Speculation: Roster Building Thread: Part XXXIII

[Lays]

Beat to it. In before everyone says we’re drafting Cozens now

 

[nevesis]

If we get this kid and potentially draft Cozens, what a huge improvement that could be.

 

[Zibanejbread]

Good job, JG.

 

[Tob]

Hopefully he'll become a part of the glue that holds a young core of depth players together.

 

[pld459666]

Very skeptical about a player that has scored more goals this year than the previous three seasons combined.

Free asset is a free asset, but I expect nothing from this kid

 

[Tob]

Very skeptical about a player that has scored more goals this year than the previous three seasons combined.

Free asset is a free asset, but I expect nothing from this kid

That's the spirit!

 

[pld459666]

That's the spirit!

Thanks.

 

[ETTER DE]

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.

If Rangers had players of that calibre, I am sure noone would have a problem singing them longterm.

 

[SA16]

If Rangers had players of that calibre, I am sure noone would have a problem singing them longterm.

Was Josi that caliber when he signed his deal prior to the 2013-2014 season having played 100 career games with 34 points? And in his two seasons he had a 42.7/46.4 CF%.

 

[GoAwayPanarin]

Very skeptical about a player that has scored more goals this year than the previous three seasons combined.

Free asset is a free asset, but I expect nothing from this kid

I mean I'd be skeptical of the fact that hes doing it with a top 5 draft pick to be, not so much of when he started scoring.

Hopefully hes a late bloomer, but the chances of that being so are very slim.

 

[Leetch3]

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.

it depends on the player...if its the right guy you get yourself a good value deal for several years. if its the wrong guy you are stuck with a bad cap hit for several years. the pros and cons of a bridge deal vs long term on contract change based on who you are talking about

 

[kovazub94]

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.

In the context of what we discussed it is shortsighted. With a long term deal we got some stability and a cap maneuverability for future years (as discussed). Is there a risk of regression for Skjei to reduce his performance to a third pair D? Minimal. Does this contract make him immovable? Hardly. He clearly is a middle pair defenseman already, even with his struggles this season (and he’s been much better at least for the last 3-4 weeks). He’s still young and I think the Rangers made a good bet that there could be some good room left for further development.

I know your position when Skjei was signed and I disagree. Then and now.

 

[Avery16]

Jake Elmer’s name sounds a little too much like Jeff Ulmer for my liking

 

[Ola]

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.

Thanks for explaining what you reacted to! I was unclear.

This is what I have a tremendous problem with:

https://nypost.com/2013/02/15/rangers-unlikely-to-make-offer-to-oreilly/

The Rangers made it a policy, beginning in 2008-09 with Ryan Callahan and Brandon Dubinsky and continuing this year with Michael Del Zotto, to sign restricted free agents lacking salary arbitration rights to two-year “bridge” deals.

The Rangers have only deviated from this policy in situations when they felt that they had a kid that had proved himself above and beyond. In so many other cases it have been very apparent that a kid was doing a lot of good things and certainly where heading in the right direction, but Slats/Gorton used bridge deals and then we stood there with disaster after disaster after disaster when the bridge deals where up. My 'lack of brain substance' was in relation to that strict policy solely based on passed performance and not using the one contract a NHL team can sign with a player where the team has all the leverage for any thing else than trying to save a few 100k's short term.

What I am -- call it arrogant if you want -- about is that Gorton must scrap that policy all together and start making the right calls. The contract cannot be about past performance, he must make the right call about future performance.

I understand that I come across as super arrogant about Buch, Pionk and TDA. That was not my intention. Sometimes you see those off-ice vids with TDA -- who I really love as a player -- and you go WTF. Is Buch professional enough? You have those there is no gym in Russia comments. Pionk has done a tremendous job handling a truly remarkable assignment for an undersized fresh PMD. Sure the bottom line can be discussed, but the fact that he got on the ice and off the ice in one piece under these conditions is remarkable. So he is de facto strong in some areas. But sure, if someone think that overall Pionk is opportunity driven, he don't have it overall, I am not sure I agree but I wouldn't be arrogant about that either.

My point was just, Gorton cannot again put us in a situation where we sit there in 2-3 years with player X or Y looking to blow up our cap after another ill-advised bridge deal. He must make the right calls, that is his job.

 

[RGY]

They made a mistake not bridging Skjei.

 

[Off Sides]

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.

I'm not sure how much cap space those team actually saved on those contracts? (also that list contains many players who had either more NHL games or more points in their entry level contract than the Rangers players we are currently discussing)


To use Stepan as an example, someone I think the Rangers should have gone long term on.

It was rumored he wanted a 5x5, Rangers bridged him for about 3M for 2

So the Rangers basically saved about 2M for two years

Then he signed for 6.5x6 after that bridge.

The difference there between what he original wanted long term and what he received after his bridge is like 1.5M per year

Since they traded him after 2 years into that 6 year deal, they maybe lost out on saving like 3M over two years.

While I do think that is somewhat significant, on the other hand they gave Glass a ~1.5M cap hit.

So while I do believe going long term on lesser that top tier players can at times save some cap space on the back end, in a way if the team is going to be inefficient anywhere else, it's kind of a wash.

If the team were efficient everywhere else, they are still risking a long term to not save all that much cap on the lesser than top tier players. If it goes bad the efficiency goes down. If it goes good the savings is not going to be likely more than 1.5 to say about 3M per UFA year.

I think as a general rule under the current cap, if you think the player can get like 7M or more as a UFA, when he can be a UFA, it's definitely worth looking into signing them long term right off their elc yet only if you can also buy up at least two of those UFA years to maximize the possible savings

Yet if you figure the player may end up on like a 5 or even 6M contract as a pure UFA, and you can only buy up one or two of those year, you are not likely to be saving all that much yet are carrying some risk that you caused an inefficiency.

On top of all that we are sort of assuming these players want to sign long term contracts off their entry levels. While many do as long as they feel the risk reward fits them, there are other guys like ROR, Trouba, Hayes who just do not seem all that interested in doing so and would rather try to get to UFA as soon as possible. Perhaps they believe they can make more career money by doing so, perhaps they want to spend their UFA years with a no movement/trade clause where they sign?

We have to remember becoming a UFA at the earliest age possible, if the player is good likely means the most career money, it likely also means getting a clause on that contract, and it could even mean they get another good contract when that one ends even if they are like 32 at that time. If they are signing something off their entry level which leaves them at like age 29 at it's end instead, that progression path is much more limited.

 

[True Blue]

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.

Not sure of everything as nowadays it's a lot of "upper body, lower body" injuries. But he has had ankle injuries and is at least one concussion in.

 

[HatTrick Swayze]

I have to side with @Ola and @SA16 here.

If the counter to not taking more risks with second contracts is Skjei, that’s not a horrible thing to me. He is still 100% moveable because his cap hit is not toxic and he couldn’t get a movement clause.

Asymmetric information - the NYR will always (in theory) know more about their players than other teams. There will be a window (like Skjei is in now) where other teams will view players as “still being young enough with potential” that they will overlook 3-4 more years at a reasonable hit. They will still see upside in the cap hit. If the NYR with the their knowledge want to take the other side in a trade, that’s not a bad thing.

You know what does become value destructive? Having a top heavy roster with lots of long term, big $, UFA contracts because you even have to sign your home grown players at 27-28-29 because you pinched every penny along the way.

@Off Sides, each individual deal might seem small but when you have 4 of them, thats $6M that can go to take a $6M forward to a $12M forward.

 

[RangerBoy]

Elliotte said the same stuff last year. They would be all over Nash and Grabner in July. They would try to trade for Karlsson. They want to get into the Tavares thing.

He thinks Quinn is a good coach. Elliotte needs to watch the Rangers games. He loses some street cred with that statement.

Gorton talks about the timing needing to be right for the Rangers to sign a free agent. At the fan forum in October, Gorton said the timing needs to be right to see where the other pieces fit. Same comments to Custance. Timing. Fit.

The team is a gong show. Big shit storm.

 

[GoAwayPanarin]

They're going to come up empty unless they delve into the secondary market.

 

[JESSEWENEEDTOCOOK]

Elliotte said the same stuff last year. They would be all over Nash and Grabner in July. They would try to trade for Karlsson. They want to get into the Tavares thing.

He thinks Quinn is a good coach. Elliotte needs to watch the Rangers games.

Gorton talks about the timing needing to be right for the Rangers to sign a free agent. At the fan forum in October, Gorton said the timing needs to be right to see where the other pieces fit. Same comments to Custance. Timing. Fit.

The team is a gong show. Big **** storm.

Why do you hate Quinn so much? Is his contract expiring or something?

Also love how the team is doing exactly what you wanted and you’re still throwing a tantrum.

 

[Off Sides]

The counter should be Zaitsev at it's extreme, and Skjei should he not improve at it's lesser problematic version.

Leave the RFAs with two RFA years left after their bridge. Teams still gets to buy those RFA years at a lesser rate than any UFA years cost, They sign the player through his prime, and they only have to make some tough choices when those players are like 29.

At that point if they did it right, they should have younger players pushing those 28-29 year olds so the team does not have to make the Girardi, Staal like deals they did without any other options.

The Zbad contract is the best one on the whole team, he was bridged, that left him with two RFA years left. When that ends at age 29, is the cost should they decide to extend him going to be all that much more than the current 5.3M cap hit he has now? Will the Rangers have other options to weight at that point?

What was the other option should the Rangers have drafted Zbad? Sign him long term at age 22-23 to a 7x6M year which leaves them at the very same place?

 

[BBKers]

Two more drafts accumulating draft picks, other assets and cap space. Then the time will be ripe

 

[JESSEWENEEDTOCOOK]

They're going to come up empty unless they delve into the secondary market.

Friedman said the same shit last year. He’s likely pulling the “oh it’s NY they’re gonna sign FAs” thing.

 

[GoAwayPanarin]

Friedman said the same **** last year. He’s likely pulling the “oh it’s NY they’re gonna sign FAs” thing.

Yeah McKenzie did the same thing too.

It's one of those things I'll believe when I see. These guys are good at what they do, but at some point they need to stop letting reputation get in the way of reality.