It's a Slow News Week, So Here's a Fun and Unique Trade Proposal

[Future]

Lol. Now you’re speaking my language.

I don’t think I want anything to do with Ryan just to move up.

I don't think I would for #4 either...But assuming you get a top-6 player right away, you can essentially justify Ryan's contract b/c you've got a top-6 guy as an ELC. Nobody would blink if you had Ryan's contract as a top-6 player, so from kind of a budgeting perspective, taking on the contract alone doesn't kill you.

 

The problem is making sure that the player at #4 IS a top-6 contributor.

[Drew a Penalty]

I don't do it. The talent drop off between 9 and 4 is so marginal that the added expense of Ryan's contract isn't worth it. I like Svechnikov and Zadina more than most, but I don't know if either is quite worth the addition of Ryan's contract and the sacrifice of another asset. Tkachuk isn't worth moving up. All of the defensemen save Dahl?n have a chance to fall back to the Ranger pick. Maybe only Hughes is out of the picture now. That's not enough to make me bite.

 

I agree with Future's stance that Ryan's contract balances out with an ELC, but that's still a really ugly deal. You're still paying an additional year at the conclusion of whoever's ELC. I'd much rather just stay at 9 and pick BPA. That cap space is valuable long run. I'm all for taking a short-term hit. Not long-term though.

[Giacomin]

I don’t see Ryan’s contract as such a burden that they would give up a chance at one of the top 4 players in the draft

 

For almost any team not capped-out it wouldn't be. At least for Ryan alone.

 

Problem #1 this is not most owners. Which is key to the whole premise. We are talking about Melnyk, a man desperate to dump more salary than just Ryan. He wants to do the cheapest rebuild ever. He already has Hoffman, Duchene and other salaries he has to live with, plus Stone needs a big contract.

 

Problem #2 - issues get compounded with Karlsson. Karlsson either needs 10 mil or be traded. The braintrust seemed resolved to move Ryan in a package with Karlsson. A heavy lift.

 

If we can help them dump Ryan, it opens more options. More suitors could afford Karlsson's cap hit. No longer would the Sens have to take less for Karlsson. They can get the full-value haul they need, especially with more bidders To boot, the Sens could even reconsider keeping Karlsson. Or at least not appear so desperate to make the trade.

 

One other item. Moving Karlsson creates glaring openings in their top 4D and Ottawa might prefer the cheaper top-pair defender they can still get at 9 versus the forward at 4.

 

Maybe it takes pick 48 and 70 to push this over-the-top. Even add a lower tier D prospect. They choose from Day, Gilmour, O'Gara, etc.

[Giacomin]

I don't do it. The talent drop off between 9 and 4 is so marginal that the added expense of Ryan's contract isn't worth it. I like Svechnikov and Zadina more than most, but I don't know if either is quite worth the addition of Ryan's contract and the sacrifice of another asset. Tkachuk isn't worth moving up. All of the defensemen save Dahl?n have a chance to fall back to the Ranger pick. Maybe only Hughes is out of the picture now. That's not enough to make me bite.

 

I agree with Future's stance that Ryan's contract balances out with an ELC, but that's still a really ugly deal. You're still paying an additional year at the conclusion of whoever's ELC. I'd much rather just stay at 9 and pick BPA. That cap space is valuable long run. I'm all for taking a short-term hit. Not long-term though.

 

Wow, I like how you answered the question and said no to Zadina and even Svech. You and Fatty have come out as proponents for cap flexibility, especially longer term. [Though Fatty has not said if he'd change his mind for Zadina.]

 

There is a lot of merit and value to that approach. It does enable us to make the biggest and wisest investments down the road. It also enables us to be opportunistic and grab players other teams can no longer afford at a discount.

 

Here's my only caveat. We need a top line franchise forward and scorer. Some think it trumps all our other needs. A few feel it a prerequisite to win a Cup. Like you, I think Zadina and Svech project to a gamechanging top-line scoring talent with a pretty complete game. If that is the assumption, when will a better opportunity emerge to leverage a team's money problem? One that allows us to add an 18 y/o potential superstar, to jump start the rebuild?

[BrooksBurner]

My thoufhts from the Case for Bobby Ryan thread apply here:

 

I don't think Ottawa would trade the #4 pick to get rid of Ryan. They are rebuilding, and the #4 pick is more important than saving some money. They will find someone to take Ryan with Karlsson, and I wouldn't be surprised if it is us. I would be ok with that depending on price. The question is how much does that reduce the Karlsson cost?

 

We might even be able to get them to consume Brendan Smith and Matt Beleskey's contract as part of the deal. Bobby Ryan's contract is THAT bad.

 

Hypothetically though, if it was on the table, I would probably do it if A) they consume Beleskey's or Smith's contract ans B) the Rangers are going for a true rebuild. I would still prefer the Karlsson option however, because I think we can rebuild on the fly quicker than people think if a few dominos fall our way. I am also willing to make the push again for Hank, in a way that doesnt leave us completely crippled for the future (like trading all of our picks and prospects).

[RangersIn7]

It’s very unlikely at this point that Ottawa trades that pick at 4, just given that they’re losing their 1st next year, and that’s likeky a high one too. Hard to see them giving away high picks in consecutive drafts when they’re about to go deep in a rebuild, their lineup is bereft of top talent, and their owner is cheaper than Mort Goldman from Family Guy.

 

I’m very much in the camp of wanting the Rangers to move up. But the more I think about it, the more unlikely it seems to be. Of the 5 teams in the top 5, all have big holes still. Holes they can potentially fill with their pick. Even Carolina, who find themselves up there by luck, aren’t really that awful, and have a deep farm system as is, could use that pick as they lack a game breaker offensively.

 

At this point, it seems more likely that if the Rangers were to move up, it would probably be a deal where they move up 2-3 picks to grab a guy they like but who would not still be there at 9 if they were to wait around.

 

And no on Ryan. They just can’t take that contract back.

[Giacomin]

My thoufhts from the Case for Bobby Ryan thread apply here:

 

 

 

Hypothetically though, if it was on the table, I would probably do it if A) they consume Beleskey's or Smith's contract ans B) the Rangers are going for a true rebuild. I would still prefer the Karlsson option however, because I think we can rebuild on the fly quicker than people think if a few dominos fall our way. I am also willing to make the push again for Hank, in a way that doesnt leave us completely crippled for the future (like trading all of our picks and prospects).

 

You are actually pretty open to it then. Essentially them eating 1.6 mil per is the equivalent of them taking on Belesky or Smith and burying them in the minors. They might prefer that because they may ultimately be able to shed or buyout those smaller contracts in a year.

 

Your second criteria would seem to be a given, since passing on the opportunity to trade for Karlsson when we have the ammo indicates rebuild. I'm also assuming we will forego any big ticket free agents this off season. We'll see. Still need a coach. Then we'll be dealing with the RFA's and draft. UFAs are TBD and we have to develop a plan that does not depend on this year's crop.

[Giacomin]

It’s very unlikely at this point that Ottawa trades that pick at 4, just given that they’re losing their 1st next year, and that’s likeky a high one too. Hard to see them giving away high picks in consecutive drafts when they’re about to go deep in a rebuild, their lineup is bereft of top talent, and their owner is cheaper than Mort Goldman from Family Guy.

Ha, Family Guy.

 

True they lost a 1st, though they have two this year. Still, they are not giving away the pick, just dropping down 5 slots. A top 10 pick and in range to grab either Hughes, Boqvist, Bouchard or Dobson. One of the top pair prospects they need.

 

They are already committed to two 1st line forwards, plus a top-6 in Hoffman. The cubbards are bare on D and D prospects. And if next year's draft is their concern, the Tampa pick could be the solution. Thus we keep all our other picks. Just a thought, not trying to be argumentative.

 

Even Carolina, who find themselves up there by luck, aren’t really that awful, and have a deep farm system as is, could use that pick as they lack a game breaker offensively.

 

Yeah, crazy that McKenzie reported that Carolina is fielding offers. One would think they could use a gamebreaker and scorer. The thinking must be they need centers more than anything else and may just be seeing who is available. Then they can talk Skinner or Faulk. They have a deep system and could really use a top end scorer. Maybe it is just that the owner gets to play GM (in on every deal, he says) and is trying to get teams to call him.

 

:slats:

[Fatfrancesa]

I would not chase Zadina. If they were to make a deal I’d rather it not include Ryan at all but rather picks. And I have zero interest in that. I just believe that with cap flexibility you leave yourself the opportunity to pounce on other gyms poor management. One thing that the nhl has in spades is roster mismanagement and even when gems do a good job success forces their hands to dealing players they’d rather not. For once it would be nice to be the team able to pounce on that. And remember those players are proven, they are most likely rfas, so still young too. It’s just with success teams can’t keep all their talent.

[Fatfrancesa]

Put it this way look at Brayden scheme last year being traded

[Long live the King]

Schenn makes $425k more than Lehtera. That wasn't a cap move.

[RangersIn7]

Ha, Family Guy.

 

True they lost a 1st, though they have two this year. Still, they are not giving away the pick, just dropping down 5 slots. A top 10 pick and in range to grab either Hughes, Boqvist, Bouchard or Dobson. One of the top pair prospects they need.

 

They are already committed to two 1st line forwards, plus a top-6 in Hoffman. The cubbards are bare on D and D prospects. And if next year's draft is their concern, the Tampa pick could be the solution. Thus we keep all our other picks. Just a thought, not trying to be argumentative.

 

 

 

Yeah, crazy that McKenzie reported that Carolina is fielding offers. One would think they could use a gamebreaker and scorer. The thinking must be they need centers more than anything else and may just be seeing who is available. Then they can talk Skinner or Faulk. They have a deep system and could really use a top end scorer. Maybe it is just that the owner gets to play GM (in on every deal, he says) and is trying to get teams to call him.

 

:slats:

 

I know they wouldn?t be GIVING away a pick up there, as they?d certainly get a nice package in exchange for it. And obviously they have some nicer pieces they are committed to, despite their holes which you pointed out.

 

My main point as to why they?d be, in my kind, VERY reluctant to trade their pick at 4 is really two-fold. First being what I pointed out regarding their losing their pick in 19 to Colorado in the Duchene deal. I doubt they?d want to do anything but actually make their pick at 4 this year when they know they?re losing a likely very high 1st rounder next year.

 

The second part is Karlsson. No idea what the outcome of that will be. With so much uncertainty surrounding him and what he will do, etc., I have to think that they have to prepare for life without him. That means they have to add more premium talent at some point, and a 4th overall pick is certainly a good place to do that.

 

You add in Melnyk?s frugality, if I?m Pierre Dorion, I have to look at adding the next franchise type piece, and I probably have to do it through the draft, as my ability to do it elsewhere is limited.

 

So he likely takes his pick at 4, and probably deals Karlsson for a futures package leading up to the deadline. That?s his best shot to recoup the high 1st he loses next draft. He can certainly get a premium prospect and a 1st back in any deal for Karlsson, but he hasn?t done that yet. He has to play carefully until that moment comes. Given his climate, that likely means picking at 4.

 

Again, this is all just my opinion and I?m no expert. It could break very differently. But I do think this is one of the more likely scenarios.

[Fatfrancesa]

Schenn makes $425k more than Lehtera. That wasn't a cap move.

 

Yes and no. 1 less year and they acquire two late firsts which equates to two elc players they hope to introduce into their roster in the near future. So yes it was not a total dump, the cap did have implications to the trade. The bigger point to me is that while we are talking about using late firsts to jump 4 or 5 spots for a single prospect, those same assets were just used to acquire a 30 goal center who’s well under 30. I’m not in love with schenn but those late firsts and or seconds have more value especially in a deep draft to be just thrown into deals without much thought.

 

My post including schenn was more just for thought. Was bufyliglen going to the peg a cap dump, is that a better example?

[Giacomin]

I would not chase Zadina. If they were to make a deal I’d rather it not include Ryan at all but rather picks. And I have zero interest in that. I just believe that with cap flexibility you leave yourself the opportunity to pounce on other gyms poor management. One thing that the nhl has in spades is roster mismanagement and even when gems do a good job success forces their hands to dealing players they’d rather not. For once it would be nice to be the team able to pounce on that. And remember those players are proven, they are most likely rfas, so still young too. It’s just with success teams can’t keep all their talent.

 

Appreciate your point of view. The most intriguing aspect is taking advantage of teams up against the cap, targeting RFAs.

 

The Jets will have issues, for instance. It is what makes Trouba more than a pipe dream. Or your point about having the ammo to go after say, Doug Hamilton. Jets and Flames both are lacking a 1st this year. If offer sheets were done, either player would cost a #1,#2, and #3. I'd do our last #1, 2 and 3 for Trouba. Or a #1, #3 and Hayes (or Vesey & Spooner) for Hamilton.

 

So I get what you and Drew are saying.

[Giacomin]

I know they wouldn’t be GIVING away a pick up there, as they’d certainly get a nice package in exchange for it. And obviously they have some nicer pieces they are committed to, despite their holes which you pointed out.

 

My main point as to why they’d be, in my kind, VERY reluctant to trade their pick at 4 is really two-fold. First being what I pointed out regarding their losing their pick in 19 to Colorado in the Duchene deal. I doubt they’d want to do anything but actually make their pick at 4 this year when they know they’re losing a likely very high 1st rounder next year.

 

The second part is Karlsson. No idea what the outcome of that will be. With so much uncertainty surrounding him and what he will do, etc., I have to think that they have to prepare for life without him. That means they have to add more premium talent at some point, and a 4th overall pick is certainly a good place to do that.

 

You add in Melnyk’s frugality, if I’m Pierre Dorion, I have to look at adding the next franchise type piece, and I probably have to do it through the draft, as my ability to do it elsewhere is limited.

 

So he likely takes his pick at 4, and probably deals Karlsson for a futures package leading up to the deadline. That’s his best shot to recoup the high 1st he loses next draft. He can certainly get a premium prospect and a 1st back in any deal for Karlsson, but he hasn’t done that yet. He has to play carefully until that moment comes. Given his climate, that likely means picking at 4.

 

Again, this is all just my opinion and I’m no expert. It could break very differently. But I do think this is one of the more likely scenarios.

 

Solid opinion, makes sense to me. I can see how the psychology of not having what could be a top 5 pick next year, would encourage standing pat.

 

If I ran Ottawa, I certainly would hold the pick. The wild card is how badly does Melnyk want to shed Ryan. And the major benefit of unencumbering a Karlsson trade and getting max bidders and max value, sans Ryan.

 

Not like we have to wait forever to see what both the Rangers and Sens do by draft day.

[Kreid_or_die]

both sides make some good points. But the ryan contract is horrible and we're already stuck with brendan smith. youll regret it once 2019 rolls around and we have a crack at someone like seguin

[Giacomin]

both sides make some good points. But the ryan contract is horrible and we're already stuck with brendan smith. youll regret it once 2019 rolls around and we have a crack at someone like seguin

 

Agree. We should proceed with great caution on taking on bad contracts or even creating new bad contracts.

 

However, I'll go off the reservation to suggest we build a winner w/o signing the typical 28 y/o star free agent to a 7-8 year monster contract. These guys are on the back 9. I would not regret not missing out on Seguin, if it meant getting Zadina or Svechnikov as 18 year olds.

 

Would you rather have Laine or Seguin? Would you rather have Provorov or Carlsson? Would you rather have a star between the ages of 18 to 27 or one from 28 to 35? Until we have a core in place, I'm an advocate of a youthful rebuild, which is inherently cheaper.