Jump to content
  • Join us — it's free!

    We are the premiere internet community for New York Rangers news and fan discussion. Don't wait — join the forum today!

IGNORED

Marner Watch 2019


Phil

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 80
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Toronto 2019 = NYR 2022

It's more like 2024 or 2025 when the Rangers might have issues. When the ELCs are up, other than probably Kakko, the young guys will mostly get bridge deals. It's when your Howdens, Chytils, Hajeks, etc. are signing UFA deals that NYR is more likely to have problems.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Assuming they're dumb enough to sink long-term bucks into anyone not at the top of the depth chart, like say Howden, Hajek, etc.

Depends on what you mean by the "top." It's not problematic to pay a mid-value contract to a good 3c. But iriririririrregardless of that, you're losing players because of the cap and the point is that you can't keep everyone.

 

Also, Hajek is going to be playing 20+ per night. He won't be at the bottom of the depth chart.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Depends on what you mean by the "top." It's not problematic to pay a mid-value contract to a good 3c. But iriririririrregardless of that, you're losing players because of the cap and the point is that you can't keep everyone.

 

Also, Hajek is going to be playing 20+ per night. He won't be at the bottom of the depth chart.

 

Then pay him. My point is the best-managed teams pay their stud talents and make margin calls in the middle-sixers. On that front, you really need to limit exactly how many you give deals to. It's almost never the 7's and 8's nad 9's that kill you. It's the 4's and 5's and 6's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then pay him. My point is the best-managed teams pay their stud talents and make margin calls in the middle-sixers. On that front, you really need to limit exactly how many you give deals to. It's almost never the 7's and 8's nad 9's that kill you. It's the 4's and 5's and 6's.

I know, and in general I agree.

 

My point is that, for the Rangers, the cap means losing some of those guys. So no, they won't be in cap trouble necessarily, but they aren't going to be able to pay every guy in the system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know, and in general I agree.

 

My point is that, for the Rangers, the cap means losing some of those guys. So no, they won't be in cap trouble necessarily, but they aren't going to be able to pay every guy in the system.

 

Right. And I'm OK with that. Run out their ELCs and flip 'em when it's time to pony up for something more affordable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No one can afford to pay every guy in the system.

 

Not every guy in this system should be paid.

 

And in one, two, three years time, we'll have new shiny toys who we'll all want to keep without them playing a single NHL game.

Cross this bridge when we get to it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right. And I'm OK with that. Run out their ELCs and flip 'em when it's time to pony up for something more affordable.

More affordable generally means worse, though.

 

If you're subbing, idk, Tyler Ennis for Pavel Buchnevich, or Greg McKegg for Jesper Fast, your team gets worse. I get that a byproduct of the cap means limiting ceilings because you can't pay depth, but there's no guarantee that you can just replace all of your depth pieces and have the same quality. We just saw this between 2014 and 15, when they never adequately replaced Richards, Pouliot, Dorsett or Stralman. So I wouldn't assume that they can just clap their hands and replace, say, Lias, Lemieux, Buch and Hajek with vets or ELCs and not see a dip.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No one can afford to pay every guy in the system.

 

Not every guy in this system should be paid.

 

Sure they should. Just not all by the same team. Otherwise, I completely agree. You lock down your stars, and you make a couple of margin calls. The rest are cap casualties.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

More affordable generally means worse, though.

 

If you're subbing, idk, Tyler Ennis for Pavel Buchnevich, or Greg McKegg for Jesper Fast, your team gets worse. I get that a byproduct of the cap means limiting ceilings because you can't pay depth, but there's no guarantee that you can just replace all of your depth pieces and have the same quality. We just saw this between 2014 and 15, when they never adequately replaced Richards, Pouliot, Dorsett or Stralman. So I wouldn't assume that they can just clap their hands and replace, say, Lias, Lemieux, Buch and Hajek with vets or ELCs and not see a dip.

 

Not necessarily. What I'm saying is, say Howden wants $4 million on his next ticket but you really don't envision him worth more than $2 million, and you don't want the term. You can move him for a guy in the second year of his ELC and still end up with another year of maneuverability without necessarily ending up with egg on your face.

 

Sometimes it backfires. Hagelin for Etem, for example, but it's possible to make right by it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not necessarily. What I'm saying is, say Howden wants $4 million on his next ticket but you really don't envision him worth more than $2 million, and you don't want the term. You can move him for a guy in the second year of his ELC and still end up with another year of maneuverability without necessarily ending up with egg on your face.

 

Sometimes it backfires. Hagelin for Etem, for example, but it's possible to make right by it.

Why would any other team make that trade if the production is the same?

 

The only way that trade happens is if you get a "change of scenery" guy or you trade for an ELC thinking he's going to hit his stride immediately. Either way, the instant return is a lesser player and you justhope it works. And if you have to do it 4 times, you're more likely to get 3 misses than 3 hits. Hagelin for Etem is a lot more likely to ever happen than Hagelin for Rakell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just because I think this is an interesting topic...let's assume that Howden had 35 points and would be getting his $4m next year. Here's the list of non-expiring ELC forwards who had 30-50 points:

 

Nico Hischier - NJD

Clayton Keller - ARZ

Brady Tkachuk - OTT

Jake DeBrusk - BOS

Anthony Cirelli - TBL

Dominik Kahun - PIT

Andrei Svechnikov - CAR

Jesperi Kotkaniemi - MTL

Robert Thomas - STL

Oskar Lindblom - PHI

Jesper Bratt - NJD

Nolan Patrick - PHI

 

Out of that group, I don't see a 1-1 where the Rangers don't downgrade.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure they should. Just not all by the same team. Otherwise, I completely agree. You lock down your stars, and you make a couple of margin calls. The rest are cap casualties.

Depends on how you define "be paid". If you mean get their payday... If Lias or Chytil gives you more 20 point seasons...No, they shouldn't "be paid".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just because I think this is an interesting topic...let's assume that Howden had 35 points and would be getting his $4m next year. Here's the list of non-expiring ELC forwards who had 30-50 points:

 

Nico Hischier - NJD

Clayton Keller - ARZ

Brady Tkachuk - OTT

Jake DeBrusk - BOS

Anthony Cirelli - TBL

Dominik Kahun - PIT

Andrei Svechnikov - CAR

Jesperi Kotkaniemi - MTL

Robert Thomas - STL

Oskar Lindblom - PHI

Jesper Bratt - NJD

Nolan Patrick - PHI

 

Out of that group, I don't see a 1-1 where the Rangers don't downgrade.

 

wait, what?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

More affordable generally means worse, though.

 

If you're subbing, idk, Tyler Ennis for Pavel Buchnevich, or Greg McKegg for Jesper Fast, your team gets worse.

 

But this isn't what should happen. You trade Hagelin at 27 and due a new contract because you have Fast and Lindberg on ELC's. The return for depth guy doesn't fill his spot. The farm fills the spot and the return helps fill the farm.

 

We just saw this between 2014 and 15, when they never adequately replaced Richards, Pouliot, Dorsett or Stralman. So I wouldn't assume that they can just clap their hands and replace, say, Lias, Lemieux, Buch and Hajek with vets or ELCs and not see a dip.

 

They struggled to fill those spots because of the lack of 1st and 2nd round picks around that time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But this isn't what should happen. You trade Hagelin at 27 and due a new contract because you have Fast and Lindberg on ELC's. The return for depth guy doesn't fill his spot. The farm fills the spot and the return helps fill the farm.

 

 

 

They struggled to fill those spots because of the lack of 1st and 2nd round picks around that time.

Ok. That's why it's not my idea...but the assumption that a player in the farm is immediately ready to be as effective as the player he is replacing is a poor one, because that's rarely true, especially for guys in depth roles who do not have the talent to compensate for mental mistakes. I also don't think they struggled to replace Hagelin, which is why I specifically didn't mention him.

 

Doesn't matter why. They did, and its illustrative of how you can never just assume that you're going to be able to fill those spots with cheaper options.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok. That's why it's not my idea...but the assumption that a player in the farm is immediately ready to be as effective as the player he is replacing is a poor one, because that's rarely true, especially for guys in depth roles who do not have the talent to compensate for mental mistakes. I also don't think they struggled to replace Hagelin, which is why I specifically didn't mention him.

 

Doesn't matter why. They did, and its illustrative of how you can never just assume that you're going to be able to fill those spots with cheaper options.

 

Ok, guys you mentioned...

 

Pouliot was here one year, scored 36 points, Signed in EDM for $4M. He left and they signed Hayes who scored 45 on ELC. Replaced just fine.

 

Dorsett played 51 games in 13/14, signed with VAN for $2.65M. They signed Glass for $1.45M who played 66 games in 14/15. Replaced just fine.

 

Stralman they chose not to sign because they signed Boyle instead. Boyle didn't work out but that had nothing to do with the cap, they both signed for $4.5M.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, guys you mentioned...

 

Pouliot was here one year, scored 36 points, Signed in EDM for $4M. He left and they signed Hayes who scored 45 on ELC. Replaced just fine.

 

Dorsett played 51 games in 13/14, signed with VAN for $2.65M. They signed Glass for $1.45M who played 66 games in 14/15. Replaced just fine.

 

Stralman they chose not to sign because they signed Boyle instead. Boyle didn't work out but that had nothing to do with the cap, they both signed for $4.5M.

Ok, so they didn't replace Richards or Stralman, and Glass was a downgrade from Dorsett (who was traded for cap reasons, IIRC). So they downgraded 3 positions (4 if you count Hayes as a C...).

 

But I'm only referencing that team just as an illustration of what happens when you downgrade talent in your depth spots. The why, for them specifically, is irrelevant to my point, which is that it's a lot easier to say "just swap out guys when you don't want to pay them" than it is to actually do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...