Toggle sidebar

Speculation: Roster Building Thread XXXVIII - Dust in the wind…

  • Xenforo Cloud will be upgrading us to version 2.3.5 on March 3rd at 12 AM GMT. This version has increased stability and fixes several bugs. We expect downtime for the duration of the update. The admin team will continue to work on existing issues, templates and upgrade all necessary available addons to minimize impact of this new version. Click Here for Updates
Status
Not open for further replies.
NYR Viper said:
So this isn't exactly fair. Just for an example, Carolina has Jordan Staal playing 3C and he was signed long term originally. Martinook is on a 3 year deal, just re-signed, also a 3rd liner.

Nashville signed Scissons long term who was not more than a 3rd liner originally. They also signed Jarnkrok way back when who's contract is just now expiring. He's a 3rd liner.

Washington signed Hagelin (4 years), Hathaway (4 years) and Eller (5 years), all are 3rd liners (at best in Hathaway's case).

Pittsburgh just signed McGinn to a 4 year deal and signed Tanev to a long term deal but lost him to Seattle.

Winnipeg signed Lowry and very well may sign Copp long term shortly.

Vegas, by their addition of Eichel, pushed Karlsson down to the 3rd line, he's signed long term. They also signed Stephenson (who has improved since signing his deal) to a 4 year deal. He was pretty much a 3rd liner when he was signed (26 points in 65 games and 11 points in 64 games the 2 seasons prior to that contract being signed).

Good teams recognize guys who can help fill roles and keep them a while. I'm not saying hand out 6 year deals to every 3rd liner but having a couple of foundational swiss-army knife guys signed to 4-5-6 year deals isn't going to hinder them. Especially considering the cap will increase in a couple of years and when it does, it will go up quickly, making these longer term deals more attractive in general
Click to expand...

There is major difference in signing someone to a moderately pricy long term deal with the intent of them being in a 3rd/4th line role than there is with someone like Staal who is on the end of his deal, older, and has moved down the lineup. He also scored at a 58 point pace just last year. If Staal has declined from a 2C to a 3C at the end of his deal what do you think a 3rd/4th liner declines too? They become not a viable NHL player. Karlsson is just the case of acquiring a better player which moves him down. He was never intentionally signed to play a lower role.

Additionally none of those teams, other than Washington, signed multiple guys to long expensive deals. Jarnkrok was just 2M, signed at a younger age, and wasn't even seen as important enough for them to protect in expansion. Hathaway is only 1.5M. The majority of that can be buried.

McGinn was signed to replace Tanev. Copp is a far better player than anyone else listed and is not really a bottom 6 guy.

We already to committed to Goodrow at 3.6M in this role (more money than any of the above guys). We cannot do it again for almost 3M and be locked in for almost 6.5M for two depth liners for 5 years.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Raspewtin, Gluten Free Breadman, frozenrubber and 2 others
TheBloodyNine said:
Was there a Kakko part in that article that I missed? What did it say? Or am I missing some context from something else?
Click to expand...
The Blueshirts needed to move the veteran in order to clear cap space for last season. But this came at a cost when then-general manager Jeff Gorton had to add a second-round draft choice sweetener to the equation in order to complete the deal. The selection was 48th overall. Finnish center Aatu Raty was still on the board, to be plucked four picks later by the Islanders.
Click to expand...
 
SA16 said:
There is major difference in signing someone to a moderately pricy long term deal with the intent of them being in a 3rd/4th line role than there is with someone like Staal who is on the end of his deal, older, and has moved down the lineup. He also scored at a 58 point pace just last year. If Staal has declined from a 2C to a 3C at the end of his deal what do you think a 3rd/4th liner declines too? They become not a viable NHL player. Karlsson is just the case of acquiring a better player which moves him down. He was never intentionally signed to play a lower role.

Additionally none of those teams, other than Washington, signed multiple guys to long expensive deals. Jarnkrok was just 2M, signed at a younger age, and wasn't even seen as important enough for them to protect in expansion. Hathaway is only 1.5M. The majority of that can be buried.

McGinn was signed to replace Tanev. Copp is a far better player than anyone else listed and is not really a bottom 6 guy.

We already to committed to Goodrow at 3.6M in this role (more money than any of the above guys). We cannot do it again for almost 3M and be locked in for almost 6.5M for two depth liners for 5 years.
Click to expand...

But you aren't comparing this properly. You're looking at guys like Eller and Tanev and others and saying, well their cap hits are less not than the guys signing their deals now. Well yeah, the cap hit percentage at that time wasn't the same.

I think if the expectation of this team is to rotate 5-6 guys around every year in the bottom-6 that is a bad plan. It's perfectly acceptable to invest in your bottom-6 as long as it's not every player and those guys provide value that fill other holes that the team needs filled. Let's look at the teams prospects and what's here currently. Is there anyone who fills the Goodrow role? Maybe Barron if he really develops. What about someone like Lehkonen? Probably not unless someone comes out of the blue.

The team has a good pipeline of skilled players, what they don't have is guys who can work the corners, win battles, PK very well, be moved around and fit in on any line, etc. Goodrow fits that type of role. Lehkonen could as well. And if all else fails, when the cap goes up, their cap hits will not be bad. $2.85m now, may look like $2m on the back-side of that deal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: egelband
NYR Viper said:
But you aren't comparing this properly. You're looking at guys like Eller and Tanev and others and saying, well their cap hits are less not than the guys signing their deals now. Well yeah, the cap hit percentage at that time wasn't the same.

I think if the expectation of this team is to rotate 5-6 guys around every year in the bottom-6 that is a bad plan. It's perfectly acceptable to invest in your bottom-6 as long as it's not every player and those guys provide value that fill other holes that the team needs filled. Let's look at the teams prospects and what's here currently. Is there anyone who fills the Goodrow role? Maybe Barron if he really develops. What about someone like Lehkonen? Probably not unless someone comes out of the blue.

The team has a good pipeline of skilled players, what they don't have is guys who can work the corners, win battles, PK very well, be moved around and fit in on any line, etc. Goodrow fits that type of role. Lehkonen could as well. And if all else fails, when the cap goes up, their cap hits will not be bad. $2.85m now, may look like $2m on the back-side of that deal.
Click to expand...

Eller and Tanev have almost the same cap hit as Goodrow and higher than the other guys there. Their cap hit percentage was greater than guys who would sign that same deal now. And the cap has not risen that much in these years anyway. The difference between Jarnkrok's 2.74% which he signed it and what it would be now is 200k. 200k is meaningless. There is no player I would be willing to sign for X but not X+200k. If that was the case then I wouldn't want to sign the player in the first place as the contract is too marginal.

The good pipeline of skilled player will be irrelevant when they cannot afford to sign them because they overpaid players in their bottom six.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pld459666
It's not about overpaying them in AAV but making them unmovable with 5-7 year terms.

Lehkonen is a great add. Not with a 6 year deal. 2-3 year extension. Ideally with Montreal giving it and picking up some of the tab.
 
Rangers in big on Chariot

Brooks hints Zac Jones

but I agree with his take; chariot is having a bad year on a bad team - those guys don’t inprove.

Chariot is Wade redden
 
  • Like
Reactions: egelband
rangersfansince08 said:
We have a great third pair and lets f*** it up by trading for an inferior player.
Click to expand...
Yeah, the third pair needs to stay. We NEED a depth D though. Right now we are running thin and Hajek is garbo.

I really am hoping we leave Jones and Schneider alone, let them marinate. A D corp for Fox/Lindy, Jones/Schneider, Miller/Trouba could really be something special in two years.

We need 3 forwards, one that can play top 6 minutes and 2 bottom 6ers. Not just for this year, but for the real run in the future. Figure that out and we should be set to battle.
 
  • Like
Reactions: leetch99, McSauer and rangersfansince08
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom