Next Year's Cap Crunch

[LindG1000]

11 hours ago, ThirtyONE said:

If the rangers are forced to trade young players, this rebuild was a total waste of time

 

I'd argue that if you have to trade young players, you rebuilt pretty damn well.

 

Next year's cap crunch is kind of an overstatement, too. We have just over 18M in space (figure 19m-20 once the cap rise is in play) for...

1 top 6 forward (which will be Lafreniere)

3 third-line forwards (including Chytil and Kravtsov here)

2 4th line forwards 

A 13th forward

1 mid-pair D (Miller)

1 bottom pair D (may not even be an issue if Robertson emerges, because he isn't due)

1 7th D

Backup G 

 

When you start hashing out the details...

 

Lafreniere is a question mark. No idea how much he gets to make and I think it all hinges on this season.

3 third liners will be Othmann (ELC), Kravtsov (probably no more than $2m), Chytil (or not, no idea what's going to happen with him)

2 4th liners and a 13th are ELC/League minimum deals (so let's say they take $2.5m total)

Mid Pair D is Miller. He's a question mark on price.

Bottom pair D+7th is an ELC. Another $1M each just to smooth the numbers

Backup will probably be Garand. That's an ELC, so another $1M

 

That's...11-12M to work out Laf, Miller, and either Chytil or a Chytil replacement. 

 

I'm just not worried about this yet. The "nightmare" scenario for our cap is that Lafreniere goes off like Hughes did, Miller becomes Trouba circa 2017, and Chytil outperforms Trocheck to the point that Trocheck ends up centering the third line. And in that "nightmare", we've probably played in the cup finals, and maybe even won it. I'm not crying if that ends up costing us Chytil and Nils and Kravtsov in the long run.

[Phil]

14 hours ago, ThirtyONE said:

If the rangers are forced to trade young players, this rebuild was a total waste of time

 

Nah, it's not this linear or black and white. Unconventional? Sure, probably, but the argument that this was a "total waste of time" falls on its face because the fact of the matter is, if the Rangers are forced to trade young players, but remain highly-competitive, they did so partially because they had those young players when they were affordable. Even if they ultimately relied more heavily on veterans than we anticipated or hoped for.

 

The idea of losing, say, a 25- or 26-year-old Lindgren and a 23- or 24-year-old Chytil isn't the same as not being able to pay a 22-year-old Miller, or 20-year-old Lafreniere.

 

"Youth" is a descriptor, not an attribute. If Chytil remains a 30-point player, they're not losing anything of value by not continuing to give him incremental raises. If anything, you could argue they're better off giving some other young center the opportunity to do more (for less).

[Br4d]

For me the real question is not next year's cap crunch as much as did the Rangers do enough to set the team up for this season?

 

If we make the playoffs again and make a run the cap crunch at the end of it will be bearable.

 

If we wind up on the cusp of the playoffs and then get blown out in the first round, well the cap crunch next year could feel really bad.

 

If we don't make the playoffs the cap crunch is just going to suck no matter how you look at it.

[LindG1000]

11 hours ago, Br4d said:

For me the real question is not next year's cap crunch as much as did the Rangers do enough to set the team up for this season?

 

If we make the playoffs again and make a run the cap crunch at the end of it will be bearable.

 

If we wind up on the cusp of the playoffs and then get blown out in the first round, well the cap crunch next year could feel really bad.

 

If we don't make the playoffs the cap crunch is just going to suck no matter how you look at it.

 

The problem with this thinking is that the overwhelming likelihood behind each of those outcomes rests heavily on the guys due contracts. If we make the playoffs and make a run, it's most likely because those guys due deals took a step forward - good problem. If we get blown out in round 1, it's likely because they didn't. And if we miss the playoffs, something went catastrophically wrong with injuries AND those guys didn't take the step.

 

There is no cap crunch if Lafreniere and Chytil produce like they did for most of last year and Miller looks anything less than he did last year. There's also probably no significant playoff run.

[Br4d]

43 minutes ago, LindG1000 said:

 

The problem with this thinking is that the overwhelming likelihood behind each of those outcomes rests heavily on the guys due contracts. If we make the playoffs and make a run, it's most likely because those guys due deals took a step forward - good problem. If we get blown out in round 1, it's likely because they didn't. And if we miss the playoffs, something went catastrophically wrong with injuries AND those guys didn't take the step.

 

There is no cap crunch if Lafreniere and Chytil produce like they did for most of last year and Miller looks anything less than he did last year. There's also probably no significant playoff run.

 

There's no cap crunch in that scenario but the rebuild is stalled and we lose a prime year out of the established players already playing at a high level.  In other words we're in a worse position than we were at the end of this season.

 

I really wish the Rangers had made a choice at defense this off-season, probably a Lindgren trade, and gotten an established top 6 wing to balance the cap a bit better.  I'm not in the dump Kakko camp but I'd rather have seen the Rangers trade him for a reliable 3C and move Chytil to LW on the 3rd line this season.  Goodrow or Gauthier could have played RW on that line.

 

In other words I'd rather the Rangers weren't relying on 4 prospects working out to give them a solid top 9 with two of the guys required to play in the top 6.  It just seems so unwieldy at this point - like Zibanejad and Kreider and Panarin aren't going to have enough help (again) unless the Rangers get very lucky.