Puck Head Posted August 16, 2019 Share Posted August 16, 2019 All things that also apply to Laine... Another obvious comparison for sure Sent from my iPhone using Blueshirts Brotherhood mobile app powered by Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Future Posted August 16, 2019 Share Posted August 16, 2019 Have to think some is a result of the max cap being a good deal lower than expected. Eh, that's probably only about $2m. It's more that GMs don't have a plan or, if they do, they forgot to ask their players if it worked for them. And they all try to get too cute. If you're WPG, just trade Perrault and lose a pick to get Connor and Laine signed. Are you really dying to keep Adam Lowry so bad that you want to play hardball with those guys? It's stupid. Having said that, the season isn't even close to starting, so both teams and agents are just waiting it out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrooksBurner Posted August 16, 2019 Share Posted August 16, 2019 Eh, that's probably only about $2m. It's more that GMs don't have a plan or, if they do, they forgot to ask their players if it worked for them. And they all try to get too cute. If you're WPG, just trade Perrault and lose a pick to get Connor and Laine signed. Are you really dying to keep Adam Lowry so bad that you want to play hardball with those guys? It's stupid. Having said that, the season isn't even close to starting, so both teams and agents are just waiting it out. Even in the Rangers situation, $2M extra space is the difference between being able to buy out Smith instead of Shattenkirk. And we don't know what trades might have been available. Maybe someone would have wanted Namestnikov even at 4M. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albatrosss Posted August 16, 2019 Share Posted August 16, 2019 I think if someone wanted Namestnikov, he would've been gone. He showed absolutely nothing last season that deserves the money he gets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Posted August 16, 2019 Share Posted August 16, 2019 Not sure anyone would want to take on a $4M 30 point player and not want to offload a bad contract in return. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dunny Posted August 16, 2019 Share Posted August 16, 2019 I like Names, and am glad he's stuck here, in a way, but yeah he's overpaid. I agree with Future. They get way too cute and when one domino doesn't flop the way they thought, they're fucked. Look at Calgary, what are they going to do now? They're fucked. Proper fucked. But, we're not much better, it's pretty obvious that they accelerated the rebuild a year too early and now they'll likely have two important holdouts, performed a shitty buyout, and have to gut depth. I just don't see how the rest of the dominoes get movin here (league wide). Everybody has contracts they have to move, not even bad contacts, but nobody has space to absorb them, or they're facing their own internal financial issues that don't allow them to spend to cap. It's a complete shit show, and I think, really shows how awful the NHL cap structure is. This doesn't happen in other leagues. They need a very punitive luxury tax IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
josh Posted August 16, 2019 Share Posted August 16, 2019 I'd like to see if Namestnikov is allowed to be creative this season, with the addition of Russians and talented players, of if he will be forced to play like Jesper Fast again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CBrowningPI Posted August 16, 2019 Share Posted August 16, 2019 Names did play a more physical or fiesty game last year. It's too bad he looks 17 yrs old. If he stays I would be really curious how this roster will effect his play or if it does at all. Sent from my SM-N900T using Blueshirts Brotherhood mobile app powered by Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RJWantsTheCup Posted August 16, 2019 Share Posted August 16, 2019 Names and retaining 2M for Jesse Puljuj?rvi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
josh Posted August 16, 2019 Share Posted August 16, 2019 Names and retaining 2M for Jesse Puljuj?rvi Oilers still want 4th overall pick value for Puljujarvi. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RJWantsTheCup Posted August 16, 2019 Share Posted August 16, 2019 Oilers still want 4th overall pick value for Puljujarvi. I know Edmonton will never make that trade, but they'll never get 4th overall value for him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sod16 Posted August 16, 2019 Share Posted August 16, 2019 Names is a quandary. If he has another bad season, he will have served no purpose. If he has a good year, we won't be able to resign him and someone else will have rehabilitated him on our dime. You can't trade him at $4m without retention or taking a similar contract. If you trade him and retain $2m, the player you put on the roster in his place plus the $2m will probably equal what you would have made Names, so it's cap neutral. I don't have an answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gravesy Posted August 16, 2019 Share Posted August 16, 2019 I like Names, and am glad he's stuck here, in a way, but yeah he's overpaid. I agree with Future. They get way too cute and when one domino doesn't flop the way they thought, they're fucked. Look at Calgary, what are they going to do now? They're fucked. Proper fucked. But, we're not much better, it's pretty obvious that they accelerated the rebuild a year too early and now they'll likely have two important holdouts, performed a shitty buyout, and have to gut depth. I just don't see how the rest of the dominoes get movin here (league wide). Everybody has contracts they have to move, not even bad contacts, but nobody has space to absorb them, or they're facing their own internal financial issues that don't allow them to spend to cap. It's a complete shit show, and I think, really shows how awful the NHL cap structure is. This doesn't happen in other leagues. They need a very punitive luxury tax IMO. Who are the two important holdouts the Rangers will have to deal with? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CBrowningPI Posted August 16, 2019 Share Posted August 16, 2019 Their importance could be debatable but I agree with Dunny that ADA and Lemieux are important cogs in the wheel so to speak. Sent from my SM-N900T using Blueshirts Brotherhood mobile app powered by Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dunny Posted August 16, 2019 Share Posted August 16, 2019 Yeah, it's obvious. Lemieux and Deangelo are important, and there's no money to pay them. If it was going to be easy, it's be done already. If it was going to be easy to create a couple more million in space, it'd be done already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThirtyONE Posted August 17, 2019 Share Posted August 17, 2019 It’ll get done. I don’t know what the purpose of gloom and doom is a month and a half before the first game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangersIn7 Posted August 17, 2019 Share Posted August 17, 2019 Their cap issues are temporary and relatively short-term with fairly minor implications to the general plan or the rebuilding process. Realistically, the price they pay is for the Shattenkirk buyout and it will be paid next summer and then into the 20-21 season when they’ll have as of now only about $16 million to spend in free agency (before they look at re-signing any of their own guys)and the $6 million in dead space. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gravesy Posted August 17, 2019 Share Posted August 17, 2019 Yeah, it's obvious. Lemieux and Deangelo are important, and there's no money to pay them. If it was going to be easy, it's be done already. If it was going to be easy to create a couple more million in space, it'd be done already. Sure, but I don't see either of them holding out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fatfrancesa Posted August 17, 2019 Share Posted August 17, 2019 Their cap issues are temporary and relatively short-term with fairly minor implications to the general plan or the rebuilding process. Realistically, the price they pay is for the Shattenkirk buyout and it will be paid next summer and then into the 20-21 season when they’ll have as of now only about $16 million to spend in free agency (before they look at re-signing any of their own guys)and the $6 million in dead space. Saying the rangers cap problems are short term and temporary is like saying you can keep your doctor under Obamacare. It’s obviously false. Does anyone really believe the rangers aren’t going to have cap problems. They had 78 points last year were awful and are cap fucked. They have $20m tied up in 2 players for 7 years. That will almost guarantee limiting their cap flexibility over that time Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sod16 Posted August 17, 2019 Share Posted August 17, 2019 Cap problems are more than a short term problem for the Rangers. Most teams, like Toronto, have not had big cap issues until further into the rebuilding process. The practice of giving big and long contracts to guys coming off entry level contracts has thrown the whole league out of wack, and when some of the Rangers' youngsters quickly become eligible for such contracts, they will have big problems, even with Hank and Staal coming off the books. I'm very worried about this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fatfrancesa Posted August 17, 2019 Share Posted August 17, 2019 Cap problems are more than a short term problem for the Rangers. Most teams, like Toronto, have not had big cap issues until further into the rebuilding process. The practice of giving big and long contracts to guys coming off entry level contracts has thrown the whole league out of wack, and when some of the Rangers' youngsters quickly become eligible for such contracts, they will have big problems, even with Hank and Staal coming off the books. I'm very worried about this. Shush it’s so obvious it can’t be true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Posted August 17, 2019 Share Posted August 17, 2019 Can someone actually post the numbers that show the cap problems, instead of just riffing about it? Because I don't see it. This is a completely made up 20-21 roster with some reasonable numbers...It leaves $20+ million to sign 3 utility forwards (some of which will be ELC) and a goalie. It assumes modest raises for some, and big raises for others and an $85 million cap (unlikely with a new CBA and TV deal coming, revenue will be up). There is plenty of flexibility here. I really don't understand the issue. At least show some math, even if it's wrong, which I"m sure mine is. Anything else is kind of lazy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangersIn7 Posted August 17, 2019 Share Posted August 17, 2019 Can someone actually post the numbers that show the cap problems, instead of just riffing about it? Because I don't see it. This is a completely made up 20-21 roster with some reasonable numbers...It leaves $20+ million to sign 3 utility forwards (some of which will be ELC) and a goalie. It assumes modest raises for some, and big raises for others and an $85 million cap (unlikely with a new CBA and TV deal coming, revenue will be up). There is plenty of flexibility here. I really don't understand the issue. At least show some math, even if it's wrong, which I"m sure mine is. Anything else is kind of lazy. Thank you I don’t see the reason for panic and “cap fucked” is a gross overstatement. Plenty of teams are up against it. And what is it that they need to do that a lack of cap space is preventing them from doing? Lemieux and ADA will get under contract and be in camp IMO. You look at longer term on them next year. There’s no essential UFA next season and no youngster needing a long-term deal next season, and they already made their big money adds this season. They’ll be ok. Gorton has done well. These are smart people who have a plan. Only issue I have thus far is them not doing more to avoid a Shattenkirk buyout. Could’ve taken a nothing return on Namestnikov at deadline, but then we’d be bitching about that. But it’s ok. They’ll be fine Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Posted August 17, 2019 Share Posted August 17, 2019 Thank you I don’t see the reason for panic and “cap fucked” is a gross overstatement. Plenty of teams are up against it. And what is it that they need to do that a lack of cap space is preventing them from doing? Lemieux and ADA will get under contract and be in camp IMO. You look at longer term on them next year. There’s no essential UFA next season and no youngster needing a long-term deal next season, and they already made their big money adds this season. They’ll be ok. Gorton has done well. These are smart people who have a plan. Only issue I have thus far is them not doing more to avoid a Shattenkirk buyout. Could’ve taken a nothing return on Namestnikov at deadline, but then we’d be bitching about that. But it’s ok. They’ll be fine Yea. Next year is dicey...But then the next few years you lose Staal, Lundy, the buyout and retention money....Things open up a lot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dunny Posted August 17, 2019 Share Posted August 17, 2019 You have Kravtsov/Kakko on ELCs. That's only true for that year. Kakko could easily be 10 million/per beyond that. Plus, Kravtsov and Fox we can expect will be on the cusp of big money. Then there's Zib. Obviously plenty of time yet, but I forsee some really tough decisions in 2022. No way they can keep all of: Panarin/Trouba/Kakko/Kravtsov/Fox/Zib/Chytil plus pay a decent goalie, which they'll have to do no matter where he comes from. They're probably going to have to add a 2C at some point in next two seasons. Thats not going to be cheap, either. Even if it's internal (Chytil) then that means he thrived and is therefore expensive coming out of ELC. They shot their bolt, and that's fine for now, but difficult in the future. I think they really have to be careful and smart about asset management, maintaining their 1st and 2nd rounders so they can feed useful ELCs in to the hopper as needed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now