Phil Posted July 29, 2021 Share Posted July 29, 2021 Strome*, Jones, 1st, prospect. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LindG1000 Posted July 29, 2021 Share Posted July 29, 2021 Strome*, Jones, 1st, prospect. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro No, it's Chytil. The Sabres will want team control and Chytil feels like the obvious round peg in the square hole here. Strome will be dealt separately for futures. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Posted July 29, 2021 Share Posted July 29, 2021 Strome helps with offsetting the cap issue. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LindG1000 Posted July 29, 2021 Share Posted July 29, 2021 Strome helps with offsetting the cap issue. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro Sure. But Buffalo is better served weaponizing that cap space like how Arizona did than taking it on from us in the Eichel trade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Posted July 29, 2021 Share Posted July 29, 2021 Fair. I also like the idea of Zibanejad, Eichel, and Strome, even if it's only a year. They could do real damage with that group. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
siddious Posted July 29, 2021 Share Posted July 29, 2021 They’re going to be rebuilding for years. And they have plenty of cap space, why wouldn’t they retain a few million of eichel s cap hit? If I’m drury and being offered eichel at 6 or 7 mil I def up my offer. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LindG1000 Posted July 29, 2021 Share Posted July 29, 2021 Fair. I also like the idea of Zibanejad, Eichel, and Strome, even if it's only a year. They could do real damage with that group. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro That's my ulterior motive, of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LindG1000 Posted July 29, 2021 Share Posted July 29, 2021 They’re going to be rebuilding for years. And they have plenty of cap space, why wouldn’t they retain a few million of eichel s cap hit? If I’m drury and being offered eichel at 6 or 7 mil I def up my offer. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk I'm glad to throw them another 1st and another piece if they're willing to hold significant cap. Vancouver set the market on this one as a 1st being worth around 10 million in cap (Ekman Larsson); if Buffalo holds back 2m, I give them an extra 1st no questions asked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaveByRichter35 Posted July 29, 2021 Share Posted July 29, 2021 Question. Any deal made would be pending Eichel passing a physical, correct? I am still so bothered by the hidden medical records and the neck issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
siddious Posted July 29, 2021 Share Posted July 29, 2021 I'm glad to throw them another 1st and another piece if they're willing to hold significant cap. Vancouver set the market on this one as a 1st being worth around 10 million in cap (Ekman Larsson); if Buffalo holds back 2m, I give them an extra 1st no questions asked. Yea but you’re a better gm than kevyn adams. Guy can’t even spell his name correctly. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThirtyONE Posted July 29, 2021 Share Posted July 29, 2021 Exactly this. Do it at you price point, or a small price increase you're comfortable with or don't at all. It's no skin off the Rangers' backs either way. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro The fact that this is sooooo similar to Nash is crazy. But while we don’t know the exact price point the Sabres are asking for the rumored pieces they want back arent really that bad - which makes me feel like this will end up happening - and the Rangers have never had a 1-2 punch at center like Eichel and Mika (even if it’s only for a season). That said, assuming that the sticking point in the deal is Lundkvist and not Kakko or Lafreniere, I think it would be poor asset management to NOT get Eichel. Hes cost controlled for 5 more years. About to hit his prime. And he opens the door to a backup plan should Mika actually want 10m. If you don’t get Eichel, the rangers could feel obligated to bow to mikas demands simply because there is no alternative. And to me, the worst case scenario is losing Strome next year and being saddled with a 10m cap hit on a 29/30 year old player. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichieNextel305 Posted July 29, 2021 Share Posted July 29, 2021 I agree completely. But with the injury and the need for fixing it, Eichel’s value drops more and more by the second. This isn’t just a disgruntled player. This is a disgruntled player with an injury. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winter Posted July 29, 2021 Share Posted July 29, 2021 At this point, I think the writing for the deal is on the wall. It's Chytil, Jones, 1st, (mid-range piece). The Kings are out given the Danault signing. The Knights are capped out - may or may not matter. The Wild are basically built once they've signed Kaprizov and Fiala. We're all that's left. The one wildcard here - and I do think this might matter - is that once the Sabres deal Eichel, they're going to be something like 15M (pending the return) under the cap floor. And their RFA group won't make that. this is why Vegas is still in play, they can deal Smith/Reaves/BUF retain Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
josh Posted July 29, 2021 Share Posted July 29, 2021 Chytil, Jones, Georgiev, 1st + c prospect or pick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rangers Posted July 29, 2021 Share Posted July 29, 2021 I'm glad to throw them another 1st and another piece if they're willing to hold significant cap. Vancouver set the market on this one as a 1st being worth around 10 million in cap (Ekman Larsson); if Buffalo holds back 2m, I give them an extra 1st no questions asked. 1st for 2 mil retention? That’s pretty steep. I would do 1st for 3.5m Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
josh Posted July 29, 2021 Share Posted July 29, 2021 Playing around on capfriendly, not seeing how they can get Eichel and not lose Zibanejad (unless he’s signing for $6m Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
josh Posted July 29, 2021 Share Posted July 29, 2021 1st for 2 mil retention? That’s pretty steep. I would do 1st for 3.5m It’s for multiple years. $2m in cap is $10m over the course of the contract (this is buffalo, not Montreal) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThirtyONE Posted July 29, 2021 Share Posted July 29, 2021 Playing around on capfriendly, not seeing how they can get Eichel and not lose Zibanejad (unless he’s signing for $6m Especially if Kakko and Krav break out. You’re talking about moving Trouba and Kreider (two players who just signed NMCs) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
josh Posted July 29, 2021 Share Posted July 29, 2021 Strome helps with offsetting the cap issue. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro Rangers don’t have cap issues next season, it’s the following season, so moving Strome doesn’t alleviate that issue Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 29, 2021 Share Posted July 29, 2021 The fact that this is sooooo similar to Nash is crazy. But while we don’t know the exact price point the Sabres are asking for the rumored pieces they want back arent really that bad - which makes me feel like this will end up happening - and the Rangers have never had a 1-2 punch at center like Eichel and Mika (even if it’s only for a season). That said, assuming that the sticking point in the deal is Lundkvist and not Kakko or Lafreniere, I think it would be poor asset management to NOT get Eichel. Hes cost controlled for 5 more years. About to hit his prime. And he opens the door to a backup plan should Mika actually want 10m. If you don’t get Eichel, the rangers could feel obligated to bow to mikas demands simply because there is no alternative. And to me, the worst case scenario is losing Strome next year and being saddled with a 10m cap hit on a 29/30 year old player. Eichel is cost controlled only in that you know he's being paid fair market value for the remainder of his contract. That term is typically used for younger players where you're likely getting more value than their contract. We don't know what the sticking point is. The Sabres ask may be something like Chytil, Kravtsov, Lundkvist, and a 1st. Do you pay that? I don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winter Posted July 29, 2021 Share Posted July 29, 2021 1st for 2 mil retention? That’s pretty steep. I would do 1st for 3.5m 2mil is huge for 5 years, if you think Landeskog type deal that 2mil + Lundqvist dead cap gone would essentially cover Zibanejad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
josh Posted July 29, 2021 Share Posted July 29, 2021 Especially if Kakko and Krav break out. You’re talking about moving Trouba and Kreider (two players who just signed NMCs) I went 4m for Kakko 2.6 for Kravtsov. I would have thought those might be a bit high, but not after recent signings. I’m at 85, need a 4th liner, 13th forward and a backup goalie. And no one coming off the books for Lafreniere and Miller to re-sign Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LindG1000 Posted July 29, 2021 Share Posted July 29, 2021 1st for 2 mil retention? That’s pretty steep. I would do 1st for 3.5m That's the market, over the term of a deal. We can haggle around, but it's basically "buying" a 2023 1st for 10 million dollars on a payment plan. If you can get them to pay 12 million for the pick, or what have you? Awesome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rangers Posted July 29, 2021 Share Posted July 29, 2021 It’s for multiple years. $2m in cap is $10m over the course of the contract (this is buffalo, not Montreal) I see what your saying. I just think with cap not going up for next few years, picks became more valuable. Especially when next years draft is being very deep. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tonybologna Posted July 29, 2021 Share Posted July 29, 2021 1st for 2 mil retention? That’s pretty steep. I would do 1st for 3.5m I’d throw in a wealth of picks and another prospect to get that kind of retention here. It’s true Buffalo will be rebuilding for a long time and it helps then get way more out of dealing eichel and getting them to the cap floor. Hope this happens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts