hahahahahahahahaha

I know people expect a fountain of gold and a multi million dollar mansion to trade DeAngelo. There's a high chance he is a one hit wonder for those point totals. Yeah advanced stats nerds will say he's a top 10 defenseman, but the eye test reveals he isn't.

I am however willing to deliberate on this deal. White had a down year of course, but still is very likely to be a 50-60 point guy on the regular. Especially on that line.

Rangers also need a stable third line LW, and they get more than that in Duclair.

Taking back smith comes at a cost to the Rangers, OTT isn't paying for him here.

Let me know how to balance this though. I'm for reasonable discussion, not nonsense.

Based off of your first couple of sentences i don't think we're capable of having a reasonable discussion. You're not remotely in the ballpark. Enjoy your weekend!

What about Duclair for DeAngelo + CBO on hank?

Duclair and DeAngelo are probably one-hit wonders and OTT needs a future partner for Chabot (Thompson/Brannstrom won't be good enough) while the Rangers need caps space and a 3W. Win-win?

I wouldn't trade Deangelo for Nylander. So with that in mind, do you consider what you're proposing reasonable? I don't think anyone does.

I said that as a non-fan of either team that watches both teams and knows both teams well. And I'm sure picks would need to be added but yes, I stand by what I said.

With the salaries equal, I don't think I'd trade Lundqvist for Duclair...

If you are trading for white why resign strome?

Key word: "with the salaries equal."

You have Staal and Smith's contract that you would likely want to CBO. If you dump Hank you can do that. You have 6+ expensive pieces to resign next 3-4 years. You also better hope that Trouba and Kreider keep on performing....

Here's another offer:

Lundqvuist + DeAngelo + Smith for Duclair (Signed then retained 25%)

DeAngelo is pretty much your get-out-of-cap-hell free card

Correct, with the salaries equal. I wouldn't trade Hank for Duclair. Let's say if Duclair was 1 mil cheaper, the deal would be fair. So let's roll with that and use the contracts provided here. Where would you put Duclair's value at? About a 2nd? I'd put it around a late 2nd

Duclair at 4 mil = Hank at 5 mil = 2nd
So with that in mind Hank at 6.5 mil would = like a 3rd
Hank at full salary would = like a 4th/5th.

And woah problem solved. lol

You don't CBO tradable players and Deangelo isn't going anywhere.

So are you saying Hank is tradeable? Because I guarantee you there isn't a team in the league that would acquire him to play him. Remember it costed Toronto a 1st get rid of Marleau, and Marleau was far more playable then Hank is now. Hank also has a more expensive contract. I really hope you understand that Hank DOES NOT= a 4th/5th.

It's not a win-win, TDa is just breaking out. No thanks. This is terrible for expansion draft!...

Yes absolutely I think Hank is tradeable. It's just a matter of if he wants to be traded since he holds those cards.

Staal on the other hand is like Marleau.

If you can find a fanbase that will take on the horrendous contract I will agree with you. If he is so tradable then this shouldn't be hard, right?

Correct. Finding a team to take Lundqvist is not the hard part. Convincing Hank to waive his NMC is....Front office has been trying to negotiate him into doing that for about a year now.

Please! I beg you to show me an ACGM of a Blackhawks fan PAYING for an 8m a year 38 yr old goalie signed for a while that put up an astounding... .906 over the last 2 years? Why wouldn't they just sign some UFA as most UFA's played more games with a higher save percentage.

If you're just using Save% to evaluate goalies then it certainly makes sense why you wouldn't value Lundqvist highly. If you believe Dubas is a genius, perhaps try to get on his level in terms of understanding the tools used to properly analyze goaltending?

Yes, I am open to that.

However, I still see a guy who is grossly overpaid, isn't even ranked in the top 30-40 goalies by any metric, and is 38 years old; literally on the brink of retirement.

There is no way he carries positive value. Even logical NYR fans see him getting a CBO.

Hank is only signed for one more year... and the rangers have been a complete mess defensively the past three years. Lindy Ruff destroyed the system. The only things preventing the trade of hank is cap space of the other team and him willing to waive. Cause any team he’d be willing to waive has no cap space. Due to rangers being in a tight situation, they’ll have to pay a mid to low pick to get rid of him. But his value is still at least a 4th / 5th

Yes. If his contract wasn't so huge he'd have some value, but as is it's going to take a 2nd or maybe a 3rd to get rid of him. A good comparable is Marleau.

Not really, Marleau was a buyout. Rangers could easily retain up to half and probably get a late round pick. He makes 8.5 currently and he’s at least worth 5, but this is pointless since as I stated, any team that could afford to take his contract he would refuse to waive for (unless it was Colorado)

He is ranked 42nd in the NHL in GSAA, similar to Aaron Dell (1.9m) and Jack Campbell (1.65m). Of the 10 nearest ranked players. The highest paid player in that range is MAF, with 7m but he is considerably better and the only non-backup in his range.

He is ranked 44th in the NHL in GA%. Again, most players in his range are paid 1.5m-3.5m.

He had a QS% of .500, which was average for most backups.

No matter how you cut it he is a fairly good backup. The best backup's aren't paid more then 4m. Most of the backups with similar stats to him are making about 2m. I'll say he is worth 2.5m (which is generous), meaning he is overpaid by $6m. Over 2 years that's $12m. Even if you retain 50%, which you likely won't be able to afford then some team is paying an extra $6m. That's pretty much exactly how much Marleau had left to pay when he was bought out.