article: Why the Rangers Had to Let Jesper Fast Go in Free Agency

Not really. Bonus overage is a new problem expounded by having drafted a #2 and #1 OA the last two seasons, taking up almost the entire bonus cushion. In combination with a flat cap from a once-a-century kind of virus. Can't really plan for any of that.

 

He is on the hook for having signed Shattenkirk and Smith. Two bad signings that are a blemish, but he has done a lot more good than bad and it's not even close.

The good he's done were really gifts of players forcing their way here, or signing to play in NY. If Grimmacenwere the Rangers GM, he could have signed Shattenkirk and Panarin.

Gorton's best piece of work was removing Staal.

A new problem... That he wasn't prepared for.

 

The good he's done were really gifts of players forcing their way here, or signing to play in NY. If Grimmacenwere the Rangers GM, he could have signed Shattenkirk and Panarin.

 

Gorton's best piece of work was removing Staal.

Who says he wasn't prepared? What gives you that indication? Was he supposed to pass on Panarin because of the fraction of a fraction of a percent chance of lottery success two years in a row?

Who says he wasn't prepared? What gives you that indication? Was he supposed to pass on Panarin because of the fraction of a fraction of a percent chance of lottery success two years in a row?

Plenty of teams have had back-to-back top two picks. They don't face widely reported internal cap issues as a result. The issue is having just shy of $13M in dead cap space from buyouts which force bonuses into being a problem.

Plenty of teams have had back-to-back top two picks. They don't face widely reported internal cap issues as a result. The issue is having just shy of $13M in dead cap space from buyouts which force bonuses into being a problem.

Was he not supposed to free up the space to sign Panarin? Only way to do that was to buy out Shattenkirk. While Shattenkirk's contract ultimately turned out badly and is a blemish on Gorton's record now, it was a favorable deal at the time of signing and the Rangers were still a contender the previous year.

Who says he wasn't prepared? What gives you that indication? Was he supposed to pass on Panarin because of the fraction of a fraction of a percent chance of lottery success two years in a row?

The fact that he had to let a valuable player who didn't cost a lot leave?

Was he not supposed to free up the space to sign Panarin? Only way to do that was to buy out Shattenkirk. While Shattenkirk's contract ultimately turned out badly and is a blemish on Gorton's record now, it was a favorable deal at the time of signing and the Rangers were still a contender the previous year.

Signing Panarin doesn't negate mismanagement.

Signing Panarin doesn't negate mismanagement.

Expand on that. Which part constitutes mismanagement?

Expand on that. Which part constitutes mismanagement?

Having $13M in dead cap space. You're trying to argue that having back to back top picks is the issue. But that isn't. Many teams deal with that. It's a non-issue. Most teams don't have a buyout hit worth more than Connor McDavid.

Having $13M in dead cap space. You're trying to argue that having back to back top picks is the issue. But that isn't. Many teams deal with that. It's a non-issue. Most teams don't have a buyout hit worth more than Connor McDavid.

Break down the dead cap hit and show me how it could have been avoided, while simultaneously signing Panarin. And keep in mind hindsight is always 20/20.

As JD and JG have said, they want to win for a decade, not a few seasons. It stings a bit, but long-term, they'll need younger, healthier players to take on those roles.

This season and next season you still have a core of guys that will be in their first few seasons in the NHL. Honestly, I'd much rather see someone else in that 2nd line, or 3rd line role. Plus, if Quinn can continue to get all guys to work like Fast, you'll have bigger, faster, more skilled guys playing like that.

As JD and JG have said, they want to win for a decade, not a few seasons. It stings a bit, but long-term, they'll need younger, healthier players to take on those roles.

This season and next season you still have a core of guys that will be in their first few seasons in the NHL. Honestly, I'd much rather see someone else in that 2nd line, or 3rd line role. Plus, if Quinn can continue to get all guys to work like Fast, you'll have bigger, faster, more skilled guys playing like that.

I'm rolling with Josh man on that thought as well. I want to see this team built for a decade to come. I'm tired of the whole "win now" theory. I really don't think this team is ready to win now, or even next season. These kids are just getting their feet under them. Guys like Jesper Fast are good pieces for teams that are looking for that last role player to fill the void that could be their last piece of the puzzle, I think.

The Rangers appear to be moving on to those younger guys, who may just develop into a better version of what once was a player like Fast. I'm feeling way better giving a younger guy that chance with the Rangers, rather than watch them grow with another franchise like a player like Ryan Graves did with the Avs.

Onward and upward I think! ...Again, I trust this management team, and I think our window will crack open down the road a little bit...Not too far, but 2021-2022 is going to open a lot of new opportunities for a lot of options. Once we get out from under the dead space and get some experience for our franchise player, and our new franchise goalie.

The dead cap space is a shared issue. But Gorton owns a good bit of the blame. Slats handed out the Girardi deal (still have 2 more years of bills to pay on that pile of shit contract) Staal was a bad deal as well, injuries more of the culprit but a bad deal nevertheless - Gorton gets bonus points for getting that one off the books. The Hank deal is hard to criticize, much like Panarin, you pay for the 1st 5 and hope the last few aren't a total dumpster fire. That is a forgivable crime IMO...

Gorton has the Shattenkirk deal squarely hanging around his neck. He was a weird fit at the time of signing, and he was never healthy- that buy-out is gross. The Smith deal is horrible (in full disclosure I thought it was a good signing at the time- after all he did look solid post deadline- so both Gorton and I are shitheads). Gorton gave Skjei his awful deal, but was able to get that to Carolina. Trouba is a big number and should scare everyone.

We are paying for players NOT to play here what it cost to sign Taylor Hall and TJ Brodie. Thats a bad look for any GM.

The dead cap space is a shared issue. But Gorton owns a good bit of the blame. Slats handed out the Girardi deal (still have 2 more years of bills to pay on that pile of shit contract) Staal was a bad deal as well, injuries more of the culprit but a bad deal nevertheless - Gorton gets bonus points for getting that one off the books. The Hank deal is hard to criticize, much like Panarin, you pay for the 1st 5 and hope the last few aren't a total dumpster fire. That is a forgivable crime IMO...

Gorton has the Shattenkirk deal squarely hanging around his neck. He was a weird fit at the time of signing, and he was never healthy- that buy-out is gross. The Smith deal is horrible (in full disclosure I thought it was a good signing at the time- after all he did look solid post deadline- so both Gorton and I are shitheads). Gorton gave Skjei his awful deal, but was able to get that to Carolina. Trouba is a big number and should scare everyone.

 

We are paying for players NOT to play here what it cost to sign Taylor Hall and TJ Brodie. Thats a bad look for any GM.

All of which leaves you under $2 million for an experienced lefty D safety net...You know what buys you? A year of Jack Johnson.

The dead cap space is a shared issue. But Gorton owns a good bit of the blame. Slats handed out the Girardi deal (still have 2 more years of bills to pay on that pile of shit contract) Staal was a bad deal as well, injuries more of the culprit but a bad deal nevertheless - Gorton gets bonus points for getting that one off the books. The Hank deal is hard to criticize, much like Panarin, you pay for the 1st 5 and hope the last few aren't a total dumpster fire. That is a forgivable crime IMO...

Gorton has the Shattenkirk deal squarely hanging around his neck. He was a weird fit at the time of signing, and he was never healthy- that buy-out is gross. The Smith deal is horrible (in full disclosure I thought it was a good signing at the time- after all he did look solid post deadline- so both Gorton and I are shitheads). Gorton gave Skjei his awful deal, but was able to get that to Carolina. Trouba is a big number and should scare everyone.

 

We are paying for players NOT to play here what it cost to sign Taylor Hall and TJ Brodie. Thats a bad look for any GM.

Right. So it all comes back to buying out Shattenkirk to sign Panarin. None of the other buyouts are a result of anything Gorton did.

So the question goes back to...should he have rode out Shattenkirk and passed on Panarin, in order to plan ahead for winning two draft lotteries? That's unrealistic in my opinion.

Break down the dead cap hit and show me how it could have been avoided, while simultaneously signing Panarin. And keep in mind hindsight is always 20/20.

Shattenkirk's contract was front-loaded and the final year was cushioned by being split evenly between bonuses and salary. Bonuses don't count towards the calculation of buyout savings but are calculated in determining the cap hit for a buyout. That's why the Rangers are paying him so much this season because of the disparity between buyout savings and versus annual cap hit.

Shattenkirk's $2M actual salary relative to his $6.65M AAV was the killer because the math for the cap hit then works out to $2M - $1.43M (Eq. 2/3 remaining salary) = $566k. Then $6.65M - $566k which gives us his incredibly prohibitive buyout cap hit of $6.083M for this season. Simple answer, don't frontload that contract and leave the backend benefiting from low salary and equal bonus.

Hindsight is 20/20 but you can also use retrospective to say "we fucked up" instead of going "aw shucks how could this have happened?" Want to take it further back, then we can discuss how it was poor management to let go of Yandle only to sign Shattenkirk two summers later.

Shattenkirk's contract was front-loaded and the final year was cushioned by being split evenly between bonuses and salary. Bonuses don't count towards the calculation of buyout savings but are calculated in determining the cap hit for a buyout. That's why the Rangers are paying him so much this season because of the disparity between buyout savings and versus annual cap hit.

 

Shattenkirk's $2M actual salary relative to his $6.65M AAV was the killer because the math for the cap hit then works out to $2M - $1.43M (Eq. 2/3 remaining salary) = $566k. Then $6.65M - $566k which gives us his incredibly prohibitive buyout cap hit of $6.083M for this season. Simple answer, don't frontload that contract and leave the backend benefiting from low salary and equal bonus.

 

Hindsight is 20/20 but you can also use retrospective to say "we fucked up" instead of going "aw shucks how could this have happened?" Want to take it further back, then we can discuss how it was poor management to let go of Yandle only to sign Shattenkirk two summers later.

There was no way anyone was thinking about tearing the roster down, or winning two lotteries, in 2017 when Shattenkirk was signed. The team was still competitive.

You're nitpicking Shattenkirk's contract structure, and they could have saved a little money on a buyout with a different structure, but they also might not have gotten him on a value contract at the time if they didn't set it up that way.

It didn't work out. It was one signing. Gorton has done a great job everywhere else. It's a bit reductionist to narrow it down to one questionable move.

Barron and a guy like Richards are far more important to the teams future than Fast. The Rangers are an atrocious faceoff team and it hurts them badly all the time. Richards and Barron both have the ability to be plus faceoff guys are were elite defensive players in college. There is no need to not let them try and make this team.

And those guys are going to also have the performance bonuses too so we don't know if they are actually more or less cost effective than Fast would be at 2m.

Look, you can't have a roster filled with 20-22 year olds. At that age, as we've seen with some guys already, you cant define a role as much. They haven't been around long enough yet to see where or where they are not successful. A guy at 20 in his rookie season still thinks his college/juniors/minor pro/scout/agent or dad is right when telling him that he has all the ability to take over the league and "Show em what ya got" type attitude. You need some guys that are leaders, been there before, and know their role in this league. Fast was that guy. 2m was dirt cheap to keep that, especially considering he did so in NY which we all know sometimes turns players into different beings for some odd reason because of all the distractions you don't get in many other cities.

Is it the end of the world? No. Is it a bit of mismanagement? Yes. Seems a bit like Gorton et al might have a bit of talent potential problem and that might come back to haunt us a bit if we aren't going to have the ability to pick up 1 or 2 of these role type pieces every team needs. Even if you aren't cup ready you still need guys like Fast so the young guys on the bench and in the locker room have that guy to learn from and watch a consummate pro craft his trade.

This is the year teams are looking to clear cap. We had cap. If this was so much of a worry with bonuses, then a combo of two between Georgiev, ADA, and Strome should have been gone and guys like Fast, and a 2/3c with a team friendly deal like a Kerfoot, Wennberg,Sundqvist, Donato, or someone like that should have been brought in to give a stable, cheaper cap hit you can live with and slide up and down hoping for either some chesmitry with Panarin or for a Chytil to develop into a 2c. Then we still had enough to address 1 or 2 pieces in the 4th line and go from there since we are still a ways away from being contenders. These are the important years though. Most contenders usually have some savvy moves 1 or 2 seasons prior that players always say "things really changed when we did x,y, or z. That really helped solidify....."

I don;t think Smith was a good deal, I don't think Brady S was a good deal, Trouba is a shit ton of money for a guy that hasn't sniffed being an 8 mill per defender.. He's made some great trades, but he's also given out some very questionable contracts. It's not unfair at all to say his tenure has been a mixed bag.

I'm in the minority, but i like Trouba. He had a very mixed 1st year but i think the whole settling in with his better half wanting to be here and new environment was likely a bigger distraction than we will understand. I think there will be a day he lives up to this contract, likely after ADA moves on and he also gets more PP time.

There was no way anyone was thinking about tearing the roster down, or winning two lotteries, in 2017 when Shattenkirk was signed. The team was still competitive.

 

You're nitpicking Shattenkirk's contract structure, and they could have saved a little money on a buyout with a different structure, but they also might not have gotten him on a value contract at the time if they didn't set it up that way.

 

It didn't work out. It was one signing. Gorton has done a great job everywhere else. It's a bit reductionist to narrow it down to one questionable move.

How are you going to ask me to "Break down the dead cap hit and show me how it could have been avoided" and then claim I'm nitpicking when I give you the exact way it could've been avoided? What did you want me to say? Don't sign Shattenkirk? I gave an even better answer than that. So the contract structure doesn't matter? Because it certainly does in the case of a buyout. The disparity between his actual salary and his average was the killer. Front-loaded contracts aren't buyout friendly. We're paying the price from it. I gave you your answer.

I've also repeatedly debunked how the back-to-back lotteries affect the team. Other teams have had back-to-back top picks. Go look at what the qualifications are yourself to see how Class A and B bonuses are achieved. The Rangers' biggest worries are this year's first overall and a guy picked in the fourth round in 2014.

I'm in the minority, but i like Trouba. He had a very mixed 1st year but i think the whole settling in with his better half wanting to be here and new environment was likely a bigger distraction than we will understand. I think there will be a day he lives up to this contract, likely after ADA moves on and he also gets more PP time.

I like Trouba as well, Keirik. He's going to be a solid player here in my opinion. He had a blah season last year, but I wasn't expecting a miracle back on defense with the likes of Staal, DeAngelo and a few rookies learning the ropes. This team needs time to grow together and we can't rush that, unfortunately.

Trouba is only 26 years old, and I think he's just about to hit his prime years. I wanna see how he does over the next 2-3 seasons before I put him in the shit house. ;)

Signing Panarin doesn't negate mismanagement.

How are you going to ask me to "Break down the dead cap hit and show me how it could have been avoided" and then claim I'm nitpicking when I give you the exact way it could've been avoided? What did you want me to say? Don't sign Shattenkirk? I gave an even better answer than that. So the contract structure doesn't matter? Because it certainly does in the case of a buyout. The disparity between his actual salary and his average was the killer. Front-loaded contracts aren't buyout friendly. We're paying the price from it. I gave you your answer.

 

I've also repeatedly debunked how the back-to-back lotteries affect the team. Other teams have had back-to-back top picks. Go look at what the qualifications are yourself to see how Class A and B bonuses are achieved. The Rangers' biggest worries are this year's first overall and a guy picked in the fourth round in 2014.

I asked you to break it down because you made the claim of mismanagement. Your example of mismanagement was the Rangers front loaded Shattenkirk's contract. How were they supposed to figure that 1) a buyout would be required 2 years later because it didn't work out and a top 10 player in the league was available, and 2) winning draft lotteries 2 years in a row, 2 years later that would blow up their bonus cushion. That wasn't close to being on anyone's radar.

Plenty of teams have had back-to-back top two picks. They don't face widely reported internal cap issues as a result. The issue is having just shy of $13M in dead cap space from buyouts which force bonuses into being a problem.

Teams getting back to back top 2 picks are generally prolonged doormats of the league with tons of cap because they sucked. The Rangers never hit doormat status, and there wasn't enough time passed between contenders to winning lotteries for bloated contracts like Lundqvist and Staal to first run off. It's good fortune that requires navigating through some tough cap issues. Pinning it on Gorton isn't fair.

I'm in the minority, but i like Trouba. He had a very mixed 1st year but i think the whole settling in with his better half wanting to be here and new environment was likely a bigger distraction than we will understand. I think there will be a day he lives up to this contract, likely after ADA moves on and he also gets more PP time.

I don't hate Trouba either but I feel that his contract was Gorton's worse move to date. The trade for him was fine but the contract was an overpay by at least 1 mil each year. I honestly thought, at the time, that they were going to be able to get him for under $7 mil each year because he basically forced a trade to the Rangers and the Rangers had negotiating leverage.

I don't hate Trouba either but I feel that his contract was Gorton's worse move to date. The trade for him was fine but the contract was an overpay by at least 1 mil each year. I honestly thought, at the time, that they were going to be able to get him for under $7 mil each year because he basically forced a trade to the Rangers and the Rangers had negotiating leverage.

it also looks worse now because of the flat cap. I still think the NHL/owners should have factored in one existing contract to be either not on the books or half on the books. It's a bit unfair all these teams are basically screwed because of covid's effect on sports. Obviously for us it would be Panarin's contract we keep off the books but still. Each team should have gotten some wiggle room because of good faith signings that now are looking like anchors.

I asked you to break it down because you made the claim of mismanagement. Your example of mismanagement was the Rangers front loaded Shattenkirk's contract. How were they supposed to figure that 1) a buyout would be required 2 years later because it didn't work out and a top 10 player in the league was available, and 2) winning draft lotteries 2 years in a row, 2 years later that would blow up their bonus cushion. That wasn't close to being on anyone's radar.

 

 

 

Teams getting back to back top 2 picks are generally prolonged doormats of the league with tons of cap because they sucked. The Rangers never hit doormat status, and there wasn't enough time passed between contenders to winning lotteries for bloated contracts like Lundqvist and Staal to first run off. It's good fortune that requires navigating through some tough cap issues. Pinning it on Gorton isn't fair.

You keep repeating how the back-to-back top picks blew up the bonus cushion. They haven't. And I'll keep telling you they haven't. I explained pretty clearly how the cushion works.

Just don't front-load contracts as a general rule. UFAs face diminishing returns throughout their deals so making the backend buyout proof puts you in a shitty situation. Shattenkirk's contract did. The league is trending towards signing bonus laden deals that are also frontloaded. That doesn't make them right. I'm not against signing Panarin but God forbid the guy ever tails off unexpectedly and you need to buy him out because he has one of the least buyout friendly deals in the league. The Shattenkirk deal was bad. The buyout for him was also bad.

If we're going off anecdotal evidence, show me proof of these "doormat" teams with low payrolls and free of bad contracts. What makes the Rangers the unicorn here? Aside from an astronomical amount of buyout debt.