Roster Building Thread - Part XI (Off-season edition)

[Machinehead]

My point isn't that they should have made a million trades or overly ambitious signings... but that I expected the team to at least

1) Look to sign at least one promising NCAA/European young UFA
2) Add an actual 7th defenseman for Jones to compete with, not a #8 in Ruhwedel
3) Try to find some sort of 12th forward for Rempe to compete with

Brodzinski and Ruhwedel being the first guys up in case of injury isn't my ideal depth situation. We have cap space and will still after Lindgren- I guess the plan is to accumulate for the deadline again (This better be our last buy cycle for a while)

Yeah, beyond the landscape of the league, there are some very good points here.

What confuses me the most is reportedly they were in a huge rush to trade Trouba by the asscrack of dawn July 1st to do stuff, and then did, as you said, basically nothing.

I would think there's a happy median between being aggressive and doing not much at all, even if one of their main plans fell through.

 

[Synergy27]

Yeah, beyond the landscape of the league, there are some very good points here.

What confuses me the most is reportedly they were in a huge rush to trade Trouba by the asscrack of dawn July 1st to do stuff, and then did, as you said, basically nothing.

I would think there's a happy median between being aggressive and doing not much at all, even if one of their main plans fell through.

It would also be nice if the team, you know, communicated with the fan base a little. Not asking that they disclose a detailed plan, but would be nice to get the GM’s honest assessment on the previous season and to know what he thinks needs to improve.

Sports are such an interesting product. The customers are very willing to fork over huge sums of money while being mostly ignored.

 

[Clark Kellogg]

So stop voting for people who want to raise your taxes. Its an easier solution than the league trying to figure out a tax solution

If I don’t allow them to raise my taxes how will they be able to afford all those paid vacation at luxury hotels for people who wish to visit my city from other countries?
Bet you didn’t think of that?
Check and Mate.

 

[JimmyG89]

Add an actual 7th defenseman for Jones to compete with, not a #8 in Ruhwedel

Out of the three you listed, this is the one that is needed the most. Would like to see someone get a PTO at this rate if they don't actually commit to signing one. They need to find at least a LHD they feel can play 3rd pairing. Maybe that is Scanlin, but someone with a little experience would be nice.

When it comes to the forwards, we have plenty of guys that could fill 4th line roles internally. If they wanted to go after a 3rd line winger, that would be okay.

Edstrom, Rempe, Carrick, Vesey, Brodzinski, Blidh, Belzile, Grouxl, Leshitshow, Nash. Most of these guys can take 4th line shifts in the NHL.

If we would have been able to nab a Euro/NCAA defender, it would have been nice for depth.

 

[bhamill]

Actually they did quite alot... they've ensured another mediocre season where they make $ playoff revenue, while throwing BS about winning the SC. This toothless core will be a year older....

This is how spoiled we are:
President's Trophy and two wins from the SCFs is "mediocre"...
Hahahaha.

 

[TGWL]

New Cap

- Teams can exceed ceiling by 10% for a tax. (If Cap is 100 million, you can go over by 10 million)
- Teams can designate 1 "Franchise" player.
- That player needs to be on an 8 year deal. (Max length)
- That players Cap Hit is halved. (50%)

To illustrate how nice and easy this is, if this were in effect right now, the Rangers would have 19 million in cap space. Haha

I'm a little late but I don't like this at all. Do the teams that have a current lower percentage/no tax get this 10%? Because if the concern is players are signing for less in a more desirable tax break, all this does is now give a team even more cap and the 10% goes further that can sign for less. If you're just giving 10% more to the cap, then just call it the new cap for the current year, because it changes nothing when all teams get 110m instead of 100m. Players will just sign for more until the cap is gone.

Most of the 8 years deals come from either the team that drafted them, or a deadline trade. I don't think it's fair to give a team finishing at the bottom, a franchise 50% break on a player just because they drafted them with the 1st overall.

 

[Chalfdiggity3]

This is how spoiled we are:
President's Trophy and two wins from the SCFs is "mediocre"...
Hahahaha.

It’s not about being spoiled or about the regular season. Just make it into the f***ing playoffs and anything can happen. The problem lies that this team can not win a cup playing the way that they do, and a massive problem with that is trouba and lindgren. Which is looks like they will be here for at least another year. So yea we as fans see it as mediocre because we all know that this team can’t win it all with what we have right now. We should have lost to Carolina but we own them and the panthers just ate us whole. So yea great let’s win a regular season award bc those mean the most lol. It’s about trying to win the cup.

 

[Machinehead]

It would also be nice if the team, you know, communicated with the fan base a little. Not asking that they disclose a detailed plan, but would be nice to get the GM’s honest assessment on the previous season and to know what he thinks needs to improve.

Sports are such an interesting product. The customers are very willing to fork over huge sums of money while being mostly ignored.

Yeah it would nice to hear one of:

1) We're going to stand pat

2) We plan on making changes

3) We plan on making changes but the right opportunity isn't there right now

Trying to trade Trouba and then doing nothing has my leaning towards #3 but even then, it's really vague.

Apparently, they tried to trade Trouba but are also trying to extend Lindgren? So like, you're moving on from an overpriced, immobile D but you're actively trying to lock in a different one? I really never know what this team's philosophy is.

 

[Machinehead]

I'm a little late but I don't like this at all. Do the teams with the tax break already get 10%? Because if the concern is players are signing for less in a more desirable tax break, all this does is now give a team even more cap and the 10% goes further that can sign for less. If you're just giving 10% more to the cap, then just call it the new cap for the current year, because it changes nothing when all teams get 110m instead of 100m. Players will just sign for more until the cap is gone.

Most of the 8 years deals come from either the team that drafted them, or a deadline trade. I don't think it's fair to give a team finishing at the bottom, a franchise 50% break on a player just because they drafted them with the 1st overall.

If it were up to me, I would institute some sort of break for keeping your own players, but I would also do away with RFA status.

I like the idea of drafting, developing, and keeping your own players, but you still have to compete.

The annoying thing about these franchises (mostly the same old ones) winning first overalls is that they then have these guys for 7-8 years with no competition.

I feel like eliminating or reducing RFA status would balance getting a guy for whatever percent off with still having to make him a competitive offer.

 

[Oscar Lindberg]

Drury is going back to the trusty plan of building out 75% of the team in the summer and build the other 25% on the fly at the deadline

Because it’s worked so well the last 3 seasons in terms of getting to the goal

 

[TGWL]

If it were up to me, I would institute some sort of break for keeping your own players, but I would also do away with RFA status.

I like the idea of drafting, developing, and keeping your own players, but you still have to compete.

The annoying thing about these franchises (mostly the same old ones) winning first overalls is that they then have these guys for 7-8 years with no competition.

I feel like eliminating or reducing RFA status would balance getting a guy for whatever percent off with still having to make him a competitive offer.

I can get down with the RFA status and something being done for players you develop, but I think the post I quote for the franchise player getting a 50% reduction is way overboard here.


Using the Mathews contract. He signed 4 years at 13,250,000.
A team is going to either spend 13,250,000 or offer him an 8 year close to 20% and save 50% on his cap over 8 years. What's a better option, sign Matthews for 16.5-17M and save 50% or pay 13,250,000 for 4 years on the cap. This will just increase contracts for franchise players who are looking for the shorter deals, they will take a big pay and then it will trickle down to everybody else who feels they're worth it.

 

[Mac n Gs]

Yeah it would nice to hear one of:

1) We're going to stand pat

2) We plan on making changes

3) We plan on making changes but the right opportunity isn't there right now

Trying to trade Trouba and then doing nothing has my leaning towards #3 but even then, it's really vague.

Apparently, they tried to trade Trouba but are also trying to extend Lindgren? So like, you're moving on from an overpriced, immobile D but you're actively trying to lock in a different one? I really never know what this team's philosophy is.

The Trouba trade leaking threw a wrench in everything, and his agent had every right to maneuver the NTC as they did to make him untradeable. I mean the guy wants to be in NY and be a Ranger. Hopefully he’s working his ass off this summer to get in better shape because his conditioning seemed to fall off a cliff after December.

They tried signing Brenden Dillon but got outbid by NJ. If Drury signed him, I’d imagine Lindgren would be gone by now. Staple and Vince both mentioned the issue with Lindgren is term, so that at least tells me they can see the writing on the wall for him. The other stuff out there now isn’t a better option than expecting a bit of regression back to normal for Lindgren, IMO.

I still think they need one more trade, and trying to get Marco Rossi makes too much sense if he’s still available

 

[JimmyG89]

The annoying thing about these franchises (mostly the same old ones) winning first overalls is that they then have these guys for 7-8 years with no competition.

I'd try and model the NFL system in that regard. 1st rounders get 4 year deals with a 5th year option (must be exercised by the end of Y3). You get two years of franchise tags (1 per roster). That equals your 7 years of control. If you don't sign your 1st rounder, the years drop on their entry level deal. (ie: a 2023 1st rounder signed this summer gets a 3 year deal with a 4th year option).

Anyone beyond the 1st round is 4 years, can also be franchised twice giving 6 years of potential control. Players would be hitting the free agent market at 24/25 years old max. There would be 22 year old UFAs. We'd be in a scenario where Kakko would have been an UFA and Lafreniere would have been going into his 5th year option. Management would get cost control for someone like a Bedard in years 4 and 5 when they would typically need to sign a blank check. The player gets to hit the open market earlier or get a franchise tag which provides much more than an RFA status with no arb rights.

Would take the NBA limit on term length which is 4 year deals outside the organization and 5 years for your own player. You'd have benchmark years for the top guys hitting the market (23, 28, 33, 38) if they get max terms from their team. Teams get to give their own guys more term and money overall. Management can get out of deals much sooner and allow more flexibility when building a roster.

 

[SA16]

I'd try and model the NFL system in that regard. 1st rounders get 4 year deals with a 5th year option (must be exercised by the end of Y3). You get two years of franchise tags (1 per roster). That equals your 7 years of control. If you don't sign your 1st rounder, the years drop on their entry level deal. (ie: a 2023 1st rounder signed this summer gets a 3 year deal with a 4th year option).

Anyone beyond the 1st round is 4 years, can also be franchised twice giving 6 years of potential control. Players would be hitting the free agent market at 24/25 years old max. There would be 22 year old UFAs. We'd be in a scenario where Kakko would have been an UFA and Lafreniere would have been going into his 5th year option. Management would get cost control for someone like a Bedard in years 4 and 5 when they would typically need to sign a blank check. The player gets to hit the open market earlier or get a franchise tag which provides much more than an RFA status with no arb rights.

Would take the NBA limit on term length which is 4 year deals outside the organization and 5 years for your own player. You'd have benchmark years for the top guys hitting the market (23, 28, 33, 38) if they get max terms from their team. Teams get to give their own guys more term and money overall. Management can get out of deals much sooner and allow more flexibility when building a roster.

I think decreasing contract lengths would likely be a bad thing for most players (and teams) since it would increase the AAVs of the top players/free agents giving less money for everyone else.

 

[bhamill]

It’s not about being spoiled or about the regular season. Just make it into the f***ing playoffs and anything can happen. The problem lies that this team can not win a cup playing the way that they do, and a massive problem with that is trouba and lindgren. Which is looks like they will be here for at least another year. So yea we as fans see it as mediocre because we all know that this team can’t win it all with what we have right now. We should have lost to Carolina but we own them and the panthers just ate us whole. So yea great let’s win a regular season award bc those mean the most lol. It’s about trying to win the cup.

Mediocre is a word that has a meaning, and finishing first overall in the league and making the final four of the playoffs is not within that meaning. You are proving my point. We are "disappointed" with "only" being first overall and two wins from the finals...

And I'll address you saying we cant win it: WE CAN. A healthy Fox (never mind 3 of our top four Dmen being hurt) last playoffs and there's a decent chance we win it even with Zibs disappearing act. The team should be better this year, Smith and Carrick are upgrades, and our younger players will logically take steps as well. Plus we are only mid July here. What, a quarter of the way through the off season? Who knows what happens between now and camp? Pessimism isn't any sounder logical ground than optimism.

 

[eco's bones]

This is how spoiled we are:
President's Trophy and two wins from the SCFs is "mediocre"...
Hahahaha.

FWIW it was a disappointing end. One team gets to raise the Cup though and it seems that at least for some if it is not the Rangers that wins it it's because they suck. If we're going to extend that logically then at least 30 of 32 teams are mediocre to horrible......and it makes me wonder why we make most of our players millionaires some of them many times over.

All teams by the way also have player/personnel issues. Holes to fill from season to season. Long term and large contracts that they may have to now or one day try to get out from under of. Teams that win tend to be at max cap from season to season and will have to cut bait from key players who helped bring them success because they no longer can afford to keep them. A team can only stay at the top so long before the cap casualties start adding up.

 

[IDvsEGO]

Barry Trotz came out and said tax free states have a benefit over other states that do. One person's perspective but someone that's actually in the league vs us speculating.

Essentially all the top free agents went to teams in tax free states (Reinhart, Montour, Guentzel, Skjei, JAM, Stamkos). Also 4 of the last 5 cup winners are teams from tax free states.

All individual data points but they all add up to show there is some significance there.

It’s a benefit.
As is living in nyc.
That’s a benefit. Should the league mandate that no nhl player can reside in manhattan?

 

[NYRKing]

Looking at Byfield and Slaf, would you do the Laffy at 6.5 for 5 or 8 x 8?

 

[LOFIN]

Looking at Byfield and Slaf, would you do the Laffy at 6.5 for 5 or 8 x 8?

8x8. Buy more UFA years.

 

[bhamill]

FWIW it was a disappointing end. One team gets to raise the Cup though and it seems that at least for some if it is not the Rangers that wins it it's because they suck. If we're going to extend that logically then at least 30 of 32 teams are mediocre to horrible......and it makes me wonder why we make most of our players millionaires some of them many times over.

All teams by the way also have player/personnel issues. Holes to fill from season to season. Long term and large contracts that they may have to now or one day try to get out from under of. Teams that win tend to be at max cap from season to season and will have to cut bait from key players who helped bring them success because they no longer can afford to keep them. A team can only stay at the top so long before the cap casualties start adding up.

Any time you get close and dont win it’s disappointing. I’m betting EDM and their fans were pretty damn disappointed. To call their run mediocre, though, is a whole different thing. Mediocre means middle of the pack. Of course we are allowed to be disappointed, it’s natural. But to say the team is mediocre or sucks is hyperbolic.
Your second paragraph is pretty dead on.

 

[bhamill]

It’s a benefit.
As is living in nyc.
That’s a benefit. Should the league mandate that no nhl player can reside in manhattan?

Sure because players living in a nice area has a LOT to do with a hard cap… if anything, the high cost of living balances it out.

Besides, some players like the city, some hate it. No player hates paying less taxes.

In other words it’s not a relevant comparison.

 

[bhamill]

Looking at Byfield and Slaf, would you do the Laffy at 6.5 for 5 or 8 x 8?

Either. In fact I’d do 9m x 8y. But that’s me.

 

[Riche16]

Yeah, beyond the landscape of the league, there are some very good points here.

What confuses me the most is reportedly they were in a huge rush to trade Trouba by the asscrack of dawn July 1st to do stuff, and then did, as you said, basically nothing.

I would think there's a happy median between being aggressive and doing not much at all, even if one of their main plans fell through.

Is there anything that can be done about Trouba @ this point? Honest question.

 

[RangersFan1994]

Insider Predicts Short-Term Deal for Rangers Defenseman

When the NHLPA released the list of 14 players who filed for salary arbitration, one of the biggest names was New York Rangers defenseman Ryan Lindgren. With 33

www.si.com

Could the Rangers sign Lindgren for just 1 season, and then let him walk next summer? Or will they sign Lindgren for 1 season, and trade him at the deadline?

 

[Clark Kellogg]

Insider Predicts Short-Term Deal for Rangers Defenseman

When the NHLPA released the list of 14 players who filed for salary arbitration, one of the biggest names was New York Rangers defenseman Ryan Lindgren. With 33

www.si.com

Could the Rangers sign Lindgren for just 1 season, and then let him walk next summer? Or will they sign Lindgren for 1 season, and trade him at the deadline?

Door number two. Definitely door number two.