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

Good point, it's certainly better to overpay for players in a cap league. There won't be any ramifications, as this Org has a stellar track record of success when it comes to FA's, restricted or otherwise.

 

This, and the Panarin deal, are certain home runs, and we should just sit back and enjoy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 325
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I'd be willing to wager anybody here that Panarin doesn't touch 75 points in year one and Trouba doesn't touch 45.

 

Name the price on either of those.

 

Panarin I don't agree with, he'll be with Zib, but Trouba probably will probably hover around 30.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, that's true, and I like the Panarin signing, but for that cap hit he should be close to 100 over 82.

 

Trouba is a 30 point D man, unless he's PP #1 Trigger Man, and we'll see if he gets that role, I'm not so sure he will.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd be willing to wager anybody here that Panarin doesn't touch 75 points in year one and Trouba doesn't touch 45.

 

Name the price on either of those.

 

Panarin will get 75 easy.

 

Hard to tell on Trouba in terms of what to expect for production. Depends on how he's used on the PP. Playing with Panarin/Zibanejad isn't all that much of a drop off from what Wheeler/Scheifele have been doing. If he's getting 250+ minutes of PP time like all other top pairing defensemen seem to get, he'll get 45 without an issue. If he doesn't, I would expect 30ish like Pete said. I'm guessing he doesn't get that much PP time because of all the hard minutes he logs on the PK.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to sum it up - currently, the Rangers have a cap hit of 82.4M. They need to fit under 81.5M (1M) and still need to re-sign Buchnevich (3.5M), DeAngelo (2M) and Lemieux (1M). Re-signing the three remaining RFA's leave the Rangers with 25 players on the roster. That means that two players will be sent to Hartford, clearing 0.7M-1M each, depending on who is sent down. That's 1.5-2M cleared.

 

So, by my calculations, the Rangers need at the very least to clear 5.5M to fit under the cap. Realistically, it's more likely in the 6-7M range. The realistic options seem to be:

 

1) Trading Kreider (4.6M)

2) Trading Namestnikov with 50% retention (2M)

3) Buying out Ryan Strome (2.7M, but hits with-0,6M in 20-21)

4) Buying out Brendan Smith (3.4M, but effect until 2023)

5) Buying out Marc Staal (2.8M, but effect until 2023)

6) Buying out Kevin Shattenkirk (5.2M, but effect until 2023)

 

Personally I go with 3+4 and perhaps 2 if possible. It really hurts to buy out a 2-year-deal in the middle of a re-build, but the only alternative is to trade Kreider. Buying out Shattenkirk helps a lot in year 1, but also sends a very bad message.

 

Alternatively, the ideal scenario would be to trade Namestnikov and Strome with no salary retained. The problem is that their salary is even higher than their cap, so it's not really attractive for Ottawa, Carolina etc. unless you strap them with a 1st or a top prospect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see them going into the season with Kreider, Namestnikov, and Buchnevich. One of them is a goner. I imagine they've gotten word from Kreider on what he is expecting by now contract wise, so they can make their next move. It's been pretty tight lipped. If it's reasonable, I think Namestnikov is gone and Kreider is re-signed. If not, Kreider is gone. Wild card is they trade Buchnevich but I have a tough time thinking they would do that before the alternative.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd be willing to wager anybody here that Panarin doesn't touch 75 points in year one and Trouba doesn't touch 45.

 

Name the price on either of those.

For Panarin it depends on how good the winger opposite him ends up being - and whether or not Quinn ever splits he and Zib up to balance out scoring. If Kakko, Kravstov or Kytil is good on the other wing, Panarin and Zib can both be PPG players.

 

Trouba's scoring is grossly overvalued, but he might come close to 50 just based on volume. He might get PP1 time and rack up some points, but he's not really a PP1 player, and not really a 50-point player. If Buff gets hurt again, Pionk will put up similar scoring numbers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For Panarin it depends on how good the winger opposite him ends up being - and whether or not Quinn ever splits he and Zib up to balance out scoring. If Kakko, Kravstov or Kytil is good on the other wing, Panarin and Zib can both be PPG players.

 

Trouba's scoring is grossly overvalued, but he might come close to 50 just based on volume. He might get PP1 time and rack up some points, but he's not really a PP1 player, and not really a 50-point player. If Buff gets hurt again, Pionk will put up similar scoring numbers.

 

Pionk's offense was never his problem. He could easily hit 40-45 points, but his defense was always the problem. Similar with DeAngelo, though I saw improvement from DeAngelo defensively as the season progressed. It felt like Pionk regressed even more in that aspect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems likely DeAngelo is going to get hardballed since he is not arbitration eligible. Wouldn't be surprised to see a 1 year deal for 1.2-1.5. Long term deal next offseason if he improves further. Saving 500k-1M on his contract is a big deal.

 

I'm not sure he's a long-term piece at all. I think that's entirely dependent on Fox. The entire right side of the Rangers defense right now is basically all offense, including Shattenkirk for the time being. Subtracting him doesn't really "solve" the problem, and the money will ultimately be an issue. I feel like they have to choose one of Fox or DeAngelo to go with Trouba and then backfill with ELCs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure he's a long-term piece at all. I think that's entirely dependent on Fox. The entire right side of the Rangers defense right now is basically all offense, including Shattenkirk for the time being. Subtracting him doesn't really "solve" the problem, and the money will ultimately be an issue. I feel like they have to choose one of Fox or DeAngelo to go with Trouba and then backfill with ELCs.

 

At the moment, yes, I agree. You can't long term him right now, but if DeAngelo improves defensively it would be a tough call to extend him versus trade him next summer. I'm not sold that they will see Fox enough this year to know that they can dump DeAngelo. I have a suspicion they put the 30 game condition on the pick in the Fox trade because they don't expect him to reach it, which tells me the plan is to go with Trouba/DeAngelo/Shattenkirk and get Fox exposure in the 2nd half. I'd like to think that was their plan at the time of the trade anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pionk's offense was never his problem. He could easily hit 40-45 points, but his defense was always the problem. Similar with DeAngelo, though I saw improvement from DeAngelo defensively as the season progressed. It felt like Pionk regressed even more in that aspect.

Sure. But the reality is that WPG has exactly 2 RHD on their roster right now. So even if Pionk is bad, he's going to get his opportunities. Unless they decide to give Morrissey a lot more PP time, Pionk is probably still in line to run the second unit already.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At the moment, yes, I agree. You can't long term him right now, but if DeAngelo improves defensively it would be a tough call to extend him versus trade him next summer. I'm not sold that they will see Fox enough this year to know that they can dump DeAngelo. I have a suspicion they put the 30 game condition on the pick in the Fox trade because they don't expect him to reach it, which tells me the plan is to go with Trouba/DeAngelo/Shattenkirk and get Fox exposure in the 2nd half. I'd like to think that was their plan at the time of the trade anyway.
They may have uncertainty about how the transition will go for Fox, but they have said he will get a full opportunity to make the team out of camp. If I were them, I'd watch the two of them go head-to-head before I made any assumptions. I certainly wouldn't - at this stage of the (re)build - lean towards keeping Fox in Hartford for 60% of the season just to keep the 3rd from becoming a 2nd.

 

Sent from my SM-G970U using Blueshirts Brotherhood mobile app powered by Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They may have uncertainty about how the transition will go for Fox, but they have said he will get a full opportunity to make the team out of camp. If I were them, I'd watch the two of them go head-to-head before I made any assumptions. I certainly wouldn't - at this stage of the (re)build - lean towards keeping Fox in Hartford for 60% of the season just to keep the 3rd from becoming a 2nd.

 

Sent from my SM-G970U using Blueshirts Brotherhood mobile app powered by Tapatalk

 

As promising as Fox is, having him immediately step in to top 4, PPQB, etc may also be a misaligned expectation. I'm not sitting here arguing for Shattenkirk, but if the right move is to let Fox run Hartford's PP until the TDL, so be it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They may have uncertainty about how the transition will go for Fox, but they have said he will get a full opportunity to make the team out of camp. If I were them, I'd watch the two of them go head-to-head before I made any assumptions. I certainly wouldn't - at this stage of the (re)build - lean towards keeping Fox in Hartford for 60% of the season just to keep the 3rd from becoming a 2nd.

 

Sent from my SM-G970U using Blueshirts Brotherhood mobile app powered by Tapatalk

 

It's a wierd condition to put in the trade. The Rangers clearly must have doubt about Fox cracking the lineup, even if they say he will get a full opportunity to make the team. He would really have to blow them away.

 

Forget all of this if they pivot and buyout Shattenkirk though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a wierd condition to put in the trade. The Rangers clearly must have doubt about Fox cracking the lineup, even if they say he will get a full opportunity to make the team. He would really have to blow them away.

 

Forget all of this if they pivot and buyout Shattenkirk though.

 

I think it was a "call bullshit on Fox" provision more than anything. Fox was calling the shot - I'm ready, I'm good to go, let's do this, but not in Carolina. If part 1 isn't true, the Rangers don't want to overpay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At the moment, yes, I agree. You can't long term him right now, but if DeAngelo improves defensively it would be a tough call to extend him versus trade him next summer. I'm not sold that they will see Fox enough this year to know that they can dump DeAngelo. I have a suspicion they put the 30 game condition on the pick in the Fox trade because they don't expect him to reach it, which tells me the plan is to go with Trouba/DeAngelo/Shattenkirk and get Fox exposure in the 2nd half. I'd like to think that was their plan at the time of the trade anyway.

 

So, if DeAngelo suddenly changes course 180? you keep him? The likelihood of that happening is minimal if it exists at all. This is the player he is. He's going to be 24 to start the season.

 

And in this scenario, keeping DeAngelo on a one-year deal seems perfectly fine. You can walk away from him next offseason when he's arbitration-eligible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, if DeAngelo suddenly changes course 180? you keep him? The likelihood of that happening is minimal if it exists at all. This is the player he is. He's going to be 24 to start the season.

 

And in this scenario, keeping DeAngelo on a one-year deal seems perfectly fine. You can walk away from him next offseason when he's arbitration-eligible.

 

A couple of others have chimed in already, but he's had less than 2 full seasons in the NHL. I think he's pretty refined offensively. I don't think it's out of the question to expect him to improve defensively. I wouldn't call that changing course 180 degrees. Many defensemen don't reach their peaks until mid-late 20s.

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...