Speculation: Roster Building Thread Part VIII: Dilly Dilly - Lets Tank!

[Ori]

I mention earlier I did not agree to move Ryan Mc. in another topic, but I`ve consider and reflect over the topic recently, and I thought about the whole situation we were in last year. And it was probably a very difficult decision at the time for Jeff. So I believe now it was the right decision and to get value in return and build for the future.
And ideally next two years deadlines in March we should consider to move Kevin Shattenkirk, Zucc, Spooner or Nam depends who have most have value, and maybe Hayes for additional 1st picks in 2019 draft to continue our rebuild, because that team who sign Mats Zuccarello - I really doubt they can afford to resign his ufa contract which is probably above 5 mil $ - so maybe an interesting UFA target in the same year after we get some value of our veteran players.

 

[Larrybiv]

Frustrating when you spill just a little bit from a pretty full glass. Ruins the whole week.

I find it a little strange that your opinion of an entire draft is swayed by a team’s 4th pick. No matter if the 3 picks before it were good and the 5th pick is showing glimmers of a steal, that 4th pick is of the most importance.

Sorry, didnt mean to damper......its just that I simply dont bet that pick whatsoever. Hey, I'm not a scout, nor a GM.....but I thought many werent understanding of that pick as I am not alone. So much available talent, did we really need Lindblom?

 

[Ola]

There will be. It’s really just a matter of timing at this point. We could see Seattle approved as early as December, but it isn’t going to happen until there’s final approval and a ground breaking date on the arena renovations. The timing of that will determine if the arena will be ready for 20-21 or 21-22.

In principle you are right of course, but technically they have not been approved yet so its not a done deal.

 

[Larrybiv]

The problem with the Lindbom pick isn't Lindbom, it's that he's a goalie. You don't draft a goalie that high. That's drafting 101.

Thank you. My original comment wasn't personal. It was based on the above. Outrage? What outrage? Lol

 

[FIRE DRURY]

I mention earlier I did not agree to move Ryan Mc.

After seeing the contract Tampa gave him, I think most of us can agree that was the right move.

Re-signing players under Slats was a given. He rarely let players walk, even when we all knew the contract would bite us in the ass. Girardi and Staal are two players that immediately come to mind. If Slats was still running the show, McDonagh would have been re-signed. Grabner probably would have gotten a 3 year contract. Nash would have never been moved. I wonder if Nash would still be playing if we never traded him.

Moving McD was absolutely the right move, even if we weren't 100% committed to a rebuild. Gorton has done a fantastic job of avoiding those crippling contracts. Smith is really the only bad contract he's given out, but it was a 3 year term. Shatty potentially too, but Gorton gave himself an out by not beefing up that contact with a full NMC.

Tampa will regret McDonagh's contract very quickly.

 

[Larrybiv]

I really don't get this. Raanta, Talbot, Bobrovsky, and Jones is enough evidence for you to say drafting goalies is worthless?

Maybe not "worthless" but the proof is that all we got was a 2nd for Talbot and many other instances similar. They literally are a dime a dozen and combo that with a GREAT goalie coach that we have, he could probably turn ME into a goaltender.

So......why use a good pick for a goaltender when after years of developing and eventually being a VERY GOOD backup for Hank and then turn it into a whopping 2nd rounder. Whoopdafreakin do.

 

[Edge]

Maybe not "worthless" but the proof is that all we got was a 2nd for Talbot and many other instances similar. They literally are a dime a dozen and combo that with a GREAT goalie coach that we have, he could probably turn ME into a goaltender.

So......why use a good pick for a goaltender when after years of developing and eventually being a VERY GOOD backup for Hank and then turn it into a whopping 2nd rounder. Whoopdafreakin do.

In fairness, I think we tend to skip right to the returns for goalies and not what they actually contributed while they were here.

In the case of goalies, you're ideally looking to come away with the best starter out of a bunch, or at least someone who can steal some games for you or fill-in during an emergency (as Talbot did).

The return on an eventual trade is kind of a bonus really.

But the development is about finding a legit NHL starter, or getting the 50-100 quality games over a 2-4 year period from a backup.

 

[Amazing Kreiderman]

Maybe not "worthless" but the proof is that all we got was a 2nd for Talbot and many other instances similar. They literally are a dime a dozen and combo that with a GREAT goalie coach that we have, he could probably turn ME into a goaltender.

So......why use a good pick for a goaltender when after years of developing and eventually being a VERY GOOD backup for Hank and then turn it into a whopping 2nd rounder. Whoopdafreakin do.

The reason we only got a 2nd for Talbot is because he was signed to a 1-year extension (lowering his value). Buffalo traded a 1st for Lehner

 

[Edge]

Lehner was also 4 years younger than Talbot --- with the latter also a potential UFA.

I'd also argue that Talbot suffered from a lack of pedigree. An undrafted kid out of a program in Alabama, wasn't really pegged as a star or even a future starter in the AHL, a little bit older, etc.

 

[Amazing Kreiderman]

Lehner was also 4 years younger than Talbot --- with the latter also a potential UFA.

I'd also argue that Talbot suffered from a lack of pedigree. An undrafted kid out of a program in Alabama, wasn't really pegged as a star or even a future starter in the AHL, a little bit older, etc.

Yes.

- Undrafted
- Backup
- On a 1-year extension
- Without any RFA years left
- In an off-season with other, younger, goalies on the market in Lehner and Jones for instance

 

[Edge]

Yes.

- Undrafted
- Backup
- On a 1-year extension
- Without any RFA years left
- In an off-season with other, younger, goalies on the market in Lehner and Jones for instance

And markets can be a difficult thing to project.

In the case of Talbot, I don't think the market for him was at it's peak and getting a higher return was going to be a challenge.

In the case of the 2018 deadline moves, I think the market might have been awfully close to the peak.

The Rangers haven't always been perfect, and there are moves that certainly did not work out. But I don't know if we give the Rangers quite enough credit for what they've done over the last 13 years --- on ice, drafting, trading, etc.

I'd argue that we've almost taken for granted the level of success we enjoyed from 2005 to 2017.

 

[Tawnos]

Maybe not "worthless" but the proof is that all we got was a 2nd for Talbot and many other instances similar. They literally are a dime a dozen and combo that with a GREAT goalie coach that we have, he could probably turn ME into a goaltender.

So......why use a good pick for a goaltender when after years of developing and eventually being a VERY GOOD backup for Hank and then turn it into a whopping 2nd rounder. Whoopdafreakin do.

Asset management isn't the only judgment on the value of a pick, as @Edge pointed out.

What you're gambling on with a pick is that the player turns into a starter. I don't think there's a big chance of this happening, but there is a possibility that Shestyorkin busts and Lindbom develops into our next starter. You never know. I understand the idea that @silverfish mentioned about goalies always being available... and far more proven, so in that instance you are trading a 2nd rounder for a goalie who is a sure thing. I get the approach. I don't really have a problem with doing it either way.

 

[RangerBoy]

Katie Strang had an article in The Athletic last week regarding the NHL CBA. There is no reason why there should be another lockout. The game is in good shape. Each side gets 50%. The players don't like escrow but that's part of the cap system. Seattle will be coming into the league soon. Bettman always take the NHLPA to the cleaners. It doesn't matter if Goodenow, Saskin or Fehr is running the NHLPA. The NHL wins every negotiation. More NHL jobs with Seattle. More AHL jobs.

 

[Tawnos]

Katie Strang had an article in The Athletic last week regarding the NHL CBA. There is no reason why there should be another lockout. The game is in good shape. Each side gets 50%. The players don't like escrow but that's part of the cap system. Seattle will be coming into the league soon. Bettman always take the NHLPA to the cleaners. It doesn't matter if Goodenow, Saskin or Fehr is running the NHLPA. The NHL wins every negotiation. More NHL jobs with Seattle. More AHL jobs.

Yeah, I completely agree that there shouldn't be a lockout. There aren't any impassable issues on the table this time around and, in reality, the only one of those is share of revenue. Last time, the league wanted to drop the share to 50%. I haven't seen anything that indicates they'd be looking to drop it again. The players don't just dislike the existence of escrow. They have issues with how it's structured, but that's not going to be something that causes a work stoppage. Owners likely want restrictions on signing bonuses, among a couple of other contract tweaks.

 

[RangerBoy]

FWIW Hayes will carry a big load for us this year--at least until he's moved. He will probably get the pwp time and he'll be looked at for matchups and penalty killing. I know some think that Chytil's going to walk right into the 2C job but IMO that's Hayes job to lose. Everything is in place anyway for Kevin to have a big year and if his numbers go up he might change the equation. To me--this is probably his last chance but maybe also the best chance he's ever had to take the next step.

The Rangers also want Andersson and Chytil to play. How is Quinn dividing the ice time between Zibanejad, Hayes, Andersson and Chytil? Hayes wasn't very good as the 2nd line center last season. He did nothing until after the trade deadline. The Rangers were counting on him to replace Stepan and it didn't happen. He failed to carry the load last season. If Hayes was taking that next step,it would have happened already or maybe he isn't that type of player. Maybe he is a 3rd line center who will make ~$6M per in his next regrettable long term contract.

 

[silverfish]

"Hayes did nothing until after the trade deadline"

AKA

Hayes did nothing until the bodies in front of him on the depth-chart were traded, and he got more ice time.

NYR 1718 F Icetime

Stay woke, y'all. Don't fall for the narrative.

 

[RangerBoy]

Yeah, I completely agree that there shouldn't be a lockout. There aren't any impassable issues on the table this time around and, in reality, the only one of those is share of revenue. Last time, the league wanted to drop the share to 50%. I haven't seen anything that indicates they'd be looking to drop it again. The players don't just dislike the existence of escrow. They have issues with how it's structured, but that's not going to be something that causes a work stoppage. Owners likely want restrictions on signing bonuses, among a couple of other contract tweaks.

The owners want to change the contract limits. 7 and 8 now. Maybe 6 and 7 could work. Fehr didn't want to give in on contract term limits last time because Bettman will come back for more next time which is coming very soon.

But those familiar with the league’s view on labor discussions believe owners, noting the lagging growth of the salary cap, will again push to restrict contract lengths, most likely attempting to cap those contracts to five years for free agents and six years for a team to re-sign its own players.

Defining HRR is a big topic

Despite the arduous back-and-forth between the league and Players’ Association during the last lockout, the two sides settled on a split of hockey-related revenue that many anticipated as the logical middle ground before the negotiating even began — 50-50. Optically, this is a number that each side should be able to live with; it appears fair and equitable. For one side to try to claw back an extra percentage point or two would be risky, not only from a public relations standpoint, but also in igniting another bitter labor standoff.
B
ut, there is growing concern among the players that while the percentage shares are left intact, the league may try to change the way HRR is codified, thereby manipulating the actual value of the total money in the pot that is to be shared.

“Defining HRR,” one agent predicted of the most pressing issue facing the two sides. “That’s what it’s all about.”

Asked whether the league will try to “redefine” HRR in the next CBA, deputy commissioner Bill Daly replied via email:

“I wouldn’t characterize it as ‘redefining’ HRR. But I do think there will be discussions designed to add more clarity and specificity to various items within Article 50. The business has certainly evolved since those provisions were first negotiated.”

The NHL wants a cut of the money bet legally on their game. The PA might want part of that money too.
The NHL needs to be transparent on injuries too. If people are betting money on NHL games, they need to know everything about injuries. The NFL fines clubs for not being honest with injuries. No more out upper or lower body injury nonsense.


If the players don't like escrow, don't raise the cap every year with 5%. It's been less recently. No more. The cap is the cap. Don't use it if they don't like escrow.

Olympics is another topic.

Seattle

That being said, any potential snag that could postpone Seattle’s entrance into the NHL fold has the potential to be an eyesore for the league and a headache to the ownership group in Seattle, which secured 33,000 deposits from potential season-ticket holders in a span of 36 hours and was forced to open a wait list because of the staggering demand.

The expansion fee was set at $650 million ($150 million more than the fee received for Las Vegas, when the expansion franchise was awarded back in 2016) and it is expected that the group in Seattle will be officially awarded after a formal vote by the Board of Governors when the group convenes this fall.

The big issues facing NHL, NHLPA in upcoming CBA talks

 

[Deleted member 23124]

Yeah, I completely agree that there shouldn't be a lockout. There aren't any impassable issues on the table this time around and, in reality, the only one of those is share of revenue. Last time, the league wanted to drop the share to 50%. I haven't seen anything that indicates they'd be looking to drop it again. The players don't just dislike the existence of escrow. They have issues with how it's structured, but that's not going to be something that causes a work stoppage. Owners likely want restrictions on signing bonuses, among a couple of other contract tweaks.

FWIW, the last lockout shouldn't have happened (or, in my opinion, the one before it), but when Buttface decides he wants to squeeze something else out of the players, he pulls the plug. That's his one tactic -- he will not negotiate or compromise without one.

 

[Tawnos]

FWIW, the last lockout shouldn't have happened (or, in my opinion, the one before it), but when Buttface decides he wants to squeeze something else out of the players, he pulls the plug. That's his one tactic -- he will not negotiate or compromise without one.

As soon as the owners wanted to reduce player's share, the lockout was inevitable. It requires a hard line stance, which is where the lockout becomes a tactic. 50/50 split was pretty much non-negotiable from day 1, as made clear by the first offer from the league reducing the player's share to 43%... exactly the same amount under 50% as the previous CBA had it over. It takes two to create a lockout. The players, rightfully so, were resisting the reduction. Bettman didn't just decide to lockout the players. There was no agreement in place in time for the start of the season. No league is ever going to play games without a CBA in place. 1992 NHL and 1994 MLB taught them that.

Possibly, the implementation of contract limits could have been a lockout causing issue, but I doubt it. For all the talk of defining HRR that came from the article @RangerBoy just posted, that's not going to require so hard line of a stance that a lockout will happen. Same with changing contract lengths, allowing players to go to the Olympics, escrow structure, etc

 

[Webster]

Back in town and time for practice. The King seems to be in great shape

 

[Mac n Gs]

Seguin isn’t happy about not having a contract, and he hasn’t discussed a new one since the draft.

 

[eco's bones]

The Rangers also want Andersson and Chytil to play. How is Quinn dividing the ice time between Zibanejad, Hayes, Andersson and Chytil? Hayes wasn't very good as the 2nd line center last season. He did nothing until after the trade deadline. The Rangers were counting on him to replace Stepan and it didn't happen. He failed to carry the load last season. If Hayes was taking that next step,it would have happened already or maybe he isn't that type of player. Maybe he is a 3rd line center who will make ~$6M per in his next regrettable long term contract.

Did nothing? I guess people all don't see things the same. He was asked to be the matchup center against other team's top lines and IMO did a very good job of it. If all your issue is about his offensive production--maybe there's there but keeping in mind that AV hardly used Hayes at all on the power play for the first two thirds of the season. When Hayes started getting power play time his numbers improved---wonder of wonders but it also might explain that offensive spurt at the end wouldn't you think? You lose sight of the fact that however Gorton looks at this team going forward he's not the one who is going to be coaching it and I suspect that David Quinn is going to rely heavily on Kevin Hayes--not only expecting him to put up points but also to be a guy he matches against the better players of other teams. Fine---that the Rangers want to find ice time for the 19 year old Chytil and 20 year old Andersson but forcing them into situations they're not ready to handle more than often than not is not the best way to develop younger players.

 

[Thirty One]

Seguin isn’t happy about not having a contract, and he hasn’t discussed a new one since the draft.

Go get 'em Gorts!

 

[Deleted member 23124]

As soon as the owners wanted to reduce player's share, the lockout was inevitable. It requires a hard line stance, which is where the lockout becomes a tactic. 50/50 split was pretty much non-negotiable from day 1, as made clear by the first offer from the league reducing the player's share to 43%... exactly the same amount under 50% as the previous CBA had it over. It takes two to create a lockout. The players, rightfully so, were resisting the reduction. Bettman didn't just decide to lockout the players. There was no agreement in place in time for the start of the season. No league is ever going to play games without a CBA in place. 1992 NHL and 1994 MLB taught them that.

Possibly, the implementation of contract limits could have been a lockout causing issue, but I doubt it. For all the talk of defining HRR that came from the article @RangerBoy just posted, that's not going to require so hard line of a stance that a lockout will happen. Same with changing contract lengths, allowing players to go to the Olympics, escrow structure, etc

I understand leagues do not want to play without a contract...however, it seems to me that these issues could have been settled before hand.

Regarding the lockout decisions, Bettman pretty much calls the shots on that...Once he makes his "recommendation", it's done...

 

[Tawnos]

I understand leagues do not want to play without a contract...but the NHL has never tried to negotiate beforehand....I don't believe for one moment they couldn't have settled things before the contract expired

Negotiations started at the end of June. 3 months should have been enough time. But, if you want to point fingers about their not being enough time, the NHL made it's first proposal in the middle of July. The NHLPA didn't respond for a whole month.