Speculation: Roster Building Thread: Part XXXIII

[TheTakedown]

The questions with Trouba are health and production.

Health wise, he's played 60 or less games 2 of his 6 seasons. Is that bad luck or something about his body or game? 2 injured seasons isn't a lot in a vacuum but it's 33% of his time in the NHL.

Production wise, before this year he broke 30 points once. That's not very good at all for a guy we're talking about giving something in the neighborhood of 7M to. 7M isn't 20-30 point d-man money to me, even these days. If he's going to be paid like a top pairing guy, he'll need to produce like one too. This is really the only year he's done that and it's a high scoring year and probably the deepest team he's played on yet.

I'm really not sold on him honestly. These are huge question marks for handing out the type of contract he'll want alone, never mind trading assets to get him first.

You are using points to value a defenseman, when that is only applicable to offensive defensemen....

Chris Tanev is a top pairing defender, he has 12 points in 53 games this year.
Brodin is a top 4 defender taking 6% of the cap, he has 17 points in 70 games
McDonagh is a #1 Dman who put up 36 in 70 on a VERY high octane offensive team.
Vlasic is a top 4 defender, he put up 19 points in 60 games this year on a team that has TWO norris caliber defensemen...

Point is, #1 dmen don't necessarily need to load up points to their name, especially when they are getting a measely 2 PP mins/game average (which means 2nd unit PP)... Defensive defensemen need to be able to prevent shots, win board battles, and make first passes out of the zone.

 

[Oscar Lindberg]

Bishop getting hot is great but the other factor is Zucc has to actually play in the playoff games.

If he's not healthy enough to play the point is moot

 

[TheTakedown]

Again, not interested at all. No need and no need to rush to pay a brittle player to be someone that he is not.

Let me know how you feel in a few years when the wait and see approach fails and those "futures" never became anything...

being active means pursuing options available on the market. only so much time you can wait.... You're telling me you wouldn't do a late 1st, top 9 prospect, and a bottom 6 support player for a top pairing defenseman?

You're bad at armchair GMing.... jesus christmas

 

[True Blue]

Health wise, he's played 60 or less games 2 of his 6 seasons. Is that bad luck or something about his body or game? 2 injured seasons isn't a lot in a vacuum but it's 33% of his time in the NHL.

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

 

[Edge]

Bishop getting hot is great but the other factor is Zucc has to actually play in the playoff games.

If he's not healthy enough to play the point is moot

Admittedly, I've been more focused on the re-signing condition. In my mind, that's far more attainable.

But yeah, the ideal scenario for this draft has Winnipeg busting and getting bounced, Dallas being the Cinderella story, and Tampa finally closing the deal. Hell, have the Rangers win the lottery on top of all of that and we'll consider our account with the hockey gods up to date.

 

[NYR Viper]

I wonder if Nashville will look to deal Subban at some point. Josi will be needing a new contract very soon

 

[True Blue]

Let me know how you feel in a few years when the wait and see approach fails and those "futures" never became anything...

There will not be other free agents in two years? And you have already soured on every single defensive prospect that the Rangers acquired in the last 1.25 years?

being active means pursuing options available on the market. only so much time you can wait....

Only so much time that one can wait? What's the rush?

You're telling me you wouldn't do a late 1st, top 9 prospect, and a bottom 6 support player for a top pairing defenseman?

I am telling that no, I am not giving up those assets for a player that has trouble staying on the ice and I will need to lock into a long term contract and ask him to play on pretty bad teams in the prime of his career. I am also not giving up those assets for a player that is NOT a #1 defenseman.

You're bad at armchair GMing.... jesus christmas

What would make me a good one? If I advocated abandoning the rebuild for quick fix band aid solutions?

 

[haveandare]

You are using points to value a defenseman, when that is only applicable to offensive defensemen....

Chris Tanev is a top pairing defender, he has 12 points in 53 games this year.
Brodin is a top 4 defender taking 6% of the cap, he has 17 points in 70 games
McDonagh is a #1 Dman who put up 36 in 70 on a VERY high octane offensive team.
Vlasic is a top 4 defender, he put up 19 points in 60 games this year on a team that has TWO norris caliber defensemen...

Point is, #1 dmen don't necessarily need to load up points to their name, especially when they are getting a measely 2 PP mins/game average (which means 2nd unit PP)... Defensive defensemen need to be able to prevent shots, win board battles, and make first passes out of the zone.

Imo points are applicable to any d-man who makes a certain amount.

You don’t or at least shouldn’t pay a d-man who doesn’t score well something like 7M. Skaters are paid primarily on points whether that’s right or wrong.

 

[Oscar Lindberg]

I just read Larry's latest and he makes some good points about Kreider.

I would guess that the last 12 or so games and how he plays will play a part in what the team does with him.

 

[Off Sides]

And on that point, an active solution is getting Trouba to fortify the D corps and mitigate the 5 years of waiting for a guy to develop.

Muzzin is 30, had 1 year left on his deal, went for a 1st and 2 middling prospects.

an Extended Turris (I know he is a forward) cost Nashville a 2nd, a top 4 D Prospect, and a middle 6 forward prospect.

Rangers will have at least 2 1st's this offseason, possibly 4 1sts. Rangers could use one of those + a prospect like Howden + a Bottom 9 player like Vesey to get an Extended Trouba.

That's a fair deal for both sides when you assume Chevy isnt paying Trouba, and Howden is going to take a QO with no arbitration rights.

I'm thinking Trouba wants to make it to UFA, quite honestly I would not be totally surprised to see him just go through arbitration, and have the Jets just take the one year award and let him become a UFA next off-season, or just work out the one year deal outside of arbitration.

With that being an option any trade for him is two part, the trading team is going to want an extension in place before making the trade, and the Jets are going to want something that they'd value at least as much as what Trouba's next year including possible playoffs is worth.

Well maybe it's three part, if Trouba's extension ask is something like 8M for 7 years, any trading team is going to be less comfortable giving up assets which equate to what the Jets want, which is based on his value to them for next year and those playoffs.

Is a 7 year contract a good idea in it's own right where the Rangers would be assuming improvement from the player to justify such a deal?

Considering it's the Jets, they are probably going to want a player who already has term to boot.

Skjei could make some sense, yet is the upgrade to Trouba on RD from Skjei on LD worth the extra say ~2.5-3M or so in cap space used, and what if the Jets either do not want him, or require something more than just him?



Anyway say a deal does happen, does that hinder anything with say Fox when the Rangers have Trouba, ADA, Shattenkirk and Pionk all on RD?

If a Montour like player becomes available, are the Rangers going to have buyers remorse on Trouba?


It's not like I dislike the Trouba idea in it's concept, I think he is a very good player, he's young enough, for a RD that is something of value in it's own right, yet not sure he is great, and mostly just pointing out what I see as the variables where it makes it less attractive.

 

[pld459666]

Those bridge deal proposals are just completely brain dead RB.

Collective Bargaining Agreement

Disagree

I don't recall getting burnt from a bridge deal.

 

[TheBloodyNine]

I'm going to just guess that the Kreider stuff just isn't going to cease until we re-sign him.

Just like the Zucc and Hayes stuff...

 

[TheBloodyNine]

Bishop getting hot is great but the other factor is Zucc has to actually play in the playoff games.

If he's not healthy enough to play the point is moot

One thing at a time here. I'm more confident in Zucc playing 50% of their playoff games than I am them actually reaching the 3rd round.

 

[Edge]

I just read Larry's latest and he makes some good points about Kreider.

I would guess that the last 12 or so games and how he plays will play a part in what the team does with him.

At some point the Rangers need to decide that they either accept Kreider for what he is, or not.

If they choose the former, they either sign him to a contract they are comfortable with and live with it, or they move him.

If they choose the latter, then they either sign him to a contract they hope he can match, or they move him.

Either way, they have to make a decision and either move forward or move on.

 

[Ola]

Disagree

I don't recall getting burnt from a bridge deal.

Then you have not considered the issue, because we have clearly been burnt on at least 95% of the contracts signed by Slats and Gorton — and it’s perfectly possible that their failure in this regard have cost us a Cup. Slats obviously just didn’t understood how the CBA and Cap functioned, there are many quotes showing that, and Brooks has also been totally lost on this issue.

Let’s say that we have a player that will be active between 2020 and 2027. If you in 2020 can resign him at 1.5m per for 2 years or 3.75m per for 7 years, the bridge deal will have been the right option if the player will have made less than 3.75m per.

More or less every homegrown player resigned by Slats and Gorton the last 14 years have in hindsight been way too short. I said 95% above, was that too low? Thank god we didn’t give Spooner 7 years.

But have we ever had an expiring contract signed by a RFA with multiple RFA years left that was a home grown guy like McDonagh, Skjei, JT Miller, Kreider, Hayes, Stralsy, Zucc and co where you felt that ‘damn this was nice, finally that contact ran out’? Would it have been bad for us if JT Millers last contract was longer? McDs? If Kreider had 3 years left? If Hayes had 3 years left?

Like can you imagine how much more valuable both Kreider and Hayes would have been if they at the deadline had 3 more years left at a decent rate? Slats/Gorton has pissed away a tremendous amount of value by making bad decisions with these guys. Sure, you don’t have to commit to a guy in the eve of UFA, like Staal and Girardi. But not locking up our RFAs has been extremely costsome for us.

 

[Off Sides]

Then you have not considered the issue, because we have clearly been burnt on at least 95% of the contracts signed by Slats and Gorton — and it’s perfectly possible that their failure in this regard have cost us a Cup. Slats obviously just didn’t understood how the CBA and Cap functioned, there are many quotes showing that, and Brooks has also been totally lost on this issue.

Let’s say that we have a player that will be active between 2020 and 2027. If you in 2020 can resign him at 1.5m per for 2 years or 3.75m per for 7 years, the bridge deal will have been the right option if the player will have made less than 3.75m per.

More or less every homegrown player resigned by Slats and Gorton the last 14 years have in hindsight been way too short. I said 95% above, was that too low? Thank god we didn’t give Spooner 7 years.

But have we ever had an expiring contract signed by a RFA with multiple RFA years left that was a home grown guy like McDonagh, Skjei, JT Miller, Kreider, Hayes, Stralsy, Zucc and co where you felt that ‘damn this was nice, finally that contact ran out’? Would it have been bad for us if JT Millers last contract was longer? McDs? If Kreider had 3 years left? If Hayes had 3 years left?

Like can you imagine how much more valuable both Kreider and Hayes would have been if they at the deadline had 3 more years left at a decent rate? Slats/Gorton has pissed away a tremendous amount of value by making bad decisions with these guys. Sure, you don’t have to commit to a guy in the eve of UFA, like Staal and Girardi. But not locking up our RFAs has been extremely costsome for us.

While I think you bring up some good points,

It takes the player also wanting that sort of contract.

In the CBA , most possible career money path for a player who could get really nice UFA contract in his early prime age by ignoring the risks associated

Entry level as short as possible, yet still accrue years that count towards UFA sooner than age 27
Usually leaves 3 or 4 RFA years, where all but one of them are arbitration eligible
Get to UFA as quick as possible, hopefully by age 26 but usually age 27

As long as during those RFA years the player resists selling off any UFA years by asking for a price the team will not spend to buy them, arbitration will both pay them a comparable amount to what other RFAs are signing for (usually the teams just pays them that without going through the arbitration process), and it also lets them get to UFA as soon as possible as that process can not award UFA years.

That is not to say most players would not take the safer guaranteed money in a long term that buys up some UFA years, yet there has to be some compromise between the two parties between the team trying to save cap hit on the back end of those contracts and that player giving up possible career earnings. More or less there is likely a sweet spot in there somewhere, yet where that is is different from player to player, and team to team.

 

[GoAwayPanarin]

I think what Dolan said makes sense. We have cap space and holes in the top talent tier. We are not going to tank next year with Quinn as coach. He pushes the team to its max and during the regular season and thats good enough for a 500 team. So we will be picking 10 to 15 if we don't do much on elevating talent. So we sign breadman and ek to 2 spots that are thin you have started the process of building talent. We are not trading 1st rders or our top young players. Then as the contracts shed and our players mature we add more talent thru trades or free agent signings with Hank,Shatt and staal coming off the books at 20 million in 2 seasons after this. So if breadman and ek sign next year in there 3rd year we have 20 million in cap space and hopefully we get 1 or 2 elite youngsters. Your first round pick next year could slide to low teens or 20's if we make playoffs. So its 10 spots in the first round your giving up by trying to be competitive and start acquiring talent smartly.

PS I'd rather sign ek than give up assets for trouba

They aren’t singing both.

The 2 of them are going to eat up anywhere between 22-25 mill. Good luck finding a way to clear the necessary space while finding adequate replacements for the bodies you send out.

It’ll be tough enough to fit one of them in with out nuking your flexibility.

 

[SingnBluesOnBroadway]

I just read Larry's latest and he makes some good points about Kreider.

I would guess that the last 12 or so games and how he plays will play a part in what the team does with him.

I fail to see how the final 12 games sways things one way of the other. At this point, they have a pretty good idea of what Kreider is.

 

[NYR Viper]

I fail to see how the final 12 games sways things one way of the other. At this point, they have a pretty good idea of what Kreider is.

I was going to say the same thing. If these final 12 games sway anyone, they haven't been paying attention.

 

[Ghost of jas]

They aren’t singing both.

The 2 of them are going to eat up anywhere between 22-25 mill. Good luck finding a way to clear the necessary space while finding adequate replacements for the bodies you send out.

It’ll be tough enough to fit one of them in with out nuking your flexibility.

I don’t think either gets to free agency, EK65 will re-sign in SJ. And I predict Florida trades for the rights of both Bob and Panarin, and they can then give him the extra year.

 

[GAGLine]

Then you have not considered the issue, because we have clearly been burnt on at least 95% of the contracts signed by Slats and Gorton — and it’s perfectly possible that their failure in this regard have cost us a Cup. Slats obviously just didn’t understood how the CBA and Cap functioned, there are many quotes showing that, and Brooks has also been totally lost on this issue.

Let’s say that we have a player that will be active between 2020 and 2027. If you in 2020 can resign him at 1.5m per for 2 years or 3.75m per for 7 years, the bridge deal will have been the right option if the player will have made less than 3.75m per.

More or less every homegrown player resigned by Slats and Gorton the last 14 years have in hindsight been way too short. I said 95% above, was that too low? Thank god we didn’t give Spooner 7 years.

But have we ever had an expiring contract signed by a RFA with multiple RFA years left that was a home grown guy like McDonagh, Skjei, JT Miller, Kreider, Hayes, Stralsy, Zucc and co where you felt that ‘damn this was nice, finally that contact ran out’? Would it have been bad for us if JT Millers last contract was longer? McDs? If Kreider had 3 years left? If Hayes had 3 years left?

Like can you imagine how much more valuable both Kreider and Hayes would have been if they at the deadline had 3 more years left at a decent rate? Slats/Gorton has pissed away a tremendous amount of value by making bad decisions with these guys. Sure, you don’t have to commit to a guy in the eve of UFA, like Staal and Girardi. But not locking up our RFAs has been extremely costsome for us.

You're ignoring the fact that in most of those cases, we didn't have enough cap space at the time to give them longer term deals. We gave Stepan 3.075 mil per for 2 years, then followed that up with 6.5 mil for 6 years. If we had signed him for 7 or 8 years instead of bridging him, maybe the number is 5.5 mil per year. But then where does that extra money come from? Which players are we trading to fit that cap hit at that time?

 

[cheech70]

At some point the Rangers need to decide that they either accept Kreider for what he is, or not.

If they choose the former, they either sign him to a contract they are comfortable with and live with it, or they move him.

If they choose the latter, then they either sign him to a contract they hope he can match, or they move him.

Either way, they have to make a decision and either move forward or move on.

OK so lets play trade

Would you do Kreider for the 10th overall pick 2019?

 

[Ola]

While I think you bring up some good points,

It takes the player also wanting that sort of contract.

In the CBA , most possible career money path for a player who could get really nice UFA contract in his early prime age by ignoring the risks associated

Entry level as short as possible, yet still accrue years that count towards UFA sooner than age 27
Usually leaves 3 or 4 RFA years, where all but one of them are arbitration eligible
Get to UFA as quick as possible, hopefully by age 26 but usually age 27

As long as during those RFA years the player resists selling off any UFA years by asking for a price the team will not spend to buy them, arbitration will both pay them a comparable amount to what other RFAs are signing for (usually the teams just pays them that without going through the arbitration process), and it also lets them get to UFA as soon as possible as that process can not award UFA years.

That is not to say most players would not take the safer guaranteed money in a long term that buys up some UFA years, yet there has to be some compromise between the two parties between the team trying to save cap hit on the back end of those contracts and that player giving up possible career earnings. More or less there is likely a sweet spot in there somewhere, yet where that is is different from player to player, and team to team.

Before the player gets arbitration rights the player more or less has zero leverage. After the player gets arbitration rights he can get to UFA in a few years.

The best managed franchises would never even dream about presenting a 2-3 year contract to a player that does not have arbitration rights. They will get their QO, if they don’t sign that they will have to sign the long term deal presented to them by their team or leave the NHL for several years until they become UFAs.

And like — why would a NHL franchise do it any other way with a solid young homegrown kid? It’s the only way that makes sense.

Sather never got this. Brooks went on and on and on about Winnipeg and Nashville and co ‘destroying the cap’ by locking up Schleife, Ehlers, Wheeler and co to great long term deals, with some 110% delusional motivation of how it destroyed comparable contracts in the arbitration process.

With a short contract you have an opportunity to get a raise often, with a long contract you have the opportunity to get a raise few times. However around this franchise there is a notion deeply established that if you have to play well for a long time to earn the right to get very few raises (ie a pony contract). It’s just totally backwards and have cost us soooo much over the years.

Imagine if Slats/Gorts locked up all the guys we traded recently as low value rentals, we would have been able to get a such better return for them OMG.

 

[True Blue]

OK so lets play trade

Would you do Kreider for the 10th overall pick 2019?

No.

 

[Ola]

I understand that the CBA can be a bit complicated and everyone posting here aren’t brain surgeons, it’s not easy for someone like Slats and Gorton of course made a — tremendous — blunder not locking up Hayes and hence being able to trade him in a Stepan like deal, but everyone should have learned this by now.

A GM must be able to make a call on his players. Spooner you take left, Hayes you take right, Etem and Clendenning you take left, Kreider and McD you take right — and so forth. It’s not rocket science.