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

Rangers Buyout Kevin Shattenkirk


Phil

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 218
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The wrong decision, here. Still have to make a different move (or 2) for this season, and more to be cap compliant next season. Ensures Kreider fate as a goner.Strome too.

 

Not true. They have space if they want Kreider long term. Don't know whether they want that though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The wrong decision, here. Still have to make a different move (or 2) for this season, and more to be cap compliant next season. Ensures Kreider fate as a goner. Strome too.

 

I don't think these are all connected. This is the way I see it:

 

There was no place for Shattenkirk on the roster. Bad contract or not, he's was not a part of the equation. So they tried to trade him and couldn't. The only other way to move him is to buy him out. They have about 40 defensemen, so they needed to get rid of him no matter what. The buyout hurts, and I wish they didn't have to do it, but clearly nobody wanted him.

 

With this move, the Rangers are now under the cap and can explore other options. There's no time crunch now. I still think they'll look for a way to trade Namestnikov and I think they'll bury Smith in the minors. As I've been saying all along, Kreider is their last priority because he is under contract -- and while they'd like to have everything solved by camp, they don't have to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think these are all connected. This is the way I see it:

 

There was no place for Shattenkirk on the roster. Bad contract or not, he's was not a part of the equation. So they tried to trade him and couldn't. The only other way to move him is to buy him out. They have about 40 defensemen, so they needed to get rid of him no matter what. The buyout hurts, and I wish they didn't have to do it, but clearly nobody wanted him.

 

With this move, the Rangers are now under the cap and can explore other options. There's no time crunch now. I still think they'll look for a way to trade Namestnikov and I think they'll bury Smith in the minors. As I've been saying all along, Kreider is their last priority because he is under contract -- and while they'd like to have everything solved by camp, they don't have to.

 

Pretty much this. I think buying out Shattenkirk signals that pretty much all trade fronts have been pretty quiet. He's the buyout that clears the most space with them having to make too many other moves to accommodate others. I agree that we still see a trade involving Strome or Namestnikov just because the extra cap would help and they've already got a glut of middling forwards. Buying out Shattenkirk meant not having to sell off someone else for dirt cheap or having to give us assets to subtract.

 

Next season isn't so much of a concern. Shattenkirk's buyout hit is restrictive in the Rangers pursuing new talent next season, but it isn't a hindrance on the team or its ability to grow. They'll have something in the range of $16-18M to re-sign whoever they want and modify ever so slightly.

 

This move isn't the ideal move, but we don't live in an ideal world. The move makes sense to me, though, and I support it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<a href=2019-Rangers-Potential-Cap-Situation-7-3

 

I think what Drew said above is spot on about Namestikov or Strome getting moved as well to free up additional cap room. That will give the Rangers the flexibility to not force DeAngelo & Lemieux(creating all sorts of disenfranchisement) to play for their qualifying offers and leave room to keep a Nieves/Gettinger/McKegg/Fogarty type as well as Shesterkin on the roster if they want to.

 

Or it let's them put a gun to Kreider's head and say "This is the term/$$ we are willing to resign you for; take it or have fun playing in Winnipeg this season".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure if that is a comment, question, or echo ThirtyONE?

 

I believe he's pointing out the contradictory way you are treating fairly new players in DeAngelo and Lemieux by not "forcing" them to do anything, while turning around and doing it to one of the longest tenured Rangers on the team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lemieux and DeAngelo don't really have the leverage to argue for very much more than their QOs. I could probably make the argument for DeAngelo and would prefer to bridge him if possible, but I don't see the point in doing so in order to appease. I'd rather pay him something like $2.5M for the next two than $4.5M for the next five if he has a good season this year on a one-year deal. I'm less so concerned about Lemieux breaking out in any significant capacity.

 

Kreider, I think you have to hardball no matter what. Quinn has said on several occasions that trades looming over Hayes and Zuccarello had a negative impact on the locker room. They're not going to go into the season without him signed or very close to it. I wouldn't give Kreider more than $30M total on a contract regardless of length.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think it's contradictory at all; simply pragmatic. The team has to believe that DeAngelo & Lemieux will play some sort of role moving forward in this rebuild as long as they continue to develop, whether it's them playing towards their ceiling or selling high on them for future acquisitions. While both players certainly do not have any leverage and can indeed be forced to play for their qualifying offer, is that really the best strategy to get them there, when we are talking about saving a relatively small amount(albeit precious) cap space.

 

Now in the case of Kreider, he is due a major payday in less than 12 months. It's been argued here to ad nauseam that he is not worth that Kevin Hayes type deal even though he can probably command it on the open market; I am sure Rangers management believes that too. This puts them into the position of having to manage their asset, my hyperbole aside. It's not like there isn't a precedent for this type of negotiation given that it was widely reported that this is how they negotiated Mats Zucarello's previous contract. I don't believe that the fact that he is their longest tenured player, is really not going to be much of a factor in that negotiation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think it's contradictory at all; simply pragmatic. The team has to believe that DeAngelo & Lemieux will play some sort of role moving forward in this rebuild as long as they continue to develop, whether it's them playing towards their ceiling or selling high on them for future acquisitions. While both players certainly do not have any leverage and can indeed be forced to play for their qualifying offer, is that really the best strategy to get them there, when we are talking about saving a relatively small amount(albeit precious) cap space.

 

Now in the case of Kreider, he is due a major payday in less than 12 months. It's been argued here to ad nauseam that he is not worth that Kevin Hayes type deal even though he can probably command it on the open market; I am sure Rangers management believes that too. This puts them into the position of having to manage their asset, my hyperbole aside. It's not like there isn't a precedent for this type of negotiation given that it was widely reported that this is how they negotiated Mats Zucarello's previous contract. I don't believe that the fact that he is their longest tenured player, is really not going to be much of a factor in that negotiation.

not directed towards you ,but I think kreider deserves as much money as Hayes
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So be it. But for crissakes stop giving Staal a sweater every night with all this young D talent. He gives you nothing.
That's flat out untrue. He's the most positionally sound and veteran D on the team, one that lacks experience and leadership on the blue line. He has way more value than Shattenkirk to us, right now.
  • Like 1
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...