Sod16

I see nothing controversial here. Hayes was only prepared to sign with Philly before the UFA period if he was overpaid. That doesn't mean he was adverse to going to Philly. If Philly did not offer to overpay him before July 1, he would have waited until after that date to sign with the highest bidder, which might still have been Philly. Perhaps he would have given the Rangers a small discount, but given the priority of Trouba and Panarin, that simply could not have happened.

Some of the experts on this board may not appreciate Fast, but the rest of the league no doubt does. He will get a nice contract if we don't resign him. He actually does quite nicely offensively when placed on a scoring line from time to time. I'd sign him even if it takes sacrifices elsewhere.

We don't have the space to be thinking about any UFA, however cheap. Let the kids play on defense. Forget about #7 has beens who aren't much better than Brendan Smith, who can always be summoned from Hartford with only minor cap consequences. If we bring him up, he will promise not to take four minor penalties in seven minutes again.

It seems that 82 games would be worth more than 22, but that's not the way teams look at it these days.

Agree. I don't want to set a precedent where all contracts have to be settled a year in advance and extensions are based on performance from two seasons ago.

If they were well under the cap, they would probably sign him. In the long term, it's always cap. They have to look down the road to when Kakko and one or two of the others on entry level contracts are due giant raises.

Doesn't really sound like a vote of confidence at all. It sounds like they are probably not satisfied with current offers and want him to play, have a good season, and then probably trade him before the deadline. I think it will take an unexpected development cap-wise for them to sign him. What I find interesting is that the initial comments come from JD on an issue that would usually be handled by the GM. I wonder if, in the long term, there could be friction with JD swooping in to manage things sometimes and the leaving it all to Gorton at other times. In this instance, at least, Gorton's comment echo those of JD. https://nypost.com/2019/08/09/rangers-chris-kreider-gets-a-qualified-vote-of-confidence/

I think it's really saying something that you can develop a list like this. All coaches have different length leashes, but it was really more apparent with Quinn than most.

I'd rather sink or swim with Hayek, Rykov, Lindgren and Fox and don't want to take playing time away from anyone. They don't need any more one way contracts, even small ones.

What will really be interesting is how long of a leash Quinn gives all of these young players. Last year he had some, like Chytil, on a short leash, and others, like Howden, on one of those 30 foot long extended leashes. Could there be an element of Colin Campbell here, with a shorter leash for young Europeans? We'll see.

75 points would mean that most or all of the young players are not developing as much as hoped, and 75 points can just as likely mean another Lias as another Kakko as the pick after the lottery. No thanks.

I'm assuming that TB is thinking of him as a one year deal PP specialist, because they will be in a tight enough position cap wise next year that it will be tough signing him again if he has a solid year and hence due more than he's getting now.

I think 60-40 Boo gets taken on waivers. Just look at the guys that we have taken over the past few years. I don't think they would try sending Boo down for another reason. They rewarded him with a one way contract, and even though it's only 700k, most of it would count against the cap if he were sent down. Every little bit hurts in the cap position that we are in.

Ok, he says he pissed, but don't get down on him for some momentary venting. He signed at a discount with us and was a good apple start to finish. It just didn't work out, largely for reasons beyond his control. Of course, he doesn't have good cause to be "pissed." I'm sure, on reflection, he wouldn't claim that the Rangers should not, in deference to him, have refrained from signing Panarin and Trouba, which is what made this necessary. The Rangers have not, historically, been quick to the trigger with buy outs (witness the continued presence of Staal and Smith). They do it when they have little choice. Shattenkirk's new market value, less than 30% of what he was making and for one year rather than two, speaks volumes to the necessity of this move and should quiet Kevin down. I hope he does well with the Lightening. He did his best here. Trying to play hurt probably made the knee worse. https://nypost.com/2019/08/05/kevin-shattenkirk-signs-with-lightning-after-rangers-buyout/

He lists his Top 5. You really need to make it a Top 10. Skrudland and Keene were not that bad given that they were able to unload them in less than a year. Richards should be on any list. Driver and Kaminsky probably as well.

Things may change, but as of now, his upside looks more like a Manny Malholtra than a Ryan Callahan, and that's not good enough for a No. 7 pick, even in a relatively thin draft.

It bears repeating, no one taken after Andersson in the 2017 draft has yet become a proven NHL player. That said, the whole world except for the Rangers would have taken Casey Middelstadt (who went at No. 8) over Andersson, and the rest of the world would take Middlestadt over Andersson now. No real need to debate Andersson at the moment. He's heading into his third professional season, and while that might not quite be make or break, if there are no clear indications that he 's going to be a strong NHL player after this season, it's unlikely that he will be (no need to trot out the exceptions).

Lots of candidates for No. 2 and No. 3 center, and none of them particularly strong.

Staal will be a prime candidate for a buyout next year. It will take most of his contract off the books for 20-21, when we most need the space, and move it to the following season, when we will be better able to take it with Hank off the books. The fact that we couldn't move Shatty with 50% retention does not bode well for getting rid of Namesnikov. I would think that Strome, at 3.1 and coming off a good season, would be moveable without retention. But all of these dumps are tougher than expected! In addition to cap concerns, the expansion draft is militating against an extension for Kreider. With an NMC, he would have to be protected, and that will mean not protecting some good young player who otherwise would be protected.

They haven't been able to trade Shatty yet, but we don't know if that's because there is absolutely no market or whether they've been fairly close and there have been other teams that were interested but have to get their own houses in order first. If the latter, maybe they risk no buying him out. And it is a risk, because if you can't unload Shatty, getting under the limit becomes a very difficult proposition.

I see no coherent explanation developing from the posters, which is, for now, because there is no coherent explanation. If Tampa was not paying $ to Cally because it is insured and not incurring a cap hit, he is inert, and there would be no detriment to keeping him for TB and no benefit to the Senators in getting him. Can't understand this. There must be some benefit to TB in getting rid of him, because they don't need an AHL goalie on a one way who will result in a cap hit, even if it is pretty small.

Fenton's one year clinic on "How Not To Run An NHL Franchise" is over. Extending Eric Staal (when he's just about to go South, this time for good); Granlund, Neiderrider and Coyle shipped for used puck bags; big contract for 31 year old Zucc. So many dubious moves. No coherent plan. Parise and Spurgeon have voiced public discontent the past week, which neither, by nature, would be prone to do lightly. I have said repeatedly over the past month that this is the least promising of 31 NHL teams at the moment. Much of it is predecessor Chuck Fletcher's doing. I think owner Craig Leopold is a little impulsive. This move coming immediately after letting Fenton do the draft and sign Zucc is pretty "Wild." I don't envy the new GM trying a rebuild with the Suter, Parise, Staal, Zucc, and Koivu albatross contracts on the books. Maybe trade Zucc to Dallas with a little retention. We could file a grievance.

There has always been conflicting info out there as to whether Staal's NMC is full (ESPN and Brooks have previously reported that it is partial in the last two or three years). In any event, someone might be willing to take him with retention at the deadline this year, and he might be willing to do it, if necessary.

This is an unusual trade that doesn't speak to the Rangers' situation. Cally was owed money but did not incur a cap hit. Ott is paying money, in the form of taking on Cally, in exchange for TB taking Condon off Ottawa's hands. It's strange that the deal involves TB adding cap. You'd expect a deal between these teams to go the other way.

It's pretty clear that he's going to be traded, but I think Gorton is wise enough to not do it when the return is unreasonably low, as it now seems to be. I know no one wants a repeat of the in season upheaval from the past two years, but many or even most teams have prospective UFAs on their rosters. The Blue Jackets sure played some good hockey with three of their best players effectively in the chute. If we go into the season with Kreider on the roster, many different things could happen. We might get better offers than we have been getting; we might end up swinging deals that free up cap space to sign him; someone could go on long term IR. It's best to play it cool rather than accept a low return now. If nothing happens to make signing him more plausible, he should bring what Hayes or Nash did at the deadline the past two years.