[brooks] Filip Chytil, Tony DeAngelo Will Force Rangers into Tough Roster Decisions

[BrooksBurner]

It’s just the math for me that makes it not work. Also, I’m not positive they need him regardless of his attitude . They likely re up Sergachev, already had McD and Hedman

 

Tampa is in the same situation the Rangers are except reversed. Loaded on one side of the defense only.

[Keirik]

They have to do that anyway. DeAngelo instead of Point saves them cap.

 

I’m not so sure it saves them that much. ADA probably is looking for 6+ dude. Maybe a tiny bit less because of covid but we are talking about someone offensively with the 5th most points in the league at his position.

[BrooksBurner]

I’m not so sure it saves them that much. ADA probably is looking for 6+ dude. Maybe a tiny bit less because of covid but we are talking about someone offensively with the 5th most points in the league at his position.

 

Still an RFA. Plus tax diff between NY and TB, probably inches DeAngelo down into the 5s and that's for a multi-year deal.

[Keirik]

Well I don’t know what to tell ya, I don’t agree with you on this one. I just dont see Tampa wanting to commit more long term money on defense when they already have a Norris winner and McD there. Being side heavy is one thing. The play for them is to still dump an older offensive contract to keep their younger rfas, not have around 20m cap space tied up in 3 guys on defense.

[RangersIn7]

If it’s a trade with him, then just stating the obvious, the trade partner needs to be a team that, obviously, has the $5-6+ million to spare on a D long-term, or can create that space without much trouble. They need to have the roster spot or be able to create said spot without much trouble for a RH D. He’d likely need top-4 minutes and significant PP time.

They’d need a young forward, preferably a C, that they’re willing to flip for him, and one that’s on an ELC or team friendly deal. Or they’d have to have a top prospect that fits that bill instead, and that prospect needs to be NHL ready or very close to that.

 

How many teams meet those qualifiers?

 

I still think the idea of ADA, Georgiev, and a 1st to Ottawa for one of their 2 high picks is actually fair value, though that won’t happen.

 

Here’s a ridiculous idea:

 

Could you flip ADA for another 1st, then trade Ottawa all 3 1sts to get their pick at 5?

That’s way too much to pay for that, but it actually might be worth it.

 

Before anyone jumps on that, I know that won’t happen. Just saying.

It’s a forum.

[RangersIn7]

Still an RFA. Plus tax diff between NY and TB, probably inches DeAngelo down into the 5s and that's for a multi-year deal.

 

Well I don’t know what to tell ya, I don’t agree with you on this one. I just dont see Tampa wanting to commit more long term money on defense when they already have a Norris winner and McD there. Being side heavy is one thing. The play for them is to still dump an older offensive contract to keep their younger rfas, not have around 20m cap space tied up in 3 guys on defense.

 

Tampa just doesn’t have the space, flexibility, or the ability to create the space without subtracting from a “win now” roster to make a deal for him.

 

Can’t see them as viable

[josh]

Rangers are on the verge of having top players and good scoring depth.

 

Larry Brooks "We better do something about this!"

[BrooksBurner]

If it’s a trade with him, then just stating the obvious, the trade partner needs to be a team that, obviously, has the $5-6+ million to spare on a D long-term, or can create that space without much trouble. They need to have the roster spot or be able to create said spot without much trouble for a RH D. He’d likely need top-4 minutes and significant PP time.

They’d need a young forward, preferably a C, that they’re willing to flip for him, and one that’s on an ELC or team friendly deal. Or they’d have to have a top prospect that fits that bill instead, and that prospect needs to be NHL ready or very close to that.

 

How many teams meet those qualifiers?

 

I still think the idea of ADA, Georgiev, and a 1st to Ottawa for one of their 2 high picks is actually fair value, though that won’t happen.

 

Here’s a ridiculous idea:

 

Could you flip ADA for another 1st, then trade Ottawa all 3 1sts to get their pick at 5?

That’s way too much to pay for that, but it actually might be worth it.

 

Before anyone jumps on that, I know that won’t happen. Just saying.

It’s a forum.

 

The problem is you don't trade DeAngelo for futures when the team is ready to take the next step forward.

[RangersIn7]

The problem is you don't trade DeAngelo for futures when the team is ready to take the next step forward.

 

I agree. It should be a hockey trade in ideal circumstances.

 

But... if it’s a future that can help more quickly than the standard futures return, has elite potential, is cost effective, and may potentially be a foundational piece for 10 years, you can’t ignore that.

[RangersIn7]

The problem is you don't trade DeAngelo for futures when the team is ready to take the next step forward.

 

To be clear also, the way this team and organization are set up now, they have the potential to be VERY GOOD for a LONG TIME.

I’m hoping for a long run of sustained, high-level success.

 

Unfortunately, they probably need another very high draft pick to increase their chances of doing that. There are other ways to be sure, and their resources make those other ways more possible than for most other teams.

 

Still though, the best way to be great for a long time in today’s NHL is to have multiple years of high draft picks that you absolutely nail.

One more pick like that might really cement that status for them.

[ThirtyONE]

Good problems to have.

[BrooksBurner]

I agree. It should be a hockey trade in ideal circumstances.

 

But... if it’s a future that can help more quickly than the standard futures return, has elite potential, is cost effective, and may potentially be a foundational piece for 10 years, you can’t ignore that.

 

To be clear also, the way this team and organization are set up now, they have the potential to be VERY GOOD for a LONG TIME.

I’m hoping for a long run of sustained, high-level success.

 

Unfortunately, they probably need another very high draft pick to increase their chances of doing that. There are other ways to be sure, and their resources make those other ways more possible than for most other teams.

 

Still though, the best way to be great for a long time in today’s NHL is to have multiple years of high draft picks that you absolutely nail.

One more pick like that might really cement that status for them.

 

That's fair. This kind of reasoning is why I can understand why some are in the "lose for Lafrenierre" wagon even though it is a minimal chance.

 

Short of a near lock in the draft though, I'm not as much a fan of that direction. Just as likely to draft a bust, like Andersson, and simultaneously hurt your chances to win a Cup while shortening the window.

[Phil]

If we must deal DeAngelo, I think TB makes a lot of sense. Their right side defense is utter trash. I'd be interested in Point or Sergachev. They won't deal Sergachev because he's young and cost controlled, but I could see a deal around Point. TB would save some cap space as well since DeAngelo's next contract won't come in as high as Point's. With Zibanejad and Point, Strome can be traded. This is the only kind of deal I'm losing DeAngelo for. A bonafide top 2 center, or a young top 3-4 LD.

 

Why would they give up Point when they can likely trade Johnson to relieve cap?

[Phil]

Still an RFA. Plus tax diff between NY and TB, probably inches DeAngelo down into the 5s and that's for a multi-year deal.

 

He has one more year of RFA. Everything thereafter is UFA years. Even if you account for state tax, McDonagh — a 30-point defender — just re-upped there for 6.75 per. If DeAngelo is truly a top-2/top-4 60-point player, he's getting 7+ even in a tax-free market.

[BrooksBurner]

Why would they give up Point when they can likely trade Johnson to relieve cap?

 

It's not meant to be a cap dump move. It's an added bonus for TB that DeAngelo will come in under 6.75 per, which is what Point makes for 2 more seasons.

 

The Rangers might have to add something else to the deal, but the overarching point (no pun intended) of bringing this up is that this is the caliber of player you would trade DeAngelo for. You don't trade for futures or for 40-50 point forwards hoping they get better, when you have a defenseman who already outpaces that production.

[Keirik]

He has one more year of RFA. Everything thereafter is UFA years. Even if you account for state tax, McDonagh — a 30-point defender — just re-upped there for 6.75 per. If DeAngelo is truly a top-2/top-4 60-point player, he's getting 7+ even in a tax-free market.

Yeah I just don’t see ADA to Tampa as a viable option at all. You know what team does have room for him? Devils. Wonder how in love they are with Zacha since they are fairly deep in C with Hughes and Hischier......not that I wouldn’t vomit trading with the Devils but still lol

[BrooksBurner]

He has one more year of RFA. Everything thereafter is UFA years. Even if you account for state tax, McDonagh — a 30-point defender — just re-upped there for 6.75 per. If DeAngelo is truly a top-2/top-4 60-point player, he's getting 7+ even in a tax-free market.

 

In another season of the same production, yes, but the track record isn't there for DeAngelo's contract to come in that high. I see him coming in anywhere between 5-6.5 depending on term.

[Phil]

It's not meant to be a cap dump move. It's an added bonus for TB that DeAngelo will come in under 6.75 per, which is what Point makes for 2 more seasons.

 

The Rangers might have to add something else to the deal, but the overarching point (no pun intended) of bringing this up is that this is the caliber of player you would trade DeAngelo for. You don't trade for futures or for 40-50 point forwards hoping they get better, when you have a defenseman who already outpaces that production.

 

Which is a generous assumption that I don't think actually holds water, as illustrated above.

 

I'm with you on not settling, but the team is also in a potential bind, because they can basically kick the can down the road just one more time before they're out of options. We're rapidly approaching shit-or-get-off-the-pot territory.

[Phil]

In another season of the same production, yes, but the track record isn't there for DeAngelo's contract to come in that high. I see him coming in anywhere between 5-6.5 depending on term.

 

Sorry, I just don't see it. They're basically a season and a half apart. McDonagh definitely came with more general pedigree/dependability, but this league is still a what have you done for me lately one. Even a short, productive stint in the play-ins/playoffs here could skyrocket DeAngelo's value given the seasonal dearth of reliable puck-moving/producing defenders.

 

Look at what they and their imposters go for every summer. What do you think is gonna happen if Krug hits the open market? The idea of DeAngelo anywhere near $5 million annually except on a one-year ticket is lunacy IMO. The absolute lowest he's getting is $6.5 million by my estimation, flat cap and all.

[Phil]

Yeah I just don’t see ADA to Tampa as a viable option at all. You know what team does have room for him? Devils. Wonder how in love they are with Zacha since they are fairly deep in C with Hughes and Hischier......not that I wouldn’t vomit trading with the Devils but still lol

 

Why would you even want Zacha? He's a fourth-liner. If I'm dealing with the Devils, the ask for DeAngelo begins (and ends) with Boqvist or Smith. I'm not interested in any of their roster trash. The only guy I might have shown some interest in was Coleman, and he's gone.

[Keirik]

Why would you even want Zacha? He's a fourth-liner. If I'm dealing with the Devils, the ask for DeAngelo begins (and ends) with Boqvist or Smith. I'm not interested in any of their roster trash. The only guy I might have shown some interest in was Coleman, and he's gone.

 

Under 2.5 cap hit for two additional seasons, 6-3, big body, technically had a good scouting report Out of Europe, is only 23, center, technically on pace for a mid 40s point season. I’d expect more as well in terms of a pick or two, which seeing how trash the Devils are, would be a pretty good pick.

[BrooksBurner]

Sorry, I just don't see it. They're basically a season and a half apart. McDonagh definitely came with more general pedigree/dependability, but this league is still a what have you done for me lately one. Even a short, productive stint in the play-ins/playoffs here could skyrocket DeAngelo's value given the seasonal dearth of reliable puck-moving/producing defenders.

 

Look at what they and their imposters go for every summer. What do you think is gonna happen if Krug hits the open market? The idea of DeAngelo anywhere near $5 million annually except on a one-year ticket is lunacy IMO. The absolute lowest he's getting is $6.5 million by my estimation, flat cap and all.

 

Right. Depending on term. He'll be in that 5 range on a 1 year deal because it hardly benefits the Rangers other than ultimately just giving them some extra time to trade him. Trouba on a 1 year arbitration deal two summers ago got 5.5 and that was with salary progression and multiple years of steady NHL work.

 

As the years increase, the cap hit goes up. I mean if he comes in asking 7x7 without any flexibility, it's going to go arbitration and the conversation about trading him changes, or it just buys the Rangers some time to figure it out.

 

I think your projection is wrong though. Krug is a UFA at 29 so that's Deangelo in another 5 years. DeAngelo has 3 RFA years left I believe. He can go a year at a time but that's risky. On a longer term deal that buys 1-3 UFA years, I think something in the vicinity of 3-4 x 6M, 5-6 x 6.5M is very realistic. Gives him some longer term security and the ability to land another deal on the back end.

 

My guess is a 4 yr in that 6M vicinity. He'll then be a UFA at 28 and can cash in big if he maintains the track record throughout.

[josh]

To be clear also, the way this team and organization are set up now, they have the potential to be VERY GOOD for a LONG TIME.

I?m hoping for a long run of sustained, high-level success.

 

Unfortunately, they probably need another very high draft pick to increase their chances of doing that. There are other ways to be sure, and their resources make those other ways more possible than for most other teams.

 

Still though, the best way to be great for a long time in today?s NHL is to have multiple years of high draft picks that you absolutely nail.

One more pick like that might really cement that status for them.

 

I dont think you need another high draft pick. This article is already talking about Chytil forcing someone out, or playing 3rd line minutes. Where are you going to put more top 6 guys? And we havent even seen any of the 3 top 10 picks play higher than the 3rd line.

[Phil]

Under 2.5 cap hit for two additional seasons, 6-3, big body, technically had a good scouting report Out of Europe, is only 23, center, technically on pace for a mid 40s point season. I’d expect more as well in terms of a pick or two, which seeing how trash the Devils are, would be a pretty good pick.

 

Bleh. I'm all for reclamation projects. Just not at the expense of one of the club's best trading chips. Zacha is way down on the list of players I'd even consider in a deal, and again, if I'm dealing with an arch-rival, they're paying through the fuckin' nose. The Rangers are giving up the best player in the deal in this deal. I'm doing everything I can to flip that script.

 

Right. Depending on term. He'll be in that 5 range on a 1 year deal because it hardly benefits the Rangers other than ultimately just giving them some extra time to trade him. Trouba on a 1 year arbitration deal two summers ago got 5.5 and that was with salary progression and multiple years of steady NHL work.

 

As the years increase, the cap hit goes up. I mean if he comes in asking 7x7 without any flexibility, it's going to go arbitration and the conversation about trading him changes, or it just buys the Rangers some time to figure it out.

 

I think your projection is wrong though. Krug is a UFA at 29 so that's Deangelo in another 5 years. DeAngelo has 2 RFA years left I believe. He can go a year at a time but that's risky. On a longer term deal that buys 2-4 UFA years, I think something in the vicinity of 3-4 x 6M, 5-6 x 6.5M is very realistic. Gives him some longer term security and the ability to land another deal on the back end.

 

My guess is a 4 yr in that 6M vicinity. He'll then be a UFA at 28 and can cash in big if he maintains the track record throughout.

 

Krug wasn't a direct comparable. I was trying to illustrate what puck-movers get in free agency. That being said, the difference between a 25- or 26-year old and a 29-year old is still negligible on the open market if the commodity itself — a mobile, point-producing D — is something every team badly wants. It's the same story with centers. Because they're the hardest pieces to find and rarely make it to the market. Teams regularly trip over themselves to offer big bucks and bigger term to players who will ultimately give them fewer years of what earned them the deal in the first place than the life of the contract they sign.

 

But you're right on the number of years. I was going off memory, and mine was off. I thought he had just one year of RFA left. He has two. So that's your window to work with if you want a "manageable" number. Any long-term deal that buys UFA years beyond that comes at UFA prices. That's starting at $6.5 million, minimum.

 

Your $6M vicinity would work as a two-year deal. Not four.

[RangersIn7]

That's fair. This kind of reasoning is why I can understand why some are in the "lose for Lafrenierre" wagon even though it is a minimal chance.

 

Short of a near lock in the draft though, I'm not as much a fan of that direction. Just as likely to draft a bust, like Andersson, and simultaneously hurt your chances to win a Cup while shortening the window.

 

Yes

 

I agree with what you?re saying.

 

However, this draft is reputed to be very good and deep... it has been thought of as such for quite a while.

And Andersson is not a great example.

That was their mistake.

He should never have been drafted that high and it was at best an average draft class, if not worse

 

They?d be MUCH SAFER with having a top-5 or top-10 pick in this class than they were back in 2017.

And let?s also remember that picking at 7 was by default that year. The true intent and what they attempted to do in getting Arizona?s pick was to flip it and turn it into a top-5.

They just weren?t able to.

Pettersson was the real target.