SalarySwishSalarySwish
Avatar

doabarrowroll

Member Since
Jun. 17, 2018
Favourite Team
New York Rangers
Forum Posts
129
Posts per Day
0.1
Forum: Armchair-GMSep. 1, 2020 at 8:09 a.m.
Thread: a man can dream
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>LeafsFan4Ever34</b></div><div>Why do you rangers fans all want to trade DeAngelo</div></div>

The best way I can put it: Tony DeAngelo will never be more than the 3rd most important RHD on the Rangers roster. People will say Nils, people will say the politics, him threatening to fight fans on Twitter, whatever. But the bottom line is this:

The Rangers are too invested in Jacob Trouba with his contract and that he's the only proven good PKD we have, so there's no world in which Tony DeAngelo surpasses him. Like it or not, I think this is just reality. And there's no world in which DeAngelo is better for the Rangers long term than Adam Fox, who is going to need a lot of money as well. So if the Rangers tie down DeAngelo for many years, then they're going to end up with probably 20+m tied up just in RHD (Trouba at 8m, Tony at 5-6m long term, Fox at probably 7m if he bridges and more if they go long term). A third pairing defenseman is not a position you invest big money in, not in the current salary cap era where it barely goes up year to year, not in the current flat cap era, not when you have all of these ELC players that will need money like Chytil, Kakko, Gauthier, Lindgren, etc.

The reason Nils Lundkvist matters in that case is not that he's so good that he makes Tony expendable, but that he's so cheap that even if he's just a third pairing defenseman, that's fine for the Rangers. A Tony DeAngelo trade would, in theory, allow the Rangers to deal from a position of relative strength (having these two RHD ahead of him and another on the way, not really needing a top player and they could get by with some low risk high reward signings at the position) to address a position of relative weakness (ie a middle 6 C, in this case, Gabe Vilardi, ignoring the value).

That's why you see Tony for Hanifin or Tony for Brodin swaps (RHD for a top 4 LHD, potentially a good partner for Trouba) or for Cirelli/Danault/Monahan (2nd line center to protect us in case Chytil can't step up into that spot). And when they trade him for just picks, I don't see that as "realistic" but it still is the same idea; trading a high value asset that we aren't going to want to use or pay that way for other assets.

I think in reality, the only scenarios where Tony is traded are in a hockey deal for a top 4 LHD or 2C, maybe for a 1st round pick. I think the most likely real scenario is that he's signed for a year or two (the Rangers can afford to pay him that way while their ELCs are still in tact) and then moved at the deadline or next offseason when the Rangers feel more comfortable with their replacement options.

tl;dr the Rangers are stacked on the right side and Tony is the obvious odd man out. The Rangers can deal a good player that they don't have the ice time for (without taking their other options off the ice) for something else they could really use, namely a) a premium pick, b) 2C, c) top 4 LHD.
Forum: Armchair-GMAug. 27, 2020 at 8:11 a.m.
Thread: Lets do both
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>Wildwinswhen</b></div><div>Does Zuccarello hold any interest for you? I'm desperately trying to figure out where to trade him, but I'm guessing the only place that would be interested is the Rangers. And if so, honestly, what is his value? He was on target for 50 pts this year and didn't look like himself. So I'm not sure what his real value is</div></div>

He has negative value for the Rangers, you'd need to retain and pay us to take him. They're loaded on wingers, especially on the right side, and the Rangers aren't really in the market for a player on his contract. If the Rangers wanted him for this kind of deal, they would have signed him for it. The Rangers also don't have space for his cap hit, you'd need to really make it worth their while to take him when it means losing out on someone like ADA, Strome, Fast, or other actual upgrades like (potentially) Cirelli/Sergachev/Brodin/Hanifin/whoever.
Forum: Armchair-GMAug. 27, 2020 at 8:02 a.m.
Thread: Trying to be objective about trading the core - How did I do
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>ElPhantasmo</b></div><div>I could absolutely see that. The Rangers have gotten really unlucky with their goalies, in a way. They've been forced to dump some amazing talent in Raantaa and Talbot already and I'm sure they don't want to get burned again. Is Shesterkin exempt from the expansion draft? That would have some bearing on the trade as well and I feel that Bennett is a solid add for the right partner.</div></div>

Yes, Igor is exempt from the expansion draft. The Rangers will probably sign some random goalie for the AHL to expose, by all accounts.

Bennett isn't a bad player I just don't think he's what the Rangers need/want to get if they're going to move Georgiev. They'd need more value because Bennett's value to the Rangers is less than it might be to another team that could use a player of his profile more.
Forum: Armchair-GMAug. 26, 2020 at 5:28 p.m.
Thread: Trying to be objective about trading the core - How did I do
I think the Rangers, in reality, would decline a 1 for 1 Georgiev for Bennett. They're really really high on Georgiev and Bennett doesn't really help them that much. I don't think he really does anything the Rangers really need and I can't come up with a reason why they would target him specifically. If they're just looking for a cheap bottom 6 C, they can look in UFA for one of those older short term guys while prospects develop or they formulate a better plan, they don't need to trade Georgiev for that. If they're looking for a 2C, Bennett surely isn't it.

People here may disagree about Georgiev's value, but if the goal is identifying value that gets the trade done for the Rangers side, the Rangers probably need to be compensated more heavily. They had opportunities to trade Georgiev at the deadline and declined because of how much they like him and how much value they see in him/the ability to go with him and Igor moving forward for cheap for a few years.
Forum: Armchair-GMAug. 26, 2020 at 8:11 a.m.
Thread: Rangers
Rangers fans generally agree that Nils is pretty much untouchable right now; that changes if DeAngelo is signed long term, but for now, Nils is basically our successor for that spot in the lineup, and having his ELC will be really helpful for the Rangers. I don't know that much about Honka as a prospect but just based on his age I would assume he's probably 2ish years away from the NHL in a best case scenario, and that doesn't really fit the Rangers' timeline. They're not really doing the whole "full rebuild, sell everything" thing anymore. Yeah we traded you Skjei for a 1st, but that was largely motivated by the fact Skjei had a NTC of some kind kicking in and we wanted to get rid of him before it did, similarly to Stepan back in 2017. I think the Rangers would be a bit more interested in some things that are a little more current, that are maybe a year if that from graduating to the NHL. I don't think they'd want to trade their futures for more futures, I think if they're going to sell futures, they'd rather be turning them into something different, probably current assets.

It's not a horrible idea, I think Georgiev to Carolina makes a lot of sense and I think Nils is a good prospect for you to think about if you're not really a fan of Joey Keane, but I'm not sure the return would be something that intrigues the Rangers.
Forum: Armchair-GMAug. 24, 2020 at 8:13 a.m.
Thread: Montreal gets Lafreniere
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>GenericUsername489</b></div><div>I genuinely want to make a twitter to report that LouG guy for even suggesting that. And also report everyone saying no from the Rangers perspective. People saying no are the reason society isn't more advanced to this point.</div></div>

Lou said yes to it by the way, and I wouldn't really call it "suggesting". His whole point was to say basically what everyone on this site has been saying since the lotto happened; the Rangers wouldn't take an offer that "just barely" is enough, it's not worth the risk they take on. They need to be blown away to the point that the other team would laugh in their face; if someone does it, then the Rangers get away with highway robbery. If no one does it, the Rangers get Lafreniere. Compare that to the "MTL 1st, 2nd, Mete, and Domi" offers that circulated a lot right after the lottery; even if historically comparable, those trades don't pay enough to buy out the Rangers interest in Lafreniere or the opportunity cost that comes with it in the form of risk. Cool, the raw value is on, but how stupid do you look when Mete and Domi are meh, the picks don't pan out, and Lafreniere is a superstar? That will matter, to the point where the price is just way too high.

To be clear, I voted yes when I saw it so fast I was worried I accidentally hit no when the results came up. I can't believe anyone said no either, honestly (as a Rangers fan).
Forum: Armchair-GMAug. 21, 2020 at 2:58 p.m.
Thread: Realistic Offseason V2
I think you're wrong about who the odd one out is; everyone in NY is saying that Hank is going to be bought out and that the Rangers have a very high opinion of Georgiev to the point that they'd need to be almost blown away by a trade offer. This offer, not one that blows them away.

That aside, because a) you shouldn't be expected to know that and b) this site is for fun, these pieces don't really make sense for the Rangers to target anyways.

Dermott makes no real sense for the Rangers as far as being a high target; yeah they need LHD, but the Rangers really like Ryan Lindgren and the staff is comfortable playing Marc Staal as a 3rd pairing guy (not what I would do but that's the word). They need someone to play with Trouba, and Dermott is not that.

Engvall isn't really what the Rangers need either, a bottom 6 swing guy isn't necessary with the guys the Rangers have. Maybe if they see him as a longterm 3C and they think Chytil is ready to be the 2C then acquiring him makes sense, but his value doesn't move the needle.
Forum: Armchair-GMAug. 18, 2020 at 1:55 p.m.
Thread: Upgrade at C
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>Rooney</b></div><div>Both your Panarin &amp; contract points are fair! I can understand the skepticism since he WAS playing with one of the best players in the league, but I mean they did work very well together so why not just keep them together yenno? If his contract ask isn't too much, I think NYR should keep him in that 2C slot. What he's asking will ultimately determine his fate!</div></div>

To add on, some other significant concerns as far as his play goes:

He's a really terrible player defensively. This isn't like completely deal-breaking since well this is the Rangers we're talking about the whole team is pretty bad defensively, but Strome is in the bottom half of the roster in this respect, and that includes players like Brett Howden, Libor Hajek, Marc Staal, and Greg McKegg. Also includes a few "outliers" like Chris Kreider and Brady Skjei (when he was here), as well as rookie year Kaapo Kakko. When you factor in the shorthanded defense, it gets even worse since he was also deployed a fair amount on the PK.

He's also BY FAR the worst player on the team as far as influence of penalties. He takes a lot more penalties than he draws and has taken a lot of penalties at really poor times.

Lastly, the main response to your last comment about why not just keep them together: the goal is to improve. If you keep Strome at the 2C spot, you're basically just relying on the same roster that was a bubble playoff team before the pause and was handily dispatched by the Canes in the play-in series. That position is an easy one to point to and say "we can definitely find better players to play here" along with a top pairing lefty defenseman.

Keeping Strome in the 2C slot would be, in my opinion, settling for an okay but not great and very much short term option. The contract I'm not super worried about because the Rangers can force him to arbitration where he'll have to take a 1 year deal, and that doesn't bother me the way a 5 year deal would with him (which I think overall you'd agree with). If the Rangers can't get their hands on a better option (in this case, they go after Danault, but that's why you see all of the Cirelli or Monahan or whoever trades on this site), then sure, settle and hope Chytil can overtake him. But if you settle for Strome and what he brings to the table, then you're putting a lot of eggs in the Chytil basket, and while I like him and think he could break out to the 2C spot, it's a lot to put on him.

Basically, rolling with Strome on the 1 year deal is kicking the can down the road when the Rangers can try a bit harder to find a better option that could potentially be a longer term option as well, and that's a big reason why people on this site trade him and replace him so often, because it's so much easier to do here than in real life. IRL it may be impossible to find another option that's worth the investment, but here it's easy since the other side doesn't actually need to accept the trade offers.
Forum: Armchair-GMAug. 14, 2020 at 9:47 a.m.
Thread: TBL 20-21 v8
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>JTBF81</b></div><div>Right, why Lundqvist would have to retire for this scenario to have any real chance. Johnson could also be moved after one year if he wasn't a great fit, or he was and the Rangers just needed space and could get value for him. It's not how I really see Tampa handling things either, as Cirelli is 95% staying while Killorn and Johnson are likely moved in separate deals.</div></div>

That's not even enough really. The Rangers can't take on all of these years of money when they have vacancies coming up and a lot of kids that will need raises soon. Sure they could flip those players but it's not worth their while when they're giving up a young cost controlled asset in Lundkvist and all of those picks. You'd need to sell those players at a much much lower price for the Rangers to consider it because we know how much it's just helping you out by getting rid of players you overpaid a bit.

If it's Lundkvist and the Carolina 1st for Cirelli (which I personally would not do as the Rangers but it may not be unfair value-wise), then it's Buch a 1st and a 3rd for Killorn, who is just an older Buch with more term at surface level and Tyler Johnson who would be the same for us that he is for you basically; a good 3rd line center who is making more money than we want him to. Add in the fact that they're both on the wrong side of 30 and it just doesn't make sense for the Rangers to take on that risk and pay for it with a smile. You have to make it worth the Rangers' while to take on that risk imo.
Forum: Fauteuil - DGAug. 13, 2020 at 8:21 p.m.
Thread: Making our way to number one
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>math731</b></div><div>Well, thats basically 5 first rounders (assuming the value of Tatar and Domi) and 9 millions in cap dump for a single player... Would you os a player over 10,5 millions. No because it cost 4 first and its considered too much. Using your deep analysis, were giving 5 first for a player</div></div>

<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>Howisbergevinstillhere</b></div><div>Byfield as a potential star 6’4 centre plus kk. No one would ever do that</div></div>

These comments are kind of the point; nothing you want to pay will be enough for the Rangers to actually want to do it. Brian Burke was interviewed in an article for The Athletic and said there's always lots of offers for top picks and all of them are garbage. And that seeing the few top-pick trades that HAVE happened, teams feel they can and should push the price even higher.

The Rangers have every right to demand one of KK, Caufield, Suzuki because they need to protect themselves against the risk. Doing it for a bottom 6 F and a 1st after their rebuild is supposed to be done doesn't protect them from the risk of passing on the better prospetc.

And the Habs have every right to say that's stupid and they won't do that. They're not going to pay more than what they think is fair.
Forum: Armchair-GMAug. 13, 2020 at 12:09 p.m.
Thread: laff
I don't think it's unreasonable, I'm not gonna be the "we aren't trading the pick" guy, and I think you're on the right track somewhat with the cap dump part of it. I just think Kupari isn't going to move the needle enough. I think you'd need to go more towards like Akil Thomas/Arthur Kaliyev/maybe Sam Fagemo.

I think the main reason I don't think it will happen is what we've all seen on all of these AGMs from every team's perspective; the Rangers have needs and wants for the pick, they have the leverage because they're perfectly happy just hanging out and taking the best player on the board who is supposed to be a really truly great prospect. And because they have the leverage, you HAVE to knock their socks off. They're not going to just "give the pick away" because they don't feel like Byfield is that much worse than Laf or whatever other reasons people throw your way.

The tl;dr of this is: what the Rangers would want, no one will give them. And what others would give them, the Rangers don't want. No one is at fault for feeling this way; the Rangers are doing good business by making the easy choice instead of giving up more value than they want to, and the other team (Kings in this case) are doing good business by not giving what they feel is a major overpay.
Forum: Armchair-GMAug. 11, 2020 at 10:02 a.m.
Thread: offer sheet mat barzal
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>Warrior24</b></div><div>Only way Isles hesitate to match any Barzal offer sheet is if it is in the 4 1st round pick compensation category.</div></div>

I don't doubt this at all honestly; to begin with, there's no guarantee that you get the player when you offer sheet them (as we all obviously saw with Sebastian Aho last summer). And like I said I could definitely see the Rangers pushing the 4 1sts number; idk if they were going to use the 4 1sts, but they were prepared to offer sheet Point last summer if he would have accepted one. I think the main idea here for the Ranger is that to some degree, tendering the offer sheet is a win-win.

Either they get Barzal which would be amazing, or they force the Islanders' hand when they, somewhat like the Rangers and many other teams in this league, have a little bit of a cap crunch. At this number even, assuming the Islanders match, they have to find a way to offload a contract, much like how the Rangers had to offload Smith and Hank in this situation. Ladd has an NTC with an 8 team yes list, so it's not hard for him to force the Isles to keep him, Boychuk has a full NTC until the clauses toll, which someone said was November. The most likely answer is to trade Nick Leddy, which probably isn't ideal.

It's definitely doable and the Isles should and probably would match, like I said in the description, but just tendering the offer puts them in a tight spot, which hypothetically is a good thing for the Rangers.