Speculation: Roster Building Thread: Part XXXIII

[Ola]

Long term contracts coming off ELC's can be risky but there also can be big reward. I think if we offered Buch something like 7 years for a total of 42M (6M AAV) he'd consider taking it and we'd lock in a second liner with potential to get better long term.

Great points!

And, are they really that risky?

 

[pld459666]

Hmm, I am not sure I follow, why would we commit 7-8 years to a player just because we weren’t prepared to give him raises all the time?

We can trade players even if they are under contract.

Like let’s say we gave Buch 4m per for 6 years. The first 4 years could not include any NTCs or NMCs. And the buy-out rules are very team friendly for younger players, only 1/3 of the cap hit diveded over twice the number of remaining contract years. So if Buch starts to do crack and just suck and nobody would take him after 3 years, we could buy him out for 666k per season over 6 years.

So I don’t at all understand why you feel that you ‘commit’ to a kid by just not letting his rights float around? We committed to Marc Staal, Hank and co, but compareing the commitment we made to them to the one we would be doing for Buch is totally comparing apples and oranges.

I'm not a believer of paying someone based on the hope that he out performs his contract nor am I interested in thinking about buying him out before the ink is dry.

Earn the contract that you want.

 

[wafflepadsave]

Some links to the unsigned NCAA players this year (some are now signed) below:

Top 2019 College Hockey Free Agents - Last Word on Hockey
Top 2019 College Hockey Free Agents - Part 2 - Last Word on Hockey
Top 2019 College Hockey Free Agents - Part 3 - Last Word on Hockey
Top 2019 College Hockey Free Agents - Part 4 - Last Word on Hockey

2019 Top NCAA NHL Free Agents

I will take a couple of those right defensemen.

 

[Ola]

I'm not a believer of paying someone based on the hope that he out performs his contract nor am I interested in thinking about buying him out before the ink is dry.

Earn the contract that you want.

I don’t understand what you mean? In what situation would you pay a player based on a hope that he will out perform his contract?

Go to capfriendly and check long term deals signed by younger players. How many of those are signed with the hopes that the player will significantly improve his play? I scrolled through several hundred and had a hard time finding anything close to a handful.

Lol not wondering why we do not agree. I wasn’t saying that we should give Buch 8m per, TDA 7m per or Pionk 6m per. Just arguing that Gorton must do what all well run organizations out there is doing — and what he never has done in the past — and that is make the right decisions regarding our kids contracts. Don’t guarantee them constant raises, get them to resign long term at a rate based on their present performance and the years you buy out.

 

[Edge]

I'm not a believer of paying someone based on the hope that he out performs his contract nor am I interested in thinking about buying him out before the ink is dry.

Earn the contract that you want.

And I can't help but feel Buchnevich, based on track record to this point, is a guy who gives me an extra level of concern about going long-term at this point.

Investing in an emerging talent is always a risk. Investing in an emerging talent who was still being benched for effort and commitment not too long ago is an even greater risk.

It's why I never subscribed to evaluating players on short sample sizes where everything could be coming together, or everything can be falling apart. That approach is what leads to having conversations about both trading a player because they'll never "get it" and giving them a 6 year extension, all within an insanely short period of time --- which we've now done.

 

[Off Sides]

I think there is certainly instances where the best move is to go long term off entry level contracts, Yet with players who have question marks that has to reflect in a much lesser of a cap hit than they normally may get down the road.

I'm not really sure if Buch in two years after his bridge deals ends will be able to command 4M in cap hit. I'd go like 50/50 on that. He certainly has the talent to get there, yet he leaves a lot to be desired. I think it's possible he follows the Namestnikov route and ends up as about a 4M cap hit player even as a UFA, yet he could become something where they wished they did go long term.

To me Stepan represented something different, played 3 years in the NHL prior and was not showing many question marks at the time, he was pretty close to 100% going to get significantly more after his bridge short of injury, and he did.

McD was different, he showed enough talent to know he'd get way more, him being a D too increased the likelihood.

Del Zotto was bridged even after he put up 41 points, and it turned out to be a pretty good idea there.

Skjei contract is interesting, I'm not convinced that if they had bridged him he would get more than the ~5M cap hit he has anyway after that bridge, so I'm not sure why the Rangers did so except he is a D and their D was/is in shambles.

ADA in my opinion is the only one where it's above 50/50 he is going to get significantly more on his post bridge deal, yet there seem to be some extenuating circumstances there. But as a young RD who is a good on ice player, that is going to cost a decent chuck to keep going forward. However he likely knows that so I'm not really sure how much of a break they'd really get by going long term. Have the Rangers given him much of a reason to think he is part of whatever the Rangers are doing long term, if not I'm just not sure why he signs something like that where his value as a trade chip would maybe tip the scales to him ending up somewhere he does not want to be on that long term he signed.

Pionk I'm not seeing the big increase down the road, his bridge deal may be about the most he'll ever get in terms of cap hit.

Claesson I assume they qualify him and he either plays a year for that or they give him a small raise above it.

Lemieux they may go the same route, yet I think they at least entertain maybe going for a longer bridge deal there.

If they are really going after expensive UFAs it only makes sense to go as cheap as possible on all those contracts, maybe not even qualify Claesson.

 

[NYR Viper]

And I can't help but Buchnevich, based on track record to this point, is a guy who gives me an extra level of concern about going long-term at this point.

Investing in an emerging talent is always a risk. Investing in an emerging talent who was still being benched for effort and commitment not too long ago is an even greater risk.

It's why I never subscribed to evaluating players on short sample sizes where everything could be coming together, or everything can be falling apart. That approach is what leads to having conversations about both trading a player because they'll never "get it" and giving them a 6 year extension, all within an insanely short period of time --- which we've now done.

While I agree with this premise, the caveat is, and always will be, what he would want on a long term deal. If it's 6 years x $3.5m, I'm game. His current, inconsistent scoring rates are right in line with that type of contract and even if he stops improving totally, he is a good 3rd liner. That's right in line with where he would be anyways on a short term deal most likely

 

[QJL]

I love the idea of Buch and DeAngelo on long term deals at $4m x 5-6 years. Those are the types of boom or bust contracts that can really help build a team. There is also low risk from a buyout perspective as others have noted. DeAngelo seems like a no brainer. Reservations about Buch have more legitimacy, but I still take the risk.

Having said that, I’m on the Panarin train. I prefer to qualify both and see what’s left after we sign the big kahuna. Long term might only be possible with one of them if we add a $10m contract.

 

[TheBloodyNine]

I love the idea of Buch and DeAngelo on long term deals at $4m x 5-6 years. Those are the types of boom or bust contracts that can really help build a team. There is also low risk from a buyout perspective as others have noted. DeAngelo seems like a no brainer. Reservations about Buch have more legitimacy, but I still take the risk.

Having said that, I’m on the Panarin train. I prefer to qualify both and see what’s left after we sign the big kahuna. Long term might only be possible with one of them if we add a $10m contract.

I sincerely hope none of that happens.

 

[Off Sides]

4M x 5 years I think that does sign them, yet that is only buying one UFA year.

At that point why are the Rangers buying only one UFA year by spending more now?

If they are going to spend more now, the best way to make that up on the back end is to be paying 4M for a player when he could be making 7 or 8.

If they are only saving that 3-4M for one year while basically overpaying them for the 4 years prior, I'm not sure I see the point.

At 6 years I don't think that 4M gets it done, but if so that at least makes for a more interesting risk/reward scenario where maybe they are getting that 3-4M cap hit discount for two years.

Yet then it gets back to whether or not ADA or Buch are really going o get to that 7-8M cap hit level, like ever.

 

[Ola]

I love the idea of Buch and DeAngelo on long term deals at $4m x 5-6 years. Those are the types of boom or bust contracts that can really help build a team. There is also low risk from a buyout perspective as others have noted. DeAngelo seems like a no brainer. Reservations about Buch have more legitimacy, but I still take the risk.

Yeah I like the idea of those contracts.

But like, what do I know? Maybe TDA is making life miserable for Quinn and a bunch of players. Maybe Buch is a hopeless slacker. I am not around these guys 24/7.

My point is just, Gorton must be able to make those decisions. He must have the ability to get to know these guys, we must have it within the organization.

It’s extremely crucial that Gorton does not sit there in 2-3 years with one of these guys that we really want to keep but that will cost us a fortune since he is a couple of years away from UFA and has arbitration rights and good stats.

 

[Ola]

4M x 5 years I think that does sign them, yet that is only buying one UFA year.

At that point why are the Rangers buying only one UFA year by spending more now?

If they are going to spend more now, the best way to make that up on the back end is to be paying 4M for a player when he could be making 7 or 8.

If they are only saving that 3-4M for one year while basically overpaying them for the 4 years prior, I'm not sure I see the point.

At 6 years I don't think that 4M gets it done, but if so that at least makes for a more interesting risk/reward scenario where maybe they are getting that 3-4M cap hit discount for two years.

Yet then it gets back to whether or not ADA or Buch are really going o get to that 7-8M cap hit level, like ever.

If we believe in them, these guys should get two type of offers, QOs and then 6-8 year deals (unless they have arb rights).

Anyone think Toronto pitched any 3-4 year deals for Nylander?

 

[Off Sides]

Nylander who had two 61 point consecutive seasons leading up to his ending of his entry level?

Who also held out? And eventually signed a contract that without the hold out would give him a cap hit of 7.5M

I'm not sure I understand the equivalency.

 

[pld459666]

I don’t understand what you mean? In what situation would you pay a player based on a hope that he will out perform his contract?

Go to capfriendly and check long term deals signed by younger players. How many of those are signed with the hopes that the player will significantly improve his play? I scrolled through several hundred and had a hard time finding anything close to a handful.

Lol not wondering why we do not agree. I wasn’t saying that we should give Buch 8m per, TDA 7m per or Pionk 6m per. Just arguing that Gorton must do what all well run organizations out there is doing — and what he never has done in the past — and that is make the right decisions regarding our kids contracts. Don’t guarantee them constant raises, get them to resign long term at a rate based on their present performance and the years you buy out.

What well run organization are you referring to ?

 

[Gardner McKay]

6/27 would be a good deal for Buch, long-term. But I think they'd push for 6/33.

I usually agree with most of what you say but... 6 years for Buchnevich? No. Not at 4.5 per year. The risk significantly outweighs the reward IMO. If he bombs and the deal is 3-4 years, you may be able to convince another team to take him. That isn't happening on a 6 year deal.

 

[Tawnos]

What well run organization are you referring to ?

Nashville is notorious for that.

 

[Fitzy]

Every team that wants talented players has to put up with some non-ideal personalities. Otherwise the best you're going to get is the 2010 NY Rangers lineup minus Marian Gaborik and Sean Avery.

 

[Ola]

What well run organization are you referring to ?

Look at the standings, look at say the top 20 teams, those teams.

The only time a well run organization revert to bridge deals is if they really don’t have the room for something else.

If you frequent bridge deals, and only give long contracts to those who really are standouts, you are never going to contend.

This is the one problem I have with this organization. 1 cup in 80 years. There is a reason for it. It can be totally unaware of what is going on around it. Like we didn’t trap between 95’-03’ when all other teams trapped, why? ‘You can’t trap in NY’. I recon it’s OK to be the joke of pro sports in NY? It wasn’t trapping, it was just more organized defense. Nobody ever called out a GM or coach for not fixing the defense during the trapping era, nobody.

Especially Sather but also Gorton has really dropped the ball in this area. Tremendously costly mistakes, time after time after time. Still all reporters and everyone around the team discuss processes about resigning players in terms of ‘how many years the player have deserved’. WTF? Look around the league for once. 1 cup in 80 years, read @RangerBoy posts about how great bridge deals and how the NYR brass is the only one who have figured it out. How little brain substance can you be allowed to have?

Go to www.capfriendly.com and surf around a little. One cup in 80 years, maybe it’s a reason for it?

 

[Ola]

I don’t care if one poster at this place exhibit a severe shortage of brain substance, but I will quote this post because it’s exactly how Gorton and Slats have ran things the last years, how they have been vocal of how things should be managed, how they have bragged for Brooks on how things should be handled:

The Rangers need to re-sign some of their own players too.

Pavel Buchnevich is a group II with arb rights. The guy has produced when given the opportunity and the coach isn't jerking him around. Let the guy play. Buchnevich hasn't had the type of season to give him a long-term deal. Bridge deal. 2 years. $3M-$3,5M AAV?

Pionk has his flaws. The Rangers like him better than some of the fans. Bridge deal. Stecher has a $2.325M cap hit. Same situation, Bridge deal. Player coming out of college as a free agent.

Deangelo has no arb rights. The Rangers will make him play at his QO of $874,125. He has played well in his limited time too. July 15.

Lemieux has no arb rights. Same situation as Tony. $874,125. July 15.

During the years the player have zero leverage Gorton will squeeze them hard to save a few 100k here and there. Then the players get more established, starts playing better, and since Gorton short termed them they will get multiple opportunities to negotiate raises and since they now will get all the leverage Gorton will stand there with his ants down yet again. Either he will be forced to resign guys to insane deals like Staal and Girardi or he will he have to let solid guys walk like Stralsy or get very little for them in trades.

The cost for these mistakes has been extreme for us for years. All better organizations has dumped that idiotic bridge deal strategy a long time ago. Nobody in NY is taking notice, nobody. One cup in 80 years, there is a reason for it. Arrogance. See the above post, exhibits if perfectly. Really makes me sick.

 

[Ori]

@Ola cup arguement 1 in 80 years - they barely had hockey equipment in the late 60`s so I would not worry too much about that, and Rangers won in 94, and we were close in 2014, but Nash missed his chance and retired with Boston last year with Jeff`s rebuild.

I would not worry too much about the amount of cups arguement in the last 80 years, because it was before anyone in the current Franchise was born even though it`s an old history, but I tend to agree with bridge deals can backfire based on my reasoning with DeAngelo that I`ve notion he will have a breakthrough season within two years so I rather have him long term with no NMC to save cap for the rebuild.

 

[LORDE]

It’s actually a quote by former Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart. I quote with style

I got the reference

 

[SA16]

The problem with bridge deals for the most part is that they just completely prevent you from ever getting that huge value deal like that of Josi or Tavares or MacKinnon that you can get by going long term only.

 

[Thirty One]

Look at the standings, look at say the top 20 teams, those teams.

The only time a well run organization revert to bridge deals is if they really don’t have the room for something else.

If you frequent bridge deals, and only give long contracts to those who really are standouts, you are never going to contend.

This is the one problem I have with this organization. 1 cup in 80 years. There is a reason for it. It can be totally unaware of what is going on around it. Like we didn’t trap between 95’-03’ when all other teams trapped, why? ‘You can’t trap in NY’. I recon it’s OK to be the joke of pro sports in NY? It wasn’t trapping, it was just more organized defense. Nobody ever called out a GM or coach for not fixing the defense during the trapping era, nobody.

Especially Sather but also Gorton has really dropped the ball in this area. Tremendously costly mistakes, time after time after time. Still all reporters and everyone around the team discuss processes about resigning players in terms of ‘how many years the player have deserved’. WTF? Look around the league for once. 1 cup in 80 years, read @RangerBoy posts about how great bridge deals and how the NYR brass is the only one who have figured it out. How little brain substance can you be allowed to have?

Go to www.capfriendly.com and surf around a little. One cup in 80 years, maybe it’s a reason for it?

Absolute arrogance of this post aside, you seem to be brushing against the argument that all the successful teams hand out long term deals of ELCs to mid-range talent almost indiscriminately. If you're going to make that argument, go ahead and do so.

Nashville is the poster child for this and they've been successful at it. Have they been more successful than the Rangers?

The three teams with the most silver in recent history are Chicago, Pittsburgh, and LA. Guys like Crosby, Malkin, Toews, Kane, Kopitar and Doughty of course signed long-term. The next tier? I took your advice and went to CapFriendly.

Chicago signed Ladd for 2 years. Shaw 2 years. Crawford 2 years. Leddy 2 years. Seabrook 3 years. Byfuglien 3 years. Barker 3 years. Frolik 3 years.

Pittsburgh went 2 years with Fleury, Orpik and Kennedy. 3 years for Sheary and Murray. Were willing to go 4 years with Staal and Letang (a lot better and more notable players than the guys we're discussing for the Rangers). Finally they saw the error of their ways and went 6 years for Olli Maatta. If he re-learns how to skate that's going to look like a steal. Their success honestly hasn't been driven by homegrown talent outside of a small core.

LA signed Muzzin to a 1 year deal. 2 year deals for Brown, Martinez, Jack Johnson, Toffoli, Pearson.

Looking around the league, I didn't get the idea that the secret to life is giving a six-year deal to Neal Pionk and the like.

 

[Off Sides]

Nashville does it mostly with defenders, as have the Rangers.

If the Rangers ever have a Forsberg level player coming off his entry level, I'm pretty sure I'm going to be advocating they sign him long term right then and there while buying up as many UFA years as possible.

They also did it with Arvidsson, who put up 61 points in his last entry level year.

 

[Ola]

Absolute arrogance of this post aside, you seem to be brushing against the argument that all the successful teams hand out long term deals of ELCs to mid-range talent almost indiscriminately. If you're going to make that argument, go ahead and do so.

Nashville is the poster child for this and they've been successful at it. Have they been more successful than the Rangers?

The three teams with the most silver in recent history are Chicago, Pittsburgh, and LA. Guys like Crosby, Malkin, Toews, Kane, Kopitar and Doughty of course signed long-term. The next tier? I took your advice and went to CapFriendly.

Chicago signed Ladd for 2 years. Shaw 2 years. Crawford 2 years. Leddy 2 years. Seabrook 3 years. Byfuglien 3 years. Barker 3 years. Frolik 3 years.

Pittsburgh went 2 years with Fleury, Orpik and Kennedy. 3 years for Sheary and Murray. Were willing to go 4 years with Staal and Letang (a lot better and more notable players than the guys we're discussing for the Rangers). Finally they saw the error of their ways and went 6 years for Olli Maatta. If he re-learns how to skate that's going to look like a steal. Their success honestly hasn't been driven by homegrown talent outside of a small core.

LA signed Muzzin to a 1 year deal. 2 year deals for Brown, Martinez, Jack Johnson, Toffoli, Pearson.

Looking around the league, I didn't get the idea that the secret to life is giving a six-year deal to Neal Pionk and the like.

Well you obviously didn’t read my post.

The secret to life is to not sit there in 2-3 years clearly having made the wrong call. Pionk? TDA? Buch? I have an opinion but you can argue back and forth, I am not arrogant about that like you claim.

But so far, Slats/Gorton have de facto made huge blunder after huge blunder strong arming kids when they had all leverage into saving nickle and dimes short term than regretting it extremely much just a year or two later.

Gorton will cause this organization a tremendous amount of harm — again — if he strong arms one of these kids into a minimum 1-2 year deal and the kid takes off and proves to be a great asset. And he will of course do the same if he signs Vinni Lettieri to a 8 year deal worth 7m per and Vinni L spends the majority of that contract in the AHL.

Gorton must make the right calls on these issues. It cannot be a legit excuse 2-3 years from now to say like “well player X had not deserved a long term deal”. Other GMs are making those calls really well, Gorton has not.