Speculation: Roster Building Thread V (2021 Offseason) - Hold them horses, only 45 days left until the draft!

[gravey9]

Hard disagree. Pay people up front and for every Nathan MacKinnon, you get a Brady Skeji.

Fox, I'll pay. Kakko not so sure.

Point taken. Skjei wasn't the best example of your point though as that contract still proved to be very tradeable. That said, where I totally agree with you is in regards to choosing wisely the players you give long term contracts to.

There are only a few scenarios where it makes sense to give young RFAs a long term deal.

1. They are viewed as a core piece AND the team is in their contention window.
2. They are a very good complimentary piece, you're in your contention window AND the player is willing to give up dollars for term. (thus creating depth).

Obviously there are lots of nuances to this like NMCs and NTCs. But I do feel like the contention window is a big part of the formula. If you give a player a long term contract before the team has turned the corner to contention, it runs the risk of becoming a bad contract due to a number of unforeseeable variables.

I mean look at our own long term deals. Trouba may or may not be anything more than 4-6D when we contend. Kreider likely a middle 6 winger. And Panarin may not even be the central focus of our offense when we're contending. He very well could be second fiddle by then to lord knows who. Laf, Kakko, Kravtsov, etc?

In the cap era, there are basically two ways to build a team.

1. a core of 3-4 highly paid elite players where the GM is constantly bargain bin hunting for a bottom half of the lineup. (see Pitt, Colorado, Tor)
2. a deep team of middle-six players who are paid in that 3-6m range, 1 elite player. But the whole team plays a heavy game. (see NYI, Stl and NYR circa 2012-2017 -- aka our last core)
(And then there are the Lightning who are doing both, but circumvent the cap by 20m.)

Since it seems like we are going with option 1 this time around -- we must start doing a better job of identifying our core players and being okay with saying goodbye to anyone else if they want to be paid over 6m.

To that end, I agree totally that likely you only throw the bag at Fox for now.

Maybe Laf or Kakko IF they are trending as a core piece. You can investigate long term deals for players like Shesty or K'Andre or even Buch but those deals must be reasonable so you can actually build around your core or they must be very easily tradable.

 

[LaffyTaffyNYR]

If the Rangers are prying someone from Minnesota, count me in for Greenway if he’s somehow in discussions.

a Wild fan on capfriendly also offered me him for Strome and a 2022 second

 

[Lindberg Cheese]

So where does St. Louis go from here? If they need a retool with some young . assets and we need to accelerate our rebuild, we could be good partners. Do they move on from ROR? If Scandella will waive, I feel that we could do one stop shopping in a big deal with them. I like Dunn but feel he’s a bit redundant to what we have. Maybe they throw in Clifford for all this sandpaper talk I’m hearing

 

[TheBloodyNine]

a Wild fan on capfriendly also offered me him for Strome and a 2022 second

If we did bring in Eichel I would immediately pull the trigger on that deal.

 

[IDvsEGO]

Point taken. Skjei wasn't the best example of your point though as that contract still proved to be very tradeable. That said, where I totally agree with you is in regards to choosing wisely the players you give long term contracts to.

There are only a few scenarios where it makes sense to give young RFAs a long term deal.

1. They are viewed as a core piece AND the team is in their contention window.
2. They are a very good complimentary piece, you're in your contention window AND the player is willing to give up dollars for term. (thus creating depth).

Obviously there are lots of nuances to this like NMCs and NTCs. But I do feel like the contention window is a big part of the formula. If you give a player a long term contract before the team has turned the corner to contention, it runs the risk of becoming a bad contract due to a number of unforeseeable variables.

I mean look at our own long term deals. Trouba may or may not be anything more than 4-6D when we contend. Kreider likely a middle 6 winger. And Panarin may not even be the central focus of our offense when we're contending. He very well could be second fiddle by then to lord knows who. Laf, Kakko, Kravtsov, etc?

In the cap era, there are basically two ways to build a team.

1. a core of 3-4 highly paid elite players where the GM is constantly bargain bin hunting for a bottom half of the lineup. (see Pitt, Colorado, Tor)
2. a deep team of middle-six players who are paid in that 3-6m range, 1 elite player. But the whole team plays a heavy game. (see NYI, Stl and NYR circa 2012-2017 -- aka our last core)
(And then there are the Lightning who are doing both, but circumvent the cap by 20m.)

Since it seems like we are going with option 1 this time around -- we must start doing a better job of identifying our core players and being okay with saying goodbye to anyone else if they want to be paid over 6m.

To that end, I agree totally that likely you only throw the bag at Fox for now.

Maybe Laf or Kakko IF they are trending as a core piece. You can investigate long term deals for players like Shesty or K'Andre or even Buch but those deals must be reasonable so you can actually build around your core or they must be very easily tradable.

if kk and laf aren’t core pieces, we don’t win a cup.

 

[bobbop]

Point taken. Skjei wasn't the best example of your point though as that contract still proved to be very tradeable. That said, where I totally agree with you is in regards to choosing wisely the players you give long term contracts to.

There are only a few scenarios where it makes sense to give young RFAs a long term deal.

1. They are viewed as a core piece AND the team is in their contention window.
2. They are a very good complimentary piece, you're in your contention window AND the player is willing to give up dollars for term. (thus creating depth).

Obviously there are lots of nuances to this like NMCs and NTCs. But I do feel like the contention window is a big part of the formula. If you give a player a long term contract before the team has turned the corner to contention, it runs the risk of becoming a bad contract due to a number of unforeseeable variables.

I mean look at our own long term deals. Trouba may or may not be anything more than 4-6D when we contend. Kreider likely a middle 6 winger. And Panarin may not even be the central focus of our offense when we're contending. He very well could be second fiddle by then to lord knows who. Laf, Kakko, Kravtsov, etc?

In the cap era, there are basically two ways to build a team.

1. a core of 3-4 highly paid elite players where the GM is constantly bargain bin hunting for a bottom half of the lineup. (see Pitt, Colorado, Tor)
2. a deep team of middle-six players who are paid in that 3-6m range, 1 elite player. But the whole team plays a heavy game. (see NYI, Stl and NYR circa 2012-2017 -- aka our last core)
(And then there are the Lightning who are doing both, but circumvent the cap by 20m.)

Since it seems like we are going with option 1 this time around -- we must start doing a better job of identifying our core players and being okay with saying goodbye to anyone else if they want to be paid over 6m.

To that end, I agree totally that likely you only throw the bag at Fox for now.

Maybe Laf or Kakko IF they are trending as a core piece. You can investigate long term deals for players like Shesty or K'Andre or even Buch but those deals must be reasonable so you can actually build around your core or they must be very easily tradable.

I would love nothing more than seeing Kakko or Lafreniere prove they deserve an eight year commitment. They will have their chance. Do what Fox did this year and you will get paid and paid well for a long time.

 

[LaffyTaffyNYR]

I would love nothing more than seeing Kakko or Lafreniere prove they deserve an eight year commitment. They will have their chance. Do what Fox did this year and you will get paid and paid well for a long time.

They need to take some leaps this year minimum before Rangers will start talking long term IMO

 

[bobbop]

And please remember this (first published years ago) the former CEO of an (Metro Division) NHL team told me that fans worry a lot more about the salary cap than teams do.

Fans like to work with lego blocks that perfectly fit together. Teams have short term, long term and longer term models. They are thinking three and four steps ahead.

COVID has complicated things but well managed teams have adjusted accordingly.

 

[DutchShamrock]

If downside/risk is having to trade away a slightly overpaid player for a first round pick, I’ll definitely make that trade every time.

Exactly. A long term deal didn't hurt the value on JT Miller or Sjkei. But the vultures come out and circle when you can't re-sign Hagelin.

You land in the mushy middle of the pack if you play it safe. Or worse, if your gambles are on free agents. You have to double down on your own cheap, skilled prospects. Lock them in early and roll the dice. If you were wrong on your picks, you were doomed anyway.

We have to bet on Kakko, Lafreniere, Kravtsov, Fox, Lundqvist, Schneider and Igor. If someone doesn't live up to expectations, we can find a GM that overvalues pedigree. Galchenyuk and Drouin got multiple chances because they were a former high picks.

 

[DutchShamrock]

And please remember this (first published years ago) the former CEO of an (Metro Division) NHL team told me that fans worry a lot more about the salary cap than teams do.

Fans like to work with lego blocks that perfectly fit together. Teams have short term, long term and longer term models. They are thinking three and four steps ahead.

COVID has complicated things but well managed teams have adjusted accordingly.

You keep saying this. GMs don't worry because their shelf life with an organization is extremely limited. We are serving life sentences. Its confirmation bias. A bunch of people making terrible decisions that result in horrible consequences isn't something to base your philosophy on. Fans like to criticize Tallon for signing Bobrovsky to THAT contract and then drafting Knight. Tallon probably told his scouts he was already four steps ahead. GMs are a collection of 31 people that think the same, make the same choices and value the same information. We don't even know if something different, like planning out your future cap, would work because trying new things is taboo.

 

[LaffyTaffyNYR]

Exactly. A long term deal didn't hurt the value on JT Miller or Sjkei. But the vultures come out and circle when you can't re-sign Hagelin.

You land in the mushy middle of the pack if you play it safe. Or worse, if your gambles are on free agents. You have to double down on your own cheap, skilled prospects. Lock them in early and roll the dice. If you were wrong on your picks, you were doomed anyway.

We have to bet on Kakko, Lafreniere, Kravtsov, Fox, Lundqvist, Schneider and Igor. If someone doesn't live up to expectations, we can find a GM that overvalues pedigree. Galchenyuk and Drouin got multiple chances because they were a former high picks.

I certainly agree with Kakko, Lafraniere, Fox and Shesterkin. However you also do make picks (Lundkvist, Schneider, Kravtsov) with the thought that they could be worth a good amount in a trade and RHD like Nils who can play are worth quite a bit usually. Most of these kids will be kept, but its impossible to change the team if you keep every kid. There wont be any spots to change how the team plays whether via FA or trade if we do

 

[leetch99]

I bet Tallon would like a Mulligan on that BOB deal . It was/is BAD and I think he was on a downward spiral before he signed in Florida ?

 

[Kocur Dill]

We also had to go out and get Tom Poti because we lost a blossoming offensive defenseman

Yep. He was very good and I hated that we let him go.

 

[NYRangers16]

I don't know about Laf and Kakko immediately signing 8 year deals. The problem is you'll have a player who's a UFA at 29. That's like the worst possible time. It's right as his prime is closing. He'll almost certainly want an 8 year deal, meaning you're stuck with him at 37 when he's likely a shell of himself and just mediocre. At the same time, he's likely come off one of his best seasons, which is a huge part of contract negotiations. It ended up being our big f***up with Kreider. At the same time, if you resign a player after a 3 year bridge deal, the AAV is likely way higher. So I really don't know how to figure it.

Fox you need to extend an 8 year deal immediately since he's going to be 24 when his contract expires, making his deal expire right after his prime closes. Same with Igor, where we can get him through right after his prime closed. Players like Kakko and Laf are less sure.

The point is to get those first 8 years at a lower cap hit.

 

[NYRangers16]

Hard disagree. Pay people up front and for every Nathan MacKinnon, you get a Brady Skeji.

Fox, I'll pay. Kakko not so sure.

Worst case you get a 1st for the bad ones assuming they are young. You gotta also trust your evaluations. You are betting on 6-7 years of a cup window as opposed to this constant outflow of talent for prospects. That’s not going to work.

 

[NYRangers16]

Point taken. Skjei wasn't the best example of your point though as that contract still proved to be very tradeable. That said, where I totally agree with you is in regards to choosing wisely the players you give long term contracts to.

There are only a few scenarios where it makes sense to give young RFAs a long term deal.

1. They are viewed as a core piece AND the team is in their contention window.
2. They are a very good complimentary piece, you're in your contention window AND the player is willing to give up dollars for term. (thus creating depth).

Obviously there are lots of nuances to this like NMCs and NTCs. But I do feel like the contention window is a big part of the formula. If you give a player a long term contract before the team has turned the corner to contention, it runs the risk of becoming a bad contract due to a number of unforeseeable variables.

I mean look at our own long term deals. Trouba may or may not be anything more than 4-6D when we contend. Kreider likely a middle 6 winger. And Panarin may not even be the central focus of our offense when we're contending. He very well could be second fiddle by then to lord knows who. Laf, Kakko, Kravtsov, etc?

In the cap era, there are basically two ways to build a team.

1. a core of 3-4 highly paid elite players where the GM is constantly bargain bin hunting for a bottom half of the lineup. (see Pitt, Colorado, Tor)
2. a deep team of middle-six players who are paid in that 3-6m range, 1 elite player. But the whole team plays a heavy game. (see NYI, Stl and NYR circa 2012-2017 -- aka our last core)
(And then there are the Lightning who are doing both, but circumvent the cap by 20m.)

Since it seems like we are going with option 1 this time around -- we must start doing a better job of identifying our core players and being okay with saying goodbye to anyone else if they want to be paid over 6m.

To that end, I agree totally that likely you only throw the bag at Fox for now.

Maybe Laf or Kakko IF they are trending as a core piece. You can investigate long term deals for players like Shesty or K'Andre or even Buch but those deals must be reasonable so you can actually build around your core or they must be very easily tradable.

Too late for Buch. We had our chance, now it’s gone. proves my point.

 

[bobbop]

You keep saying this. GMs don't worry because their shelf life with an organization is extremely limited. We are serving life sentences. Its confirmation bias. A bunch of people making terrible decisions that result in horrible consequences isn't something to base your philosophy on. Fans like to criticize Tallon for signing Bobrovsky to THAT contract and then drafting Knight. Tallon probably told his scouts he was already four steps ahead. GMs are a collection of 31 people that think the same, make the same choices and value the same information. We don't even know if something different, like planning out your future cap, would work because trying new things is taboo.

You are missing one key information point. Owners.

Owners can and do jump into decision making process. Sometimes their desire for things to happen quickly get in the way of solid planning. Do you not think Florida’s owner was in on the Bob deal? Remember they were also willing to pay Panarin the same kind of scratch.

I keep saying it because it was and is correct. Years ago, I saw the Coyotes payroll model that stretched out seven years. Of course, now that was two owners and two GMs ago. What was interesting is that the model assumed players not yet drafted (e.g. Keller) would eventually get large contracts.

Some GMs are smarter (e.g DonnSweeney) than others (e.g Jim Benning)

 

[bobbop]

Too late for Buch. We had our chance, now it’s gone. proves my point.

So you were giving Buchnevich a seven year contract two years ago?

Hindsight is 20-20.

 

[SA16]

So you were giving Buchnevich a seven year contract two years ago?

Hindsight is 20-20.

That's not hindsight.

 

[Fitzy]

I get extremely worried when Bern starts liking too many of my trade thread posts

 

[Off Sides]

The whole long term versus bridge thing, most of the time it works to go longer term. Yet on the other side if they had done so with ADA or Del Zotto it would not have worked very well.

Most of us do not have the info to make such choices beyond what we see on the ice.

Plus the player has to also want to go that direction, some do, others not so much.

If they pick the right players and the player agrees, good contracts can be made from RFA years at about what they would normally get otherwise, with some UFA years all rolled up into a contract that has the cap hit higher than it normally would be at start, yet less than it would normally be nearer to the end of the contract.

Yet if the player asks for UFA prices for those RFA years, or the team offer RFA prices for the UFA years, it's not going to be agreed upon.

All in all, teams if they are going to bridge the player should just leave him with 2 year of RFA off that bridge, gives them leverage to get those two RFA and some amount of UFA years all in the next deal, yet for whatever reason the Rangers usually leave those bridge deals with the player only having 1 RFA year left, and at that point the leverage is on the players side.

 

[Vitto79]

If the Rangers are prying someone from Minnesota, count me in for Greenway if he’s somehow in discussions.

only way he’s offered around is if they are going 4-4 in expansion . They do have good D

 

[KirkAlbuquerque]

Vegas got Stone for Brannstrom and like a 2nd right? Makes you wonder what we could get for Lundkvist

 

[LaffyTaffyNYR]

Vegas got Stone for Brannstrom and like a 2nd right? Makes you wonder what we could get for Lundkvist

Yup, I mean I dont WANT to trade him, but puck moving RHD are VERY valuable in the NHL and the Rangers have one in Fox already, and also have Trouba signed. It's not the worst thing to see what kind of value he might have

 

[Shesterkybomb]

Vegas got Stone for Brannstrom and like a 2nd right? Makes you wonder what we could get for Lundkvist

Get me a young 1c and im in...we have Schneider anyway