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

Draft Day Deals — Let's Hear 'Em


jsm7302

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 358
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

You see this is why I'm confused. Calgary and Dallas are both currently ahead of our pick so one should move back either way. So we should be 23 right?

 

Higher playoff seeding but lower regular-season win percentage. That technically applies to Dallas, though they were a round-robin team. Calgary advancing would result in a higher pick. Dallas advancing is a weird situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes.

 

But I’m not sure how that all works now.

Is he operating on the new contract, or is he still bound by the terms of his old one?

 

I would assume that the new starting date for free agency is operatively equivalent to July 1st, so that would mean he'd still be under his old contract if dealt at the draft. Would mean an 11 team no-trade list.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've said it elsewhere, but I want no part of RyJo, least of all for Kreider and a swap of firsts. He makes $8 million for the next FIVE years. He's twice in the last three seasons averaged 49.5 points over 82 games. If you are supremely confident playing with someone like Panarin (who I'm not sure he can keep up with given he can't skate all that well/quickly), I suppose you can mitigate that concern and simply assume his production rates will increase as a byproduct of his linemates, but I'll remind you: he's played with talented players in Nashville for the last three years, too.

 

Hynes basically turned him into a defensive/checking center (borne out by the disparity between his zone start differentials under Laviolette versus Hynes), but he's 28. I'm not sure how much runway is really left to realistically hope for a return to the 25-30 goal, 60-70 point player the Predators thought they were getting.

 

And Kreider makes only 1.5 less for the next SEVEN.

 

I mean neither Strome now Panarin are real burners. Not sure why RyJo couldn't keep up. He's a wash with Kreider production wise. For shorter term and minimally more AAV.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And Kreider makes only 1.5 less for the next SEVEN.

 

I mean neither Strome now Panarin are real burners. Not sure why RyJo couldn't keep up. He's a wash with Kreider production wise. For shorter term and minimally more AAV.

 

Between Johansen's minimal 1.5 extra and denying the approximate savings of 1.5 million from a Lundqvist buyout, you've managed to take up 3 million. It adds up don't it? :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would assume that the new starting date for free agency is operatively equivalent to July 1st, so that would mean he'd still be under his old contract if dealt at the draft. Would mean an 11 team no-trade list.

 

That’s what I thought too. I believe he’s still under the old terms

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Correct

 

Under current contract it is 11 team NTC

Full no movement clause in first 4 years of his new 7-year deal. Then a 15 team no trade list submitted in last 3 years of that 7-year deal.

What he just signed is an extension, so he's technically under the terms of his old contract.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope not. I love Hank but I’m not just getting rid of Georgie just to keep Hank 1 more year

 

I think they have their eyes on a kid named Tyler Wall. I kinda like that name "Wall" for goalie too!!! :rofl:

 

So Georgie was probably going to be moved anyhow. I don't know much about this kid Wall, though. I've just heard a little more about him lately since he broke the Division 1 wins record:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really think it?s lost on many people that...

A) Georgiev is very unlikely to be here in 2 years

And

B) They?ve had no issues over the last 15 seasons finding suitable, productive, and quality backups.

 

If they move Georgiev it?s not a big deal at all.

Even if he develops into someone else?s starter, it?s immaterial. We have a starter so he wouldn?t be that here anyway.

 

Just trade the kid. You?re helping his career possibilities by doing so. He?s very unlikely to get the opportunity to start here.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really think it’s lost on many people that...

A) Georgiev is very unlikely to be here in 2 years

And

B) They’ve had no issues over the last 15 seasons finding suitable, productive, and quality backups.

 

If they move Georgiev it’s not a big deal at all.

Even if he develops into someone else’s starter, it’s immaterial. We have a starter so he wouldn’t be that here anyway.

 

Just trade the kid. You’re helping his career possibilities by doing so. He’s very unlikely to get the opportunity to start here.

 

I think it is also lost on people that we need Wall to show he can be a backup before we decide to get rid of our very good backup. And by that time Georgiev's value should be a mid 1st rounder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it is also lost on people that we need Wall to show he can be a backup before we decide to get rid of our very good backup. And by that time Georgiev's value should be a mid 1st rounder.

 

Why does our backup have to be Wall?

Or for that matter, Huska? Or any other goalies currently in the organization?

We have a backup in Lundqvist for one season

Backup goalies aren’t difficult to find, nor are they expensive to acquire

 

And no way they’d get any 1st rounder for Georgiev.

Nor will his value increase much from what it is now. He’d still be in the same backup role he is now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why does our backup have to be Wall?

Or for that matter, Huska? Or any other goalies currently in the organization?

We have a backup in Lundqvist for one season

Backup goalies aren’t difficult to find, nor are they expensive to acquire

 

And no way they’d get any 1st rounder for Georgiev.

Nor will his value increase much from what it is now. He’d still be in the same backup role he is now.

 

So if we are not getting a 1st and don't really have a backup in place, why are we trading him?

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...