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

The Salary-Cap Hell the Rangers are Still Trying to Navigate


Phil

Recommended Posts

I think this is an overreaction, much like the article is an over reaction.

 

"No plan" is just plain panicked fan-speak.

 

Gorton and Davidson have from the end of the season done a remarkable job, even if the Kakko pick was simply luck. I'll trust they know what they're doing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 325
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Then I guess neither were Zucc, Hayes, Miller, Nash or Mac.
How is the state of the team and the age of the players not a consideration here?

 

I hate when people automatically disregard or act disingenuous when it suits them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

is there still a cap hit for burying Smith's contract? or does it completely come off the books?

 

$3,275,000 cap hit when buried

 

 

What is a Buried Contract?

Teams do not receive full cap relief when a player on a one-way NHL contract is reassigned to the American Hockey League, or is loaned to a team in another professional league.

The players salary cap hit, minus the sum of the minimum NHL salary for the respective season and $375,000, still counts towards the team’s salary cap total.

The cap hit relief is therefore equal to the minimum salary of the respective season + $375,000:

 

2014-15: $550,000 + $375,000 = $925,000

2015-16: $575,000 + $375,000 = $950,000

2016-17: $575,000 + $375,000 = $950,000

2017-18: $650,000 + $375,000 = $1,025,000

2018-19: $650,000 + $375,000 = $1,025,000

2019-20: $700,000 + $375,000 = $1,075,000

2020-21: $700,000 + $375,000 = $1,075,000

2021-22: $750,000 + $375,000 = $1,125,000

 

https://www.capfriendly.com/faq#retained

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the overall cap implications of burying Smith in Hartford versus a buyout are about the same. The Hartford option would confine the problem to the next two years but places an inevitable malcontent with a team we are trying to revamp as a development program.

 

A lot of posters are clinging to the idea that Shattenkirk can be moved with one-half retention and that Names can be moved without retention. If those deals were readily doable, they would have been done. Who would want and over paid Names for a year? If he has another year like last year, he's an overpaid cap liability. If he improves, he can walk at the end of the year. Not very attractive.

 

I think we need to get our hands around the idea of Kreider starting this year without a new contract. It will not be a forgone conclusion that that means he is dealt at the deadline. We can only hope that deals not currently available become doable during the season and then we can address the Kreider situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no “cap hell“. Like every other team in the league, the Rangers have some decisions to make. None of them are particularly significant. This is complete horse shit imo.

 

There is if you can't dump Namestnikov. It forces them to buyout Shattenkirk + Smith, or to trade Kreider, who may have been traded anyway, but won't be dealt for max value because of the timing and the fact other teams recognize the bind the Rangers are in. It may not quite be "hell," but it's getting too hot for comfort.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the overall cap implications of burying Smith in Hartford versus a buyout are about the same. The Hartford option would confine the problem to the next two years but places an inevitable malcontent with a team we are trying to revamp as a development program.

 

A lot of posters are clinging to the idea that Shattenkirk can be moved with one-half retention and that Names can be moved without retention. If those deals were readily doable, they would have been done. Who would want and over paid Names for a year? If he has another year like last year, he's an overpaid cap liability. If he improves, he can walk at the end of the year. Not very attractive.

 

I think we need to get our hands around the idea of Kreider starting this year without a new contract. It will not be a forgone conclusion that that means he is dealt at the deadline. We can only hope that deals not currently available become doable during the season and then we can address the Kreider situation.

 

Maybe Tampa would want Names back since he had such good chemistry there? He's a very serviceable middle 6 forward. I'm not even sure I want to deal him with all these new faces coming in. Maybe he clicks with Panarin?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If they didn't, stupidly, give Shattenkirk a massive bonus in the final year he'd already be an Ottawa Senator. Why did they do that? Once that's paid there will be no shortage of takers, but that a year from now.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They're going to have to staple Andersson to a bad contract like Shattenkirk and take the hit. Mid level prospect or 2nd rounder.

 

 

They can get rid of the cap space without giving up assets. They aren’t in caphell like Toronto’s and aren’t trying to win the cup next season, either. The goal is to win every season in the 2020s. No reason to be giving up any assets right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW, I've never gotten straight, and I'm not sure if anyone has straight, what Staal's NMC situation is. Going back to the time he signed the contract there have been conflicting reports as to whether it is a full NMC for the duration or a full NMC for the first three years and a modified one thereafter.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW, I've never gotten straight, and I'm not sure if anyone has straight, what Staal's NMC situation is. Going back to the time he signed the contract there have been conflicting reports as to whether it is a full NMC for the duration or a full NMC for the first three years and a modified one thereafter.

 

Capfriendly has it as a NMC throughout the entire contract.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They can get rid of the cap space without giving up assets. They aren’t in caphell like Toronto’s and aren’t trying to win the cup next season, either. The goal is to win every season in the 2020s. No reason to be giving up any assets right now.

 

It's not cap hell, but it is a problem. They need cap space to sign their RFAs. Buyouts are not an option.

 

I don't see how it can be done without giving up assets. Everyone else has done so while giving up assets. How are the Rangers going to do so?

 

I'll gladly deal Andersson to have the Shattenkirk cap space and sign all RFA's AND Kreider to an extension.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not cap hell, but it is a problem. They need cap space to sign their RFAs. Buyouts are not an option.

 

I don't see how it can be done without giving up assets. Everyone else has done so while giving up assets. How are the Rangers going to do so?

 

I'll gladly deal Andersson to have the Shattenkirk cap space and sign all RFA's AND Kreider to an extension.

 

Giving up an asset would not be the worst thing right now. I don’t think they should do so in the interest of keeping Kreider though, especially if it means paying him $50 million dollars on a contract that won’t kick in until next summer when he’s 29 and pays him till a couple months after his 36th birthday. But if they can move an asset to move out salary to keep the RFA’s and extend Trouba, it doesn’t kill them given where they are in their build.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is if you can't dump Namestnikov. It forces them to buyout Shattenkirk + Smith, or to trade Kreider, who may have been traded anyway, but won't be dealt for max value because of the timing and the fact other teams recognize the bind the Rangers are in. It may not quite be "hell," but it's getting too hot for comfort.

Hence why I said “cap hell“. It’s simply not. They don’t have to dump anyone of consequence for the long term. Yeah, they may have to perform a less than ideal buyout. Worst case scenario is trading Kreider for futures, something they already tried to do at the draft. “Cap hell” in my book is having to deal pieces that really hurts to lose, a la Toronto. This isn’t anywhere near that. It’s a sensationalist headline. Signing Panarin would always have consequences, we all knew that. Now they have to make decisions on a couple of players. It is what it is, it’s perfectly manageable and there’s really no need to sound the klaxons.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It’s July, not September. We paid open market price to acquire A/A-/B+ players with possible consequences on retaining B+/B-/C players. It’s still a net upgrade and we still have time to maneuver. You don’t judge a home renovation when the scaffolding is still up and the external walls are ripped open.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How is the state of the team and the age of the players not a consideration here?

 

I hate when people automatically disregard or act disingenuous when it suits them.

It is...If we're saying Kreider isn't a priority, then neither were any of those guys, because they're doing the exact same thing. I think they were all a priority, to varying degrees.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hence why I said “cap hell“. It’s simply not. They don’t have to dump anyone of consequence for the long term. Yeah, they may have to perform a less than ideal buyout. Worst case scenario is trading Kreider for futures, something they already tried to do at the draft. “Cap hell” in my book is having to deal pieces that really hurts to lose, a la Toronto. This isn’t anywhere near that. It’s a sensationalist headline. Signing Panarin would always have consequences, we all knew that. Now they have to make decisions on a couple of players. It is what it is, it’s perfectly manageable and there’s really no need to sound the klaxons.

 

That's fine. I don't really disagree in principle, but we're definitely getting hung up on the wrong thing (the title). The only factor that matters is that they're behind the eight-ball regarding their ability to keep their remaining RFAs until a number of these middling players are gone, and it might have to come via more than one buyout. They can afford it, but the numbers are still ugly.

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...