Speculation: Roster Building Thread: Part XXXIII

[kovazub94]

Tone aside I agree with @Ola that the Rangers FO needs to make a determination (or be more proactive) about signing players long-term instead of bridging them. Bridging EVERYONE is a cop out move to avoid making a decision now and potentially creating an issue in the future.

There are two major benefits to longer extensions - managing the cap and securing services of a player earlier than later. In that order. Why? Most hockey players just like us, regular folks, would prefer to have minimal change in their lives if they are comfortable and financially secure, so a team that wants to sign its own player inherently has an upper hand compared to other suitors.

Let me illustrate the other point that long-term salary is just an instrument to manage the cap: a player who has 4 years of RFA can sign a six year deal that pays him 3.5+4.0+4.5+5.0+6.5+6.5 = 30 or 5/y. This formula to me is pretty standard because the payments schedule corresponds to that player status as an RFA or UFA, however the team gets a cap "relief" in later UFA years at a cost of higher cap in early years. That's it. Of course there's a trade off for a player's security vs. losing upside in UFA years, but from players who cares about his payment instead of a cap - it's not that significant.

 

[Ola]

Kova- Thanks.

And I actually fully stand behind my tone, you need to draw the line somewhere and this is another classic ongoing Dolan driven NY pro sports screw up, that of course all GMs and reporters are so arrogant and proud of. We are so tough getting these guys to take a crap 2 year deal. Macho, if you show us we will give you a long term deal.

 

[Ola]

I don’t care one bit if we sign all of Buch, TDA, Pionk and co into bridge deals. Gorton knows a ton of things I don’t.

But we cannot again sit there in 2-3 years pulling our hair because 1 or 2 or 3 of those guys started to play a lot better after getting a little experience and at that point are looking at mega raises.

Gorton must make the right calls or we will never even remotely be able to contend. Again going ‘it’s a disaster for us now but this kid had just not deserved a long term deal 1-2 years ago’ isn’t a legit excuse. Other GMs are making those calls.

 

[Thirty One]

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.

Not arrogant? "How little brain substance can you be allowed to have?" That's a direct quote.

You say the Rangers are totally unaware about what's going on around them. How many players around the league, with less than 135 NHL games, like Pionk and DeAngelo, have been signed to 5+ year deals after their ELCs? Go back as far as you need to.

 

[Thirty One]

I don’t care one bit if we sign all of Buch, TDA, Pionk and co into bridge deals. Gorton knows a ton of things I don’t.

But we cannot again sit there in 2-3 years pulling our hair because 1 or 2 or 3 of those guys started to play a lot better after getting a little experience and at that point are looking at mega raises.

Gorton must make the right calls or we will never even remotely be able to contend. Again going ‘it’s a disaster for us now but this kid had just not deserved a long term deal 1-2 years ago’ isn’t a legit excuse. Other GMs are making those calls.

I agree the standard shouldn't be what the player has earned. The standard should be if the rewards outweigh the risk. Obviously.

 

[UAGoalieGuy]

I'm all for locking younger players up, though there should be a mix of bridges and longer extensions depending on the player/position.

I just dont want to hear the same ppl complain about longer extension when the player isnt living up to it right away like what had happened regarding Skjei.

 

[My Special Purpose]

Who are the top 5 Rangers in trade value (age, contract, performance all count) in order? I'm doing a project. I'd like to keep it to guys who have decent NHL experience, so we're not projecting a lot. My thought is that Zibanejad is the No. 1 most valuable, right? After that, Chytil, Skjei, Kreider, Andersson?

 

[kovazub94]

I'm all for locking younger players up, though there should be a mix of bridges and longer extensions depending on the player/position.

I just dont want to hear the same ppl complain about longer extension when the player isnt living up to it right away like what had happened regarding Skjei.

Complaining about Skjei's contract one year into it is shortsighted.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

Who are the top 5 Rangers in trade value (age, contract, performance all count) in order? I'm doing a project. I'd like to keep it to guys who have decent NHL experience, so we're not projecting a lot. My thought is that Zibanejad is the No. 1 most valuable, right? After that, Chytil, Skjei, Kreider, Andersson?

Zibanejad, Kreider.....a large drop.....everyone else.

Skjei's contract is horrendous and would scare a lot of teams off. The rest of the roster are basically young players trying to find their way, which every organization has.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

Complaining about Skjei's contract one year into it is shortsighted.

How about complaining about how he was also horrendous last year and didn't deserve the contract in the first place?

 

[Yuck]

There is a whole lot of luck in either case in the decision to bridge vs give a long term deals for young players that clearly are good but not great/superstars. You are going to win some and you are going lose some either way. I think there is a lot of luck involved in either case, but a bridge is always going to give you more flexibility for other moves and you can trade away someone you can't afford. Having long term bad contracts can really tie you up for dealing with problems down the line. There are ALWAYS problems down the line, injuries, drop of play, crazy summer of weddings, whatever it is there is value in flexibility/the ability to make moves. If I had three good young players and I had to decide to bridge all three or give long term deals to all three, I'd pick the former.

 

[UAGoalieGuy]

Complaining about Skjei's contract one year into it is shortsighted.

1000% agreed.

 

[Thirty One]

Complaining about Skjei's contract one year into it is shortsighted.

No, when I complain about Skjei's contract, I'm looking long-term.

 

[Off Sides]

Skjei, If the point is to save cap space on the back end when he would otherwise be a UFA by paying more for his remaining RFA years, he has a lot of improving to do over the next two seasons to fulfill that.

 

[Savant]

Skjei's contract is neither bad nor good

 

[kovazub94]

No, when I complain about Skjei's contract, I'm looking long-term.

Skjei, If the point is to save cap space on the back end when he would otherwise be a UFA by paying more for his remaining RFA years, he has a lot of improving to do over the next two seasons to fulfill that.

IMHO It was a risk worth taking, especially for a team in Rangers situation.

 

[Mikos87]

Nashville is notorious for that.

Except look at who they've given it to... Guys that established roles in the NHL.

If they have concerns, they'll trade them out. Nashville values guys that can fill roles, and when they find that, they'll extend with term.

A lot of those guys were not homebred either, they were trade acquisitions that filled said roles.

 

[Mikos87]

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.

Those players were on the front line in their ELC, with proven consistency. Plus 2 of those guys were drafted what 1st overall?

 

[JESSEWENEEDTOCOOK]

Those players were on the front line in their ELC, with proven consistency. Plus 2 of those guys were drafted what 1st overall?

Thank you.

Comparing guys like Buch and TDA to Josi, MacKinnon, and Tavares is earnest at best.

 

[SA16]

Those players were on the front line in their ELC, with proven consistency. Plus 2 of those guys were drafted what 1st overall?

Ok if you don't like Tavares/MacKinnon I could have used Horvat/Trocheck/Gostisbehere/Ellis/Zaitsev (obvious bad one)/Matheson (unknown)/Klingberg/Arvidsson/Klefbom/Gardiner instead for other guys currently on long term deals that weren't bridged that are at least 4M. Rielly and Horvat are the only top 10 picks there.

A lot of them were very good before the deal but not all.

Everyone is just so risk adverse. If you never take a chance you never can get in an advantageous cap situation. And I'm not saying "don't bridge anyone" if you look at my very first comment in the Skjei thread I said I would rather have bridged him (but still thought that deal was fine). I happen to think these two guys are worth going long term on. Buch/ADA being benched for effort/off-ice stuff should only serve to help the team sign them long term more cheaply than they would without that stuff going on. It's the perfect time to risk it especially since we theoretically don't need all the cap space right now but may in the future.

 

[Edge]

I’d feel more comfortable going long term with some of these guys if I felt they had more track behind them.

If Buch wasn’t being benched for effort, and including in a plethora of trade proposals just a few weeks ago. If we saw him going from 40 points, to 45, to 50, I’d say we could at least use that as a reason to bet on him earlier.

But I don’t think we have that luxury. Usually the guys who teams gamble on are guys who have proven a bit more than Buch, and even ADA have to this point.

 

[Tawnos]

Except look at who they've given it to... Guys that established roles in the NHL.

If they have concerns, they'll trade them out. Nashville values guys that can fill roles, and when they find that, they'll extend with term.

A lot of those guys were not homebred either, they were trade acquisitions that filled said roles.

The epitome of this kind of thing to me is Jarnkrok, who wasn’t that well established when they signed him long term.

 

[Thirty One]

IMHO It was a risk worth taking, especially for a team in Rangers situation.

And that's fine, but to say it's short-sighted to have concerns one year in? Is it the same for expressing positive sentiments? I think now's as good as time as any, it's a lot easier to evaluate after the contract is over.

 

[egelband]

Looks even worse when you consider that in the first 6 years, he has played 65 games or less 4 times.

What kind of injuries is he prone to? Chronic stuff out fluke stuff? I'm not sold on him at the expected price but just trying to get a clearer picture.

 

[nevesis]