some to retain some stability and concept of meritocracy.

 

[Gardner McKay]

I'm not going down a rabbit hole on trades. The position that a trade to improve this team can't be made unless that trade is specifically identified is absurd. Gorton has pulled several amazing trades that no one was tracking on. I don't make the trades, but I do know that the cap exists, and it's something Gorton has to take into account with every trade he considers. If you asked him right now why we don't have two bonafide top Cs, I'm sure he's going to mention the cap. You don't have to predict what trade he makes with cap space to determine that he could use cap space. It's a basic and obvious fact.

Saying that trading Nash is better for the team without being able to articulate why and how could be one of the most laughable things I have read in my 10+ years on this board. Most posters eventually give it a shot. You have deflected for almost this entire thread on what a return and why it could help and then run back into your corner chanting "Trade Nash! Trade Nash!".

Trading Nash now is a dumb move.

 

[RGY]

Trading Nash because Chytil and/or Andersson made the team on the 3rd line does not at all and should not make it ok to trade Nash.

Rookie makes 3rd line wing, so trade your 1st line winger and one of your best PKers. Very logical. Oh but you say its so we can use the "assets" we acquire to get a Number One center? Well who is trading for Nash, with his expiring contract, and providing us with enough "assets" in return to obtain a number one center, which we have no idea is available or exists on the trade market and dont say Duchene...hence leaving us with just "assets" in the cupboard, a glaring hole on the wing, and no number one center for a team looking to make the playoffs.

GTFO already.

 

[NickyFotiu]

Messier? If I remember the core piece going back was Bernie Nichols, so yes, that was do-able.

Bern I was not asking if you would have traded for Messier at 31 years of age like we did. I was asking if you would have traded Messier away. Messier was 34 when we won the cup. He was 33 when we missed the playoffs the season before our cup. You seem to be among a handful of posters that feels we should trade players over 27 years of age. So would you have traded Messier at age 33 after we missed the playoffs in 1993?

 

[haveandare]

I'm not going down a rabbit hole on trades. The position that a trade to improve this team can't be made unless that trade is specifically identified is absurd. Gorton has pulled several amazing trades that no one was tracking on. I don't make the trades, but I do know that the cap exists, and it's something Gorton has to take into account with every trade he considers. If you asked him right now why we don't have two bonafide top Cs, I'm sure he's going to mention the cap. You don't have to predict what trade he makes with cap space to determine that he could use cap space. It's a basic and obvious fact.

I've seen him address this before and he mentions that Cs are hard to find, which they are.

Who could we have for just money? We could have drastically overpaid Joe Thornton for one year... I don't think anyone else even close to a bonafide top C was available under circumstances where you could say cap space was the biggest obstacle to getting them.

 

[Amazing Kreiderman]

Trading Nash because Chytil and/or Andersson made the team on the 3rd line does not at all and should not make it ok to trade Nash.

Rookie makes 3rd line wing, so trade your 1st line winger and one of your best PKers. Very logical. Oh but you say its so we can use the "assets" we acquire to get a Number One center? Well who is trading for Nash, with his expiring contract, and providing us with enough "assets" in return to obtain a number one center, which we have no idea is available or exists on the trade market and dont say Duchene...hence leaving us with just "assets" in the cupboard, a glaring hole on the wing, and no number one center for a team looking to make the playoffs.

GTFO already.

We got some teenage centers so we can trade our winger who plays all situations. Sounds about right

 

[TheTakedown]

Trading Nash because Chytil and/or Andersson made the team on the 3rd line does not at all and should not make it ok to trade Nash.

Rookie makes 3rd line wing, so trade your 1st line winger and one of your best PKers. Very logical. Oh but you say its so we can use the "assets" we acquire to get a Number One center? Well who is trading for Nash, with his expiring contract, and providing us with enough "assets" in return to obtain a number one center, which we have no idea is available or exists on the trade market and dont say Duchene...hence leaving us with just "assets" in the cupboard, a glaring hole on the wing, and no number one center for a team looking to make the playoffs.

GTFO already.

Nash is NOT a 1st line winger unless you're using a HERO chart that includes the 14-15 seasons -_-

This is not rocket science. Nash has put up an average of 37 points the past 2 seasons... 1st liner? No, not even close. Even if his performance was that of a 60-70 point player, the fact that he hasn't been able to stay healthy for more than mid-60 games over the past 2 seasons is enough indicator that he can't reach levels of 1st line production.

Now, I agree with your point that just because Chytil and Andersson make the team does not mean Nash should be moved, especially immediately speaking. Hell, not even banking on the fact that either of these guys make it. However, if a team is willing to offer you a 1st and a prospect for Nash, that would allow you to take that 1st and prospect and flip it to Colorado for Duchene. The hole on wing is filled internally.

Kreider-Zibanejad-Zuccarello
Miller-Duchene-Buchnevich
Vesey-Hayes-Andersson/Gropp
Grabner-Desharnais-Puempel/Fast/Desjardins

 

[Avery16]

Trading Nash because Chytil and/or Andersson made the team on the 3rd line does not at all and should not make it ok to trade Nash.

Rookie makes 3rd line wing, so trade your 1st line winger and one of your best PKers. Very logical. Oh but you say its so we can use the "assets" we acquire to get a Number One center? Well who is trading for Nash, with his expiring contract, and providing us with enough "assets" in return to obtain a number one center, which we have no idea is available or exists on the trade market and dont say Duchene...hence leaving us with just "assets" in the cupboard, a glaring hole on the wing, and no number one center for a team looking to make the playoffs.

GTFO already.

Nash is not a 1st line winger. He is barely a second line winger. That, and his cap hit, is the whole point

 

[RGY]

Nash has been hurt. On pace for about 50 points. Regardless of injury, the ability is still there. Ridiculous to call him barely a 2nd liner. Laughable. Absolutely laughable.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

Trading Nash because Chytil and/or Andersson made the team on the 3rd line does not at all and should not make it ok to trade Nash.

Rookie makes 3rd line wing, so trade your 1st line winger and one of your best PKers. Very logical. Oh but you say its so we can use the "assets" we acquire to get a Number One center? Well who is trading for Nash, with his expiring contract, and providing us with enough "assets" in return to obtain a number one center, which we have no idea is available or exists on the trade market and dont say Duchene...hence leaving us with just "assets" in the cupboard, a glaring hole on the wing, and no number one center for a team looking to make the playoffs.

GTFO already.

This is just a symptom of people going overboard in the preseason when some young guys show promise. I don't know how people make the leap from "Andersson/Chytil look really good" to "this makes the older guys immediately expendable"

Even if 1 or 2 18 year olds make the team out of camp in the first place, they are going to hit a wall. Thats what 18 year olds in the NHL do. Veteran leadership to help get them through it is a must.

More importantly, I don't think Nash's big cap hit is hamstringing this team in any way, shape, or form. Someone will have to tell me what golden prize the Rangers missed out on because of Nash's cap hit.

 

[Avery16]

Saying that trading Nash is better for the team without being able to articulate why and how could be one of the most laughable things I have read in my 10+ years on this board. Most posters eventually give it a shot. You have deflected for almost this entire thread on what a return and why it could help and then run back into your corner chanting "Trade Nash! Trade Nash!".

Trading Nash now is a dumb move.

In a vacuum, the hypothetical of moving Stepan for assets also makes this team worse in the short term. However, individual personnel decisions don't happen in a vacuum, they take into account the rest of the team. We know that we're a better team right now after moving Stepan, who was playing as a 1C. So you say the same cannot be accomplished by Gorton moving a middle six winger? That isn't logical at all.

 

[Amazing Kreiderman]

Nash has been hurt. On pace for about 50 points. Regardless of injury, the ability is still there. Ridiculous to call him barely a 2nd liner. Laughable. Absolutely laughable.

People expect 2nd liners to put up 60+ points still. Now, that's ridiculous.

Times change