Phil Posted July 31, 2019 Share Posted July 31, 2019 Link: Link: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrooksBurner Posted July 31, 2019 Share Posted July 31, 2019 Nobody wanted to trade. This is the best buyout option. Moving on... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paddynyc Posted July 31, 2019 Share Posted July 31, 2019 Will he stay local NJ or Islanders ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThirtyONE Posted July 31, 2019 Share Posted July 31, 2019 This was probably the worst option. Shame he wasn't more useful in his time here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
josh Posted July 31, 2019 Share Posted July 31, 2019 The wrong decision, here. Still have to make a different move (or 2) for this season, and more to be cap compliant next season. Ensures Kreider fate as a goner. Strome too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bugg Posted July 31, 2019 Share Posted July 31, 2019 So be it. But for crissakes stop giving Staal a sweater every night with all this young D talent. He gives you nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrooksBurner Posted July 31, 2019 Share Posted July 31, 2019 The wrong decision, here. Still have to make a different move (or 2) for this season, and more to be cap compliant next season. Ensures Kreider fate as a goner.Strome too. Not true. They have space if they want Kreider long term. Don't know whether they want that though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThirtyONE Posted July 31, 2019 Share Posted July 31, 2019 The wrong decision, here. Still have to make a different move (or 2) for this season, and more to be cap compliant next season. Ensures Kreider fate as a goner. Strome too. I don't think these are all connected. This is the way I see it: There was no place for Shattenkirk on the roster. Bad contract or not, he's was not a part of the equation. So they tried to trade him and couldn't. The only other way to move him is to buy him out. They have about 40 defensemen, so they needed to get rid of him no matter what. The buyout hurts, and I wish they didn't have to do it, but clearly nobody wanted him. With this move, the Rangers are now under the cap and can explore other options. There's no time crunch now. I still think they'll look for a way to trade Namestnikov and I think they'll bury Smith in the minors. As I've been saying all along, Kreider is their last priority because he is under contract -- and while they'd like to have everything solved by camp, they don't have to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew a Penalty Posted July 31, 2019 Share Posted July 31, 2019 I don't think these are all connected. This is the way I see it: There was no place for Shattenkirk on the roster. Bad contract or not, he's was not a part of the equation. So they tried to trade him and couldn't. The only other way to move him is to buy him out. They have about 40 defensemen, so they needed to get rid of him no matter what. The buyout hurts, and I wish they didn't have to do it, but clearly nobody wanted him. With this move, the Rangers are now under the cap and can explore other options. There's no time crunch now. I still think they'll look for a way to trade Namestnikov and I think they'll bury Smith in the minors. As I've been saying all along, Kreider is their last priority because he is under contract -- and while they'd like to have everything solved by camp, they don't have to. Pretty much this. I think buying out Shattenkirk signals that pretty much all trade fronts have been pretty quiet. He's the buyout that clears the most space with them having to make too many other moves to accommodate others. I agree that we still see a trade involving Strome or Namestnikov just because the extra cap would help and they've already got a glut of middling forwards. Buying out Shattenkirk meant not having to sell off someone else for dirt cheap or having to give us assets to subtract. Next season isn't so much of a concern. Shattenkirk's buyout hit is restrictive in the Rangers pursuing new talent next season, but it isn't a hindrance on the team or its ability to grow. They'll have something in the range of $16-18M to re-sign whoever they want and modify ever so slightly. This move isn't the ideal move, but we don't live in an ideal world. The move makes sense to me, though, and I support it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
siddious Posted July 31, 2019 Share Posted July 31, 2019 Im gonna be so pissed when he puts up 80 points for the devils next season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Posted July 31, 2019 Author Share Posted July 31, 2019 Im gonna be so pissed when he puts up 80 points for the devils next season. Yeah, that's not gonna happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CBrowningPI Posted July 31, 2019 Share Posted July 31, 2019 "Hey Shatty, You're gonna have to play better than that if You want to stay on Broadway"! Give that guy a beer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MuddyInTheMiddle Posted July 31, 2019 Share Posted July 31, 2019 <a href= I think what Drew said above is spot on about Namestikov or Strome getting moved as well to free up additional cap room. That will give the Rangers the flexibility to not force DeAngelo & Lemieux(creating all sorts of disenfranchisement) to play for their qualifying offers and leave room to keep a Nieves/Gettinger/McKegg/Fogarty type as well as Shesterkin on the roster if they want to. Or it let's them put a gun to Kreider's head and say "This is the term/$$ we are willing to resign you for; take it or have fun playing in Winnipeg this season". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AliveIn94 Posted July 31, 2019 Share Posted July 31, 2019 The more players under 30 the better. Shame Shatty's injuries handicapped him though. Sent from my Z981 using Blueshirts Brotherhood mobile app powered by Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThirtyONE Posted July 31, 2019 Share Posted July 31, 2019 "not forcing Lemieux or DeAngleo creating all sorts of disenfranchisement" ...."put a gun to Kreider's head." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MuddyInTheMiddle Posted July 31, 2019 Share Posted July 31, 2019 Not sure if that is a comment, question, or echo ThirtyONE? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TwoMinutesForNothing Posted July 31, 2019 Share Posted July 31, 2019 Shatty will be a Penguin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrooksBurner Posted July 31, 2019 Share Posted July 31, 2019 Not sure if that is a comment, question, or echo ThirtyONE? I believe he's pointing out the contradictory way you are treating fairly new players in DeAngelo and Lemieux by not "forcing" them to do anything, while turning around and doing it to one of the longest tenured Rangers on the team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew a Penalty Posted July 31, 2019 Share Posted July 31, 2019 Lemieux and DeAngelo don't really have the leverage to argue for very much more than their QOs. I could probably make the argument for DeAngelo and would prefer to bridge him if possible, but I don't see the point in doing so in order to appease. I'd rather pay him something like $2.5M for the next two than $4.5M for the next five if he has a good season this year on a one-year deal. I'm less so concerned about Lemieux breaking out in any significant capacity. Kreider, I think you have to hardball no matter what. Quinn has said on several occasions that trades looming over Hayes and Zuccarello had a negative impact on the locker room. They're not going to go into the season without him signed or very close to it. I wouldn't give Kreider more than $30M total on a contract regardless of length. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MuddyInTheMiddle Posted July 31, 2019 Share Posted July 31, 2019 I don't think it's contradictory at all; simply pragmatic. The team has to believe that DeAngelo & Lemieux will play some sort of role moving forward in this rebuild as long as they continue to develop, whether it's them playing towards their ceiling or selling high on them for future acquisitions. While both players certainly do not have any leverage and can indeed be forced to play for their qualifying offer, is that really the best strategy to get them there, when we are talking about saving a relatively small amount(albeit precious) cap space. Now in the case of Kreider, he is due a major payday in less than 12 months. It's been argued here to ad nauseam that he is not worth that Kevin Hayes type deal even though he can probably command it on the open market; I am sure Rangers management believes that too. This puts them into the position of having to manage their asset, my hyperbole aside. It's not like there isn't a precedent for this type of negotiation given that it was widely reported that this is how they negotiated Mats Zucarello's previous contract. I don't believe that the fact that he is their longest tenured player, is really not going to be much of a factor in that negotiation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThirtyONE Posted August 1, 2019 Share Posted August 1, 2019 I believe he's pointing out the contradictory way you are treating fairly new players in DeAngelo and Lemieux by not "forcing" them to do anything, while turning around and doing it to one of the longest tenured Rangers on the team. bingo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MuddyInTheMiddle Posted August 1, 2019 Share Posted August 1, 2019 bingo See post #20 in case you missed it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lefty9 Posted August 1, 2019 Share Posted August 1, 2019 I don't think it's contradictory at all; simply pragmatic. The team has to believe that DeAngelo & Lemieux will play some sort of role moving forward in this rebuild as long as they continue to develop, whether it's them playing towards their ceiling or selling high on them for future acquisitions. While both players certainly do not have any leverage and can indeed be forced to play for their qualifying offer, is that really the best strategy to get them there, when we are talking about saving a relatively small amount(albeit precious) cap space. Now in the case of Kreider, he is due a major payday in less than 12 months. It's been argued here to ad nauseam that he is not worth that Kevin Hayes type deal even though he can probably command it on the open market; I am sure Rangers management believes that too. This puts them into the position of having to manage their asset, my hyperbole aside. It's not like there isn't a precedent for this type of negotiation given that it was widely reported that this is how they negotiated Mats Zucarello's previous contract. I don't believe that the fact that he is their longest tenured player, is really not going to be much of a factor in that negotiation.not directed towards you ,but I think kreider deserves as much money as Hayes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Posted August 1, 2019 Share Posted August 1, 2019 So be it. But for crissakes stop giving Staal a sweater every night with all this young D talent. He gives you nothing.That's flat out untrue. He's the most positionally sound and veteran D on the team, one that lacks experience and leadership on the blue line. He has way more value than Shattenkirk to us, right now. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parsley Posted August 1, 2019 Share Posted August 1, 2019 BUST. Sent from my iPhone using Blueshirts Brotherhood mobile app powered by Tapatalk 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