Speculation: Roster Building Thread: Part XLIV

[Ola]

They allowed it then said this is borderline and we will investigate this closely in the future. The back diving contracts were approved and precedent was set until they weren't cool. Musical chairs stopped and the devils violated the CBA.

The NHL has made enough comments about it that we can assume it's going to be judged stringently.

But I still don't see how we even get past step 1 of Marleau accepting a trade to anywhere except San Jose.

Nah, I don't think the NHL would try to impose an absolute ban on it. The thing is -- its perfectly natural and possible for the Orpik situation to happen in a why that doesn't include grey areas. A team wants to get rid of a bad contract, happens all the time. The team that gets the bad contract buys it out, its worth it to them since they got the assets. So far so good. Now you stand there with a vet that often has a bad rep and have been bought out. Some of these guys might not get a contract, or only an offer from their former team. There is no ban against this in the CBA.

Bettman recently lost parts of the Voynov appeal. He isn't all mighty. A decision to come down on this could certainly be appealed too.

 

[McRanger]

The New York LOVE free agency. Look at the Yankees situation. They were pointing to the Yankees and the winter of 2018-19. When the Yankees made those trades at the 2016 deadline, everyone said wait until the winter of Bryce and Manny. The Yankees were signing one or both of the players. Cashman didn't want any part of paying Harper. The Yankees tried to rent Machado at the deadline. They brought Machado into NY one day last winter. Everyone said this is it. They never made him a formal offer. They told him we would be willing to go a certain level but the player wanted at least 10 years and $30M per. Machado never considered the Yankees "offer". Machado waited until spring training to sign and Yankee fans held out hope the Yankees would reconsider and give Manny $300M. When Manny signed with SD, they said we will sign Arenado next winter. He got 8 years/$260M to stay in Colorado.

The Yankees don't need Machado. They are a first place team with 1/2 of their team injured. Machado has 9 home runs with 1/3 of the season completed. The Yankees have enough high caliber position players when everyone is healthy. The Philly fans are already booing Harper with his 9 home runs and .227 batting average. $330M for that guy.

Same thing with the Rangers. They don't need any free agents. This year or two years from now.

Panarin won't be worth his next contract. He won't put up the numbers to justify the cost of the contract.

I dont much question what Panarin will do, at least for the first 3-4 years of his 7 year deal.

But I do question what the rest of the Rangers will do in that time frame.

 

[ElLeetch]

when picking top 2 the only level that matters to me is can you build a stanley cup contender around the guy...3 cups in 6 years says kane is at that level.

Sure. we just need to make sure we have a Towes and a Keith for our Kane to play with.

Is Miller or Fox our Keith? is Zib/Chytil/Kravtsov our Towes?

I like Miller/Fox/Chytil/Kravtsov/etc as prospects, but i don't have the confidence in them to be a Towes/Kieth level player than i do Kaako of being a Kane.

2020 draft will be critical finding a player of that level. With another lotto pick, and the chance to get another pick from Dallas, in a deep draft... well, thats our best hope moving forward.

 

[Off Sides]

I mean, why wouldn't the Rangers want to eat Marleau's cap hit to bring in a player like Kapanen or Johansson? Buying him out makes sense as well as they don't want him taking up a spot from a young player. Whether he gs back to Toronto or retires is not their concern. Their only goal is adding a good young player.

Rangers trading for a roster player, then saying they are buying him out to make roster room, that does not seem shady?

I think that would all fall under, if the NHL, as in, if many of the other owners/GM make a fuss, the Rangers would face some punishment proof or not.

Whether they win in arbitration after or not based on the proof or lack of, the damage could already be done. Rangers risking the NHL may take away their 2020 1st, and if they win in arbitration they get back the last pick of the 2021 first round?

 

[Leetch3]

Sure. we just need to make sure we have a Towes and a Keith for our Kane to play with.

Is Miller or Fox our Keith? is Zib/Chytil/Kravtsov our Towes?

I like Miller/Fox/Chytil/Kravtsov/etc as prospects, but i don't have the confidence in them to be a Towes/Kieth level player than i do Kaako of being a Kane.

2020 draft will be critical finding a player of that level. With another lotto pick, and the chance to get another pick from Dallas, in a deep draft... well, thats our best hope moving forward.

and crosby had malkin, kessel, letang...no one has ever won a cup by themselves

 

[NYR Viper]

Rangers trading for a roster player, then saying they are buying him out to make roster room, that does not seem shady?

I think that would all fall under, if the NHL, as in, if many of the other owners/GM make a fuss, the Rangers would face some punishment proof or not.

Whether they win in arbitration after or not based on the proof or lack of, the damage could already be done. Rangers risking the NHL may take away their 2020 1st, and if they win in arbitration they get back the last pick of the 2021 first round?

I mean it doesn't when the player they are buying out offers negative value.

For example, if the Rangers traded for Scott Darling but Carolina added their next (2) 2nd rounders in order to move him out and the Rangers immediately bought him out, would that also be circumvention? Darling would be free to sign with anyone at that time.

Or say they traded for Val Nichuskin and Martin Hanzal and bought out both players but Dallas included their 1st rounder this year as payment. Say Nichuskin decides to re-sign in Dallas.

Once the player is bought out there is only one team he can't play for per the CBA.

 

[kovazub94]

wouldnt have signed brassard/fill in 2C if we were trying to force kids into positions they arent ready for. byproduct of that is brassard makes team more competitive

2018-2019 Brassard at 2C wouldn't make the team more competitive. Quite opposite actually since this version couldn't even be an effective 3C. IMHO if signed he'd actually expose kids to situations they are not ready for. Would help tankers though.

 

[LiveLongandProspal]

This is just a reminder that we're getting Kaapo Kakko or Jack Hughes


Okay, continue with your day

 

[Off Sides]

I mean it doesn't when the player they are buying out offers negative value.

For example, if the Rangers traded for Scott Darling but Carolina added their next (2) 2nd rounders in order to move him out and the Rangers immediately bought him out, would that also be circumvention? Darling would be free to sign with anyone at that time.

Or say they traded for Val Nichuskin and Martin Hanzal and bought out both players but Dallas included their 1st rounder this year as payment. Say Nichuskin decides to re-sign in Dallas.

Once the player is bought out there is only one team he can't play for per the CBA.

That would all depend on what the NHL majority wants to do and how much push back they expect from the PA.

It's not like Bettman just makes rules, he just represents all the NHL teams.

If the majority of them want him to do something in the name of cap circumvention, he probably will or at least advise them why they should not do so.

Whether they lose or not in a battle with the PA, time passes in between and any punishment may not be made whole just because they lost down the road.

What they do, if anything, who knows, we've seen it play out both ways, yet we've seen that the CBA can be followed rule by rule and still punishment given out.

There are optics that goes along with that, any fight is likely not to have good ones, yet neither does allowing teams to skirt the cap.

Yet on the flip side we've seen them allow trades of LTIR players in the name of cap floor circumvention, so it's not like there are hard and fast guidelines, more if it suits them, and they do not expect much push back, they do so, where they tread more carefully elsewhere.

Two big market teams possibly colluding to circumvent the cap? Who knows I guess?

 

[Ola]

On Panarin and UFAs in general, it can also be relevant to like look at Getzlaf and Perry. It wasn't that long ago you looked at Anaheim and thought darn those guys can score and are also big and physical and gritty, they are so privileged. Now they are old and have lost a step, but the game has also changed on them. Prime Getzlaf and prime Perry would certainly be less effective in today's game than 10 years ago. 6 years ago you might have envisioned that they would be broken down a bit too slow to be a great fit in today's game -- but maybe not that their style and make-up would be a so-so fit. That has changed.

Making a really long commitment is always risky. 7 years is a really long-term commitment. I have no problems with Gorts making that long commitments to players coming of their ELCs. You get all their prime years at a discounted price later on, at least in relation to the projected value of them. The margin of error is tremendously much bigger with someone like Skjei or Zaitsev than it is with someone like James Neal, or even Shatty. And Smith. The younger kids can adopt, the older guys cannot.

The Finns trapped the heck out of everyone at the WCHs. European hockey (IIHF rules) are different. But all of a sudden a team expected to finish 30-31 in the league get a coach that comes up with a new way to trap the heck out of the NHL and walks away with a Cup, 50% of the league would follow the coming years. Just like with NJ followed by FLA getting to the finals the year after.

If you are a big fan of Panarin and want us to get him you might ask -- what does this have to exactly with him? Couldn't he play the trap just as well as Zibanejad? Why can't he be successful late in his career, he doesn't have to break down like Perry have? And sure, its relevant objections. I am not saying that the above factor should nix any thought about an older UFA like Panarin. But its also a factor that we should take into account. There is certainly a risk.

 

[Ola]

Two big market teams possibly colluding to circumvent the cap? Who knows I guess?

Yup, this is the key.

When Ari gets Pronger they act only in their self interest, give up something to get something else that is more worth it to them. When Philly deal Pronger they only act in their best interest in a normal way under the CBA, give up a fair package to get something that is a bigger advantage for them. Against the spirit of the CBA? I think its possible, but far from a given that you could get an arbitrator to OK a ruling by Bettman to nix a trade like that.

But the difference is if there is collusion. That is a no-go. Sort of a cooperation/agreement by two parties to fool another one or get around a rule. Like team X cannot buy out player A and resign him. So team X agrees with team Y that X will trade player A to Y and Y will buy him out, so that X can get around the rule preventing them from resigning the player. That is text-book collusion and I think there is a very good shot that Bettman could get an OK from an arbitrator if he nixed trade with that affect or came down on someone after it. Also in situations were the "agreement" between X and Y almost only is 'implied'. It could definitely just be enough if team X asked team Y what they would do if they got player A -- will you buy him out?

 

[NernieBichols]

I wonder what the rangers brass thinks about Marcus Johansson. highly highly touted coming into the league, always played behind the big Guns in Washington and then Jersey wasn’t too stacked with top 6 forwards during his stay. He’s quietly come up huge in really important situations for the bruins.
Seems like a JD type of player

Glue guy who can play anywhere in the lineup and given the chance on a top line might see an uptick in production.

I’ve always said. Panarin at 10 sits right with me. You Kreider, and then your paying him what 3mil per more than you would Kreider plus the assets obtained from dealing him.

But if your talking closer to 11.5. I’d probably rather sign two mid-tier free agents.

What if you were to trade Kreider and skjei, obtain the assets, and then sign a forward (Johansson) and a d (Myers).

That’s maximizing what you got to work with.

I think it’s unchard territory for the rangers in that, at this point, they can trade anyone, it’s a brand new team at this point, so maybe the best course to go all the way with swapping your current players for new infusion of talent assets, and use the cap space to wisely bring in the right players to anchor and the solidify the lineup so the new guys got quality players to play aside of

 

[Off Sides]

Yup, this is the key.

When Ari gets Pronger they act only in their self interest, give up something to get something else that is more worth it to them. When Philly deal Pronger they only act in their best interest in a normal way under the CBA, give up a fair package to get something that is a bigger advantage for them. Against the spirit of the CBA? I think its possible, but far from a given that you could get an arbitrator to OK a ruling by Bettman to nix a trade like that.

But the difference is if there is collusion. That is a no-go. Sort of a cooperation/agreement by two parties to fool another one or get around a rule. Like team X cannot buy out player A and resign him. So team X agrees with team Y that X will trade player A to Y and Y will buy him out, so that X can get around the rule preventing them from resigning the player. That is text-book collusion and I think there is a very good shot that Bettman could get an OK from an arbitrator if he nixed trade with that affect or came down on someone after it. Also in situations were the "agreement" between X and Y almost only is 'implied'. It could definitely just be enough if team X asked team Y what they would do if they got player A -- will you buy him out?

They likely wanted this "loophole" to be there for regular buyouts, or they just plain forgot as it came up with compliance buyouts.

NHL closing compliance buyout loophole in CBA

Which if they wanted would have been the easiest way to fix this, not allow the original team to re-sign the player post buyout for a year.

 

[TheTakedown]

I think you’re right about the type of deal - nice sweetener and somewhat better bad contract taken back.

I’m not too versed on the expansion point. Could the player waive his NTC for the purpose to not be on protection list?

He can, yes

 

[Tawnos]

They likely wanted this "loophole" to be there for regular buyouts, or they just plain forgot as it came up with compliance buyouts.

NHL closing compliance buyout loophole in CBA

Which if they wanted would have been the easiest way to fix this, not allow the original team to re-sign the player post buyout for a year.

Teams have to have mechanisms to get under the cap when they're in a tough spot, but there's a balance to how punitive the league wants to make those mechanisms. Teams aren't going to do each other favors, so letting them put the screws to each other is actually a pretty good way to police it.

In the case of this example... Toronto trading Kapanen to get out from under the large Marleau contract, I feel like that's more than punitive enough. No need to restrict them from bringing Marleau back as well.

 

[SA16]

Marleau is a negative to the Leafs while playing, especially in the role Babcock has given him, so I don't know why Dubas would want to bring him back even if he could. If he were to play limited 3rd line minutes, fine, but Babcock has been giving him 16-17 mins/game the last two years consistently. That's not good.

 

[TheTakedown]

A couple of weeks ago I was having dinner with a contact of mine while we were watching the Sharks & Blues.

The question came around: Did Erik Karlsson lose a step? My response was yes, based on the eye test in that game.

The reply from him was: Did he really lose a step or was he playing injured? It was the latter.

Karlsson is a guy who is going to get $11M from some team if he signs for 3 years. It will be up to Erik to see if he's willing to bet on himself or seek security. If it's term, teams will be in the $8M-$9M range. 3 Year Deals worked out for a guy like Joe Thornton.

We talked about the Rangers, there's been weeks of back and forth on here about free agents, taking on bad contracts etc. From someone who is close to the game, here's an outside perspective as to what it comes down to.

• Not going to win with the defense. Has 1 legitimate top 4 guy on the roster (Skjei). There isn't a hockey trade to be made where the Rangers can get a 1:1 and acquire a legitimate top 4 player without giving up assets that the Rangers wouldn't move (Zibs, Skjei, or premium youth in a package).
• If the Rangers want to fix the defense, it will have to be with more money (UFA), or develop them. Fox can be a guy who takes that step next year, but it's a tough expectation to place on a guy early on. Doesn't know the Rangers farm system well, but having a kid that can skate and defend with his feet would be a good step. Someone like a Vince Dunn.
• Doesn't see Shattenkirk as a top 4. Hasn't for a long time. Smith is not an everyday NHL player. Staal is an old school guy, game has changed where a guy like him should be in the top 4.
• Fourth Line might have been worst in the league last year. Teams are willing to pay a premium for good grinders. Rangers should be one of those teams going forward if they want to take a step.
• Doesn't see the team as one where the locker room polices itself, or has strong leadership. Not enough heart and soul guys. Roster needs sandpaper. Character in the room. NYC is not a city where you can breed a winning culture without guys that can help facilitate that with kids.
• Expects the Rangers to be active in free agency. But for 4th liners, and defense. Rangers are easy to beat if they take penalties. Lunqvist can't save the day on the PK anymore, and the Rangers don't defend well.
• Path to winning comes from fixing the PK, getting a legitimate fourth line.
• Likes how quickly the Rangers have built up a farm. Very impressed with the trades they made in selling off the last two seasons. Felt that they got some really good returns as far as the futures they acquired.
• Expects the sell-offs to continue. Will get good value from a guy like Fast if he's healthy at the deadline.
• Doesn't expect the Rangers to make hockey trades.
• Likes the physical tools of Kreider. Always thought he could be more. "Lower profile Brendan Saad". Same warts. What would he be if he played with a couple of guys like Toews and Hossa?

Thank you for this

 

[Off Sides]

Teams have to have mechanisms to get under the cap when they're in a tough spot, but there's a balance to how punitive the league wants to make those mechanisms. Teams aren't going to do each other favors, so letting them put the screws to each other is actually a pretty good way to police it.

In the case of this example... Toronto trading Kapanen to get out from under the large Marleau contract, I feel like that's more than punitive enough. No need to restrict them from bringing Marleau back as well.

Yet if the other teams outside of the two making the deal feel it's a cap advantage to Toronto, they could have a pretty good case that it is.

Without knowing who would make a stink, and how many would, it's pretty difficult to say what the league would do or not.
It's come up in the past, apparently they "talked" with Washington, who knows if they sent out a warning about if they'd consider it cap circumvention, so it's pretty impossible to say one way or another what they'd do because until it happens I'm not sure they would even know.

In this case it's not like they'd be looking the other way to help a lesser revenue generating team hopefully generate more revenue. Not a high tide raises all boats type of thing.

 

[SA16]

Yet if the other teams outside of the two making the deal feel it's a cap advantage to Toronto, they could have a pretty good case that it is.

Without knowing who would make a stink, and how many would, it's pretty difficult to say what the league would do or not.
It's come up in the past, apparently they "talked" with Washington, who knows if they sent out a warning about if they'd consider it cap circumvention, so it's pretty impossible to say one way or another what they'd do because until it happens I'm not sure they would even know.

In this case it's not like they'd be looking the other way to help a lesser revenue generating team hopefully generate more revenue. Not a high tide raises all boats type of thing.

I guess here's the problem with the deal. If Toronto was NOT in a cap crunch would they even consider trading him, having someone buy him out, and re-signing him? No. It wouldn't make any sense to do so. So the fact that is the type of move they would only make in this circumstance makes it pretty clear circumvention to me. It is mostly the whole "bringing him back" that is the problem. I wouldn't consider paying an asset to get rid of someone the same thing at all.

 

[ETTER DE]

NEVER said tank openly. were giving young guys time to develop instead of forcing things through possibly crippling contracts. sure, under this theory we arent actively trying to make the playoffs, but were utilising our cap space as a strength while still supporting our young players with proper veteran support. a product of that is a great draft pick, in a fantastic draft.

im sorry but just kakko/kravtsov and if you want to include him zibanejad wont win us a cup. 2020 draft could go long way to fixing that

By that time Zibanejad will be gone though?

 

[DutchShamrock]

Unless there is an inherent understanding between the Leafs and the player that they will re-sign him once bought out I don't see how the league can enforce anything. They may want to close that loophole in the next round of negotiations but for now it's open. If Marleau is bought out, he can go anywhere he pleases. If he wants to go back to Toronto so be it. Perhaps another team swoops in with a better offer

Maybe they have no case. How much different was Kovalchuk's illegal deal to the one he ultimately received or any of the other back diving deals? A few degrees? How do you prove intent to circumvent the CBA? Plausible deniability didn't help Lou, no amount of ignorance and or pleading it was a coincidence helped the devils. This is bettman's league and if he thinks there are shenanigans he will put his foot down.

I agree that we probably aren't culpable but I just see this scenario as so incredibly remote that it's not worth entertaining.

 

[kovazub94]

On Panarin and UFAs in general, it can also be relevant to like look at Getzlaf and Perry. It wasn't that long ago you looked at Anaheim and thought darn those guys can score and are also big and physical and gritty, they are so privileged. Now they are old and have lost a step, but the game has also changed on them. Prime Getzlaf and prime Perry would certainly be less effective in today's game than 10 years ago. 6 years ago you might have envisioned that they would be broken down a bit too slow to be a great fit in today's game -- but maybe not that their style and make-up would be a so-so fit. That has changed.

Making a really long commitment is always risky. 7 years is a really long-term commitment. I have no problems with Gorts making that long commitments to players coming of their ELCs. You get all their prime years at a discounted price later on, at least in relation to the projected value of them. The margin of error is tremendously much bigger with someone like Skjei or Zaitsev than it is with someone like James Neal, or even Shatty. And Smith. The younger kids can adopt, the older guys cannot.

The Finns trapped the heck out of everyone at the WCHs. European hockey (IIHF rules) are different. But all of a sudden a team expected to finish 30-31 in the league get a coach that comes up with a new way to trap the heck out of the NHL and walks away with a Cup, 50% of the league would follow the coming years. Just like with NJ followed by FLA getting to the finals the year after.

If you are a big fan of Panarin and want us to get him you might ask -- what does this have to exactly with him? Couldn't he play the trap just as well as Zibanejad? Why can't he be successful late in his career, he doesn't have to break down like Perry have? And sure, its relevant objections. I am not saying that the above factor should nix any thought about an older UFA like Panarin. But its also a factor that we should take into account. There is certainly a risk.

Of course there's a risk but somehow this is the only risk people are concentrating and not talking about risk of passing to go after Panarin. Like even if this type of signing would be miraculously available in two years from now, the current price tag of $10-$11m would easily turn into $12-13m by then (probably even for lower quality signing).
One thing that is being ignored in the discussion by those who opposed to bringing Panarin is that probably 90% of us who advocate for Panarin have significant conditions attached: 1. If Kreider is moved, 2. Not overbidding to bring him at any cost, 3. Not going after UFAs if Panarin goes elsewhere. I have seen name of Gretzky, Holik, Richards, Gomez, Drury etc thrown and so far have not seen a single one that was truly comparable to Panarin's situation in term of a type of potential UFA signing he'd be.
And trust me when I say I'm (we are) not going to throw a tantrum if he's not a Ranger.

 

[kovazub94]

I wonder what the rangers brass thinks about Marcus Johansson. highly highly touted coming into the league, always played behind the big Guns in Washington and then Jersey wasn’t too stacked with top 6 forwards during his stay. He’s quietly come up huge in really important situations for the bruins.
Seems like a JD type of player

Glue guy who can play anywhere in the lineup and given the chance on a top line might see an uptick in production.

I’ve always said. Panarin at 10 sits right with me. You Kreider, and then your paying him what 3mil per more than you would Kreider plus the assets obtained from dealing him.

But if your talking closer to 11.5. I’d probably rather sign two mid-tier free agents.

What if you were to trade Kreider and skjei, obtain the assets, and then sign a forward (Johansson) and a d (Myers).

That’s maximizing what you got to work with.

I think it’s unchard territory for the rangers in that, at this point, they can trade anyone, it’s a brand new team at this point, so maybe the best course to go all the way with swapping your current players for new infusion of talent assets, and use the cap space to wisely bring in the right players to anchor and the solidify the lineup so the new guys got quality players to play aside of

There's actually an answer in your post you can see it - underwhelmed in Washington in top-6 role. Could fit into top-6 in NJ either. Looks good in Boston now playing on a 3rd line. IMHO the type of signing that wouldn't work for this Rangers team.

 

[kinger8998]

By that time Zibanejad will be gone though?

cant tell if this is a joke or not lol if it isnt....zibanejad is 25. if we get a top pick in 2020, that player will be in the NHL by 2021-2022 at the latest. zibanejad will only he 28. another 2 years and that player, along with kravtsov and kaapo will be contributing nicely and into their NHL careers. this is good

 

[FIRE DRURY]

zibanejad is 25.

He turned 26 last month.

I'm sick and tired of your lies.