Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 42

Thread: It's a Slow News Week, So Here's a Fun and Unique Trade Proposal

  1. #1
    Senior Member Bantam Division
    Giacomin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    2,495
    Rep Power
    66

    It's a Slow News Week, So Here's a Fun and Unique Trade Proposal

    Premise - the Rangers want to move into the top 5 or so. They prefer one Dman over the others and also think Tkachuk is right up there with Svech and Zadina. BTW, Montreal is interested in Tkachuk. The Ranger's love all 3 forwards.

    Assumption - Ottawa at #4 is main team willing to deal with us. Backstory - They are leaning towards trading Karlsson and like many of the Dmen expected to be available at #9. The cheap owner would kill to dump Ryan's contract. The plan is to dump Ryan in a package with Karlsson, taking less in return. If they could dump Ryan some other way, it would add to Karlsson's return value and unencumber the trade, $ wise. Thus, more teams could bid.

    Proposal - Rangers swap #9 for #4 and Bobby Ryan. Ottawa also gets to choose one of the following options:

    The Rangers pick #88 and Ottawa retains 1.25mil per year of Ryan's 7.25mil contract.
    or
    The Rangers pick #70 and Ottawa retains 1.6mil per.
    or
    The Rangers pick #70 and #101 Ottawa retains 2 mil per.

    Essentially the Rangers offer 3 options. Are you comfortable with all 3 offers? Would you do it well before draft day? Additional comments?

    Personally, the retention makes this deal attractive and doable, anytime. We could even retrade Ryan down the road and retain some salary making him even more reasonably priced. To draft one of the impact forwards w/o losing any of our 1st and 2nd round picks would rock.

    Ottawa's perspective: They increase Karlsson's trade value and trading partners. They still acquire a decent extra pick or two. Plus they shed most of that dreaded contract. Win-win.
    Last edited by Giacomin; 05-12-2018 at 01:43 AM.

  2. #2
    Senior Member Bantam Division
    Giacomin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    2,495
    Rep Power
    66
    Crazy Option 4: Could this out-of-the-box wrinkle work? If not disregard. Instead of retaining salary on Ryan, Ottawa receives Matt Belesky in the trade with the 70th pick.

    If he stays in the minors, his numbers resemble the discussed retention dollars. Belesky may be easier to trade elsewhere eventually, saving Melnyk even more. Probably just a ridiculous late night thought. I won't even mention Brenden Smith

    Are there any other creative ways to put Ranger cap-free money into Melnyk's pocket?
    Last edited by Giacomin; 05-12-2018 at 01:45 AM.

  3. #3
    Senior Member Squirt Division Sod16's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    Minneapolis
    Posts
    284
    Rep Power
    10
    I don't think Ottawa would take the 9th pick, losing Ryan, and a 70th pick for the No. 4, and that's not even with the partial contract retentions that you throw in. I know they are anxious to get rid of the contract; who wouldn't be, but that No. 4 is substantially more likely to result in an impact player.

  4. #4
    Senior Member Bantam Division
    Giacomin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    2,495
    Rep Power
    66
    Quote Originally Posted by Sod16 View Post
    I don't think Ottawa would take the 9th pick, losing Ryan, and a 70th pick for the No. 4, and that's not even with the partial contract retentions that you throw in. I know they are anxious to get rid of the contract; who wouldn't be, but that No. 4 is substantially more likely to result in an impact player.
    Fair enough, but you have to consider the big picture for Ottawa. They would be able to more easily trade Karlsson with more suitors and they'll get a much better return w/o Ryan. Plus more teams bidding (demand) will improve the trade value. They will also land one of the Dmen they need in Boqvist, Hughes, Bouchard or Dobson. Phil, Josh and others think the difference between 4 and 9 is marginal.

    Additionally, what if we improve the offer to give them both third rounders for about 1.7 per retained on Ryan? They then get 2 more 18y/o cheap assets. Fair deal now?

  5. #5
    Senior Member Bantam Division
    Giacomin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    2,495
    Rep Power
    66
    Mentioned in another thread... the cost of moving up in the top ten, in the past.

    Toronto moved from 7 to 5 and it cost pick 68 and a future 2nd.
    Nashville moved from 9 to 7 at a cost of pick 40.
    Carolina moved from 8 to 4 and it only cost pick 59.
    Pitt moved from 3 to 1 and it cost Mikael Samualsson and a swap of pick 55 for 73.

    To merely drop 5 spots in a strong draft and acquire two 3rds and subtract 75% of Ryan's contract seems in line with history. They could even use the extra draft capital to improve one of their picks.

    I better get some sleep.

  6. #6
    //reported Junior Division
    phillyb™'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    8,645
    Rep Power
    76
    This wasn’t fun. I WAS PROMISED FUN
    LGR!

  7. #7
    Very Large Member BSBH Prospect
    Vodka Drunkenski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    14,088
    Rep Power
    124
    Lol
    Hidden Content

    Let's Go Rangers!

  8. #8
    Russian Meddling BSBH Rookie
    josh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    24,092
    Rep Power
    234
    Option 3, along with Skjei and 28 for karlsson
    Lias Andersson for #AJT2019

  9. #9
    a.k.a.Phildagoalie Junior Division
    Respecttheblue's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    N.Y.
    Posts
    9,754
    Rep Power
    86
    If the team is convinced that whomever falls to#4 is going to dramatically transform the team like no one else in the top 9 could, them maybe ... but otherwise moving up to #4 for the sake of it, is a no for me. #3 on the other hand is a different story, but that does not appear to be a possibility.

    I'm not seeing enough compelling value at #4 to take on another disaster salary 3rd line player with Nash pay in decline.
    I disagree with the premise that Bobby Ryan would be re-tradeable with his salary-production-usefulness mismatch, even with some retention.

    I am not convinced enough about Tkachuk that we couldn't find equal value at #9 with some other pick.

    We recently got out from under Girardi, Stepan, salary encumbrances, and future salary encumbrances of Nash, Grabner, Callahan, and McDonagh, Yandle, Boyle,
    I don't see this team repeating the mistakes of the salary cap past after taking years to get out from under them. You could call it creative, and I'd agree it's creative, but I'd rather not.

    We got a clean slate, let's not mess it up with another team's major problem.
    If n ya gots jowls, they might as well be furry ones.

  10. #10
    Senior Member Bantam Division
    Giacomin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    2,495
    Rep Power
    66
    Quote Originally Posted by phillyb™ View Post
    This wasn’t fun. I WAS PROMISED FUN
    Haha, you are right. Tried to edit the title to delete the word fun, once I realized there was no women, wine, weed or wings in the proposal.

  11. #11
    //reported Junior Division
    phillyb™'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    8,645
    Rep Power
    76
    Lol. Now you’re speaking my language.
    I don’t think I want anything to do with Ryan just to move up.
    LGR!

  12. #12
    Senior Member Bantam Division
    Giacomin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    2,495
    Rep Power
    66
    Quote Originally Posted by josh View Post
    Option 3, along with Skjei and 28 for karlsson
    You didn't let us down! I somehow knew once you got a hold of this the deal, it would expand to include Karlsson.

    I'd pass on Karlsson, but in the spirit of fun.... if the Rangers must have Karlsson then at least your deal is reasonable.

    However, they don't want to pay RFAs and Skjei is part of our long term solution. Instead of pick 26 and Skjei, we'll send both of Tampa's picks and maybe DeAngelo or Pionk or Rykov. That probably works better for Melnyk.

  13. #13
    Senior Member Bantam Division
    Giacomin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    2,495
    Rep Power
    66
    Quote Originally Posted by Respecttheblue View Post
    If the team is convinced that whomever falls to#4 is going to dramatically transform the team like no one else in the top 9 could, them maybe ... but otherwise moving up to #4 for the sake of it, is a no for me. #3 on the other hand is a different story, but that does not appear to be a possibility.

    I'm not seeing enough compelling value at #4 to take on another disaster salary 3rd line player with Nash pay in decline.
    I disagree with the premise that Bobby Ryan would be re-tradeable with his salary-production-usefulness mismatch, even with some retention.

    I am not convinced enough about Tkachuk that we couldn't find equal value at #9 with some other pick.

    We recently got out from under Girardi, Stepan, salary encumbrances, and future salary encumbrances of Nash, Grabner, Callahan, and McDonagh, Yandle, Boyle,
    I don't see this team repeating the mistakes of the salary cap past after taking years to get out from under them. You could call it creative, and I'd agree it's creative, but I'd rather not.

    We got a clean slate, let's not mess it up with another team's major problem.
    I completely get your aversion to adding Ryan. I feel the same trepidation. The tweaked proposal would mean Ryan would hit our cap at 5.6 mil a year. At least that would no longer be outrageously awful. Just bad.

    It might be very possible to trade Ryan off with other assets in a year or so if we retained a good chunk of the salary. Though again, I get your reservations.

    We disagree on the larger premise that it would not be an advantage to be able to draft Tkachuk (or Zadina, if Montreal grabs Brady first). There is a definite gap IMO between the top 3 forwards and the rest. At #9 I also fear Boqvist, Hughes and even Bouchard will also be gone. Pick #4 would be a much better spot for us. Ottawa may present the rare opportunity to move up at a reasonable cost, for a certain impact player who is also practically ready for the NHL.

  14. #14
    Russian Meddling BSBH Rookie
    josh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    24,092
    Rep Power
    234
    Quote Originally Posted by Giacomin View Post
    You didn't let us down! I somehow knew once you got a hold of this the deal, it would expand to include Karlsson.

    I'd pass on Karlsson, but in the spirit of fun.... if the Rangers must have Karlsson then at least your deal is reasonable.

    However, they don't want to pay RFAs and Skjei is part of our long term solution. Instead of pick 26 and Skjei, we'll send both of Tampa's picks and maybe DeAngelo or Pionk or Rykov. That probably works better for Melnyk.
    IS Pass on Ryan. just doesn’t make any sense
    Lias Andersson for #AJT2019

  15. #15
    If you ain't first, you're last! BSBH Legend
    Phil in Absentia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Brooklyn, NY
    Posts
    84,054
    Rep Power
    397
    I mean, it makes sense, it's just an especially painful proposition. Much as I like Tkachuk, I don't do it. Not for him. For Svechnikov? Yup. Zadina? Maybe (still leaning no).


    Sent from my iPhone using Blueshirts Brotherhood mobile app powered by Tapatalk
    Hidden Content

    "Everyone says you should be a good loser. If you’re a good loser, you’re a loser."
    - John Tortorella


    "I've always said, I'd rather tame a tiger than paint stripes on a kitty cat."
    - Dean Lombardi


    "Don't take refuge in the false security of consensus, and the feeling that whatever
    you think you'e bound to be okay, because you're in the safely moral majority."

    - Christopher Hitchens

  16. #16
    Senior Member Bantam Division
    Giacomin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    2,495
    Rep Power
    66
    Quote Originally Posted by Phil in Absentia View Post
    I mean, it makes sense, it's just an especially painful proposition. Much as I like Tkachuk, I don't do it. Not for him. For Svechnikov? Yup. Zadina? Maybe (still leaning no).
    Yeah, I love the idea of moving to #4 w/o giving up our other 1sts or even 2nds is this proposal. Adding either Zadina or Tkachuk would be a huge get for NY.

    However, I understand being conflicted. I'm still trying to figure out how the Rangers can move out other salaries of elders like Staal, Shatty, Belesky, etc. Especially because Hank is not going anywhere. So while tempting, I get why most are leaning against it.

  17. #17
    Senior Member Squirt Division
    Gravesy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Posts
    253
    Rep Power
    18
    I would lean towards it because I genuinely believe Tkachuk is a guy to shape the franchise around.
    But I know many disagree with that.

  18. #18
    Senior Member Pee-Wee Division
    Fatfrancesa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    746
    Rep Power
    19
    Cap flexibility is worth more than moving up to take a marginally better prospect

  19. #19
    Senior Member Bantam Division
    Giacomin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    2,495
    Rep Power
    66
    Quote Originally Posted by Fatfrancesa View Post
    Cap flexibility is worth more than moving up to take a marginally better prospect
    You're probably right, except if pick #4 is more than just marginally better than #9. Like Gravesy, I feel like #4 is going to be a damn good first liner.

    If mgmt prefers some cap flexibility, I'm down. As long as we don't squander it away on big name free agents. I'd also still consider using picks 48, 70 and/or 88 to improve any of our top 4 selections.
    Last edited by Giacomin; 05-12-2018 at 08:15 PM.

  20. #20
    Senior Member Bantam Division
    Giacomin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    2,495
    Rep Power
    66
    I'm going to modify this question for any takers.

    I keep hearing Montreal likes Tkachuk and may succumb to the pressure to take him. What if the Rangers work out the same trade with Ottawa, if the Habs do this? I'm sure we all are assuming the player would be Zadina. A guy who looks a bit like Laine as a shooter, but plays O more like a bigger Patrick Kane. He also is further ahead defensively than P. Kane was at 18.

    Phil you are on the fence, so make a decision. Assume it costs our #9, both our 3rds and Bobby Ryan at 5.6 mil. How many change their minds for Zadina?
    Last edited by Giacomin; 05-13-2018 at 05:46 PM.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •