Jul. 8, 2021
New York Rangers
Posts per Day
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>EsoYeezus69</b></div><div>It’s true that we have too many centres and not many RHD, but it’s wrong to say that they aren’t going to be top 6 players and that it doesn’t make sense to keep all three because they have immense offensive potential and that’s one if the things the Stars have lacked in the past. 2 of them will have to go wing though.
I see their future top 6 being:
First one is Stankoven, he’s too short to be a centre (don’t know one single 5’8” centre in the history of the league) and he has the play style of a winger (sniper, something like DeBrincat.
After that you have Bourque, who is a natural centre, but Johnston and Hintz are too and they’re better. I see him moving to the wing because his play style matches Pavelski’s really well (look what he did with that duo). Pavelski also was mainly a centre, but could also play wing.</div></div>
Not trying to argue that all three aren't top-6 forward caliber - I think they will be - just that, on Dallas, I don't know it makes sense to use all three in the top-6. I would probably move one of them to the wing, use one at center, and move on from the third in favor of a UFA wing over the next two off-seasons.
As for Stankoven - I'd compare him now to Marco Rossi in MIN, albeit more prone to shooting than passing. Or even Blake Lizotte in LA. He can certainly play up the middle, but I agree with you that he'd make an excellent choice for transition to RW. So, assuming Johnston is the #1 of these three (let me know if I'm wrong here), the choice is between Bourque and Stankoven, which really comes down to what style of play the team wants to embrace going forward.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts - Dallas has some exciting prospects to follow over the next couple of seasons!
This is pretty solid - well done. My thoughts/comments:
1. I like Blais, but I'm not sure about that contract. Totally up to him, but if he wants he can take his QO for 1x$1.6M. If he wants term, he will likely need to take a pay cut, as you've shown.
2. I agree with your thoughts on Kakko - I'd love to see him on a bridge deal close to Chytil's, but evelutions2 brings up an excellent point. I think we probably need to work out a deal with him by the draft, else trade his rights in order to get more than a 2nd round pick via offer sheet. We likely can't keep him for over $2.5M AAV and still expect to sign Laf/Chytil/Miller next year.
3. I don't think we'll be able to afford Copp, as much of an asset as he is to this team, considering we won't have much wiggle room if he's looking for more than $5M AAV (which I think he deserves). We are more likely to get Strome to lower his asking price to stay (think close to his current contract at $4.5M AAV), but we need to think long and hard before committing to him (likely 4-6 years) - especially since he can't win a faceoff. We may be better off looking for a cheap, veteran, middle-6 center with faceoff skill on a short-term deal (maybe bring back Derek Stepan for a year?).
4. I think we can only afford to keep one of Motte and Vatrano - and given the choice, it's probably Motte. Vatrano is due a raise, so he will look for at least $3M AAV on a multi-year deal, whereas we can likely get Motte for under $2M.
5. Nemeth is a better buy-out candidate at this point - should cost about $1M against the cap, which is better than paying to shed his deal to some draft pick hungry team (that he will likely veto with his M-NTC).
I mostly agree with everything else you've done. Thanks for putting this together!
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>jr400</b></div><div>I thought if a team traded for a player, they didn’t have to honor his no-trade clause after that.
I heard that the NHLPA is looking into it. That makes sense since they are there to protect the players, but are they doing this on their own initiative, or did Dadonov ask them to? It seems to me that it should be up to Dadonov to file a grievance, otherwise the trade should stand. That being said, if Vegas ignored his no-trade list, even if they did so unintentionally, they should be punished for that. That’s a bad faith move.</div></div>
This comes from the CapFriendly FAQ section on the CBA, and applies to NMCs and NTCs:
- The clause can travel with the player even if he consents to being traded or is claimed on waivers
-- This requires that the acquiring team sign an addendum to the contract ensuring that the clause does in fact travel with the player (written by the player's agent)
-- If the acquiring team refuses to sign the addendum, and the player waives his clause anyway, at that point the clause may be nullified
- If the player is traded before the clause takes effect, the acquiring team can opt to void the clause
Seems to me that the issue is with the last bullet point - specifically, whether or not Dadonov's M-NTC was in effect prior to being traded to Vegas by Ottawa. If it was, there may also be an issue with the first bullet point - did Dadonov and Vegas sign an addendum stating that his M-NTC would carry over? I'm not an expert in this, so I might be wrong, but this is how I see it. Will be interesting to see how it plays out as this may set a precedence for the league going forward.
Hope this helps!
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>delneggs</b></div><div>You are being realistic; the problem is reality doesn't enter into the equation for 95% of the posts on this forum. If you asked every Ranger fan on this forum, and on Earth, BEFORE this season started, what do you want to see from this team this year.....95% of them would have said, develop the kids, make the playoffs and keep progressing and improving the team. Now, because they are off to a good start, it's throw the plan out the window and try to win the Cup now. It doesn't seem to matter that they have a slim, if any, realistic shot this year. It's just dumb. If they stay the course and keep building the right way, they will be a Cup contender for several years very soon. Hopefully, Drury does this.</div></div>
If we make any moves at the TDL, I think they should be relatively minor (e.g., middle six replacement for Blais). We have no need to stray from the rebuild plan already in place, so bringing in any player that costs valuable picks or prospects and is merely a playoff rental is (in my opinion) a mistake. We need to address our Center depth long-term, not add Phil Kessel for a two month stint on Broadway.
I appreciate the excitement that comes with playing well, but in reality NYR are not ready to push deep into the playoffs. Could it happen? Sure, and I'd be excited to see it. But the road is tough (goes through CAR, WSH, and PIT just in our own division, not to mention FLA, TBL, BOS, etc....) -- the price of competing at that level now will be very high and likely damage our depth in the coming years.
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>HatterTParty</b></div><div>If they suspend him, which I think they might, I’m gonna be really disappointed. Trouba had no intention to go to the head and his posture was perfect for shoulder to chest. Khaira never picked up his head, plain and simple. Many hawks fans will argue he should have avoided the hit then, but those fans never played hockey to know you can’t avoid a hit when you’re committed at that point. Don’t punish trouba for khaira doing what you’re taught not to do as a kid.</div></div>
Most of us took at least one hit like this as a kid. That's how you learn to keep your head up...
Based on the speed of the play, there was no way to avoid the hit. Trouba committed, planted his feet (i.e., no charging or leaving his feet), and lowered his shoulder square up to Khaira. It's unfortunate that the pass was in his feet, but there was no targeting of the head and Trouba did not raise his arms and bring his elbows up. I hope the guy is okay, but I don't think it warrants a suspension (or fine, for that matter) - it didn't even warrant a penalty.
A few thoughts:
-- I think that Kakko deal is fair, but wouldn't be surprised to see anything in the $3-4M x 2-3 yr range.
-- I think your Blais deal would've been good before he got injured. Now, I would think he may come in closer to his qualifying offer ($1.6M) on a 1 yr prove-it deal.
-- The Gauthier deal depends largely on how he performs for the remainder of the season. If he excels, that's a good bridge contract; otherwise, he may be let go or signed closer to $1M x 1 yr.
-- I also think Kravtsov is up in the air; however, I can't see him willing to take under $1M for multiple years - more likely he gets his qualifying offer and either takes it or sticks to his guns with the trade request.
-- Kreider and Trouba aren't going anywhere; regardless of how anyone feels about those contracts, they are still serviceable players who control where they play.
All that said....
Strome controls his own destiny. If he wants to stay in New York, there's probably a way to get him signed in the $5-5.5M x 5 yr range (especially if Gauthier and/or Blais are gone and Kakko comes in closer to $3M AAV). But based on his performance the past couple seasons, he could be asking for upwards of $6.5-7.5M x 5-8 years, which we just can't afford. Although I like Strome, I think it would be good to see whether or not Chytil can fill that role and Barron can make the jump to the NHL full-time.
Thanks for the post! Prompted me to think about this a little more in-depth.
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>Fox_Czar_Cup</b></div><div>We don't need rentals. We need 22 picks and future Cs. We don't have future cap...</div></div>
I think this is not being emphasized enough in this case. With Mika's new contract, Fox likely getting a huge pay raise, and Kakko/Blais needing new contracts, it looks like we may not be able to afford to renew Strome (some may argue we wouldn't want to, anyway, but that's beside the point). Hence the interest in Centers who hopefully have low cap hits extending beyond this season. Hertl may not be the right fit for this situation due to his salary, but the cost of renewing Olofsson beyond this season would be similar and take ice time away from Kakko and/or Laf.
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>tea</b></div><div>i am so much more worried about our lack of depth on the wing than our faceoff percentage. i mean yes, the faceoffs are a problem, but our offensive depth without buchnevich of kravtsov is soooo much more of a worry. if we want some good at faceoffs there are much cheaper alternatives, its a bit unnecessary to waste a lot of our trade assets to get better at faceoffs.</div></div>
Personally, I think both Blais and Goodrow have been solid as depth wingers. With Kakko healthy, this gives us 6 wingers to work with. Not sure we need to add another Top-6 Wing to that mix, especially with our cap situation after this year. We could, however, benefit from improving our performance in the faceoff circle, in all three zones.
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>Bbousa</b></div><div>Thats way too much for Dvorak and Crouse</div></div>
I agree. I like the idea of getting Dvorak, especially with his cap hit (a possible Strome replacement), but this is more than what is necessary to pay to get him.
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>Shakabakes</b></div><div>I thought he was pretty strong on the puck last year, while just getting his feet wet. Didn't put up a big point total (which is why some Rangers fans are already impatient with him), but I thought he looked fine.
Not sure if he is ready for Top 6 yet (especially when some expect him to immediately replicate the production of Buch), but he is still very promising.
You have to give to get. And while I don't want to give him up, trading him for a cost controlled 2C makes sense.</div></div>
I also agree with this. Kravtsov has showed some promise in his limited appearances, and deserves a chance to prove himself. I'm not, however, convinced he is a Top-6 winger for us (yet), and since his value is decent he is a potential trade piece.