SalarySwishSalarySwish
Avatar

thants

Membre depuis
2 mai 2016
Messages dans les forums
28
Messages par jour
0.0
Forum: Armchair-GM21 juin 2016 à 14 h 34
Sujet: Roster based off of the latest rumors (Comment you think!)
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>rollie1967</b></div><div><i>. Not sure why Lindberg would be LTIR? something i missed?.</i></div></div>
Hip surgery in May, expected to miss a month of next year: <a href="http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/hockey/rangers/rangers-winger-oscar-lindberg-undergoes-successful-hip-surgery-article-1.2627544" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/hockey/rangers/rangers-winger-oscar-lindberg-undergoes-successful-hip-surgery-article-1.2627544</a>

-------

The biggest thing I don't like is retaining $500k on Stepan. Teams can only have three retained salary trasnactions active at once and Stepan's would be active for ~5 years. That could really limit our trading flexibility in the future. It makes more sense to find another piece (either to or back) that removes the retained salary requirement.
Forum: Armchair-GM30 mai 2016 à 2 h 16
Sujet: NY Rangers Splash
You won't sign McIlrath for $675k. His qualifying offer is $738k. If we extended him your contract offer, he could refuse it and become a UFA. $738k is the minimum you need to give him to keep him as an RFA (although he could still refuse it and send the contract to arbitration).

Why do both teams in the big trade retain salary? Instead of MTL holding $1m and NYR holding $2.5m, you just make it so NYR hold $1.5m and MTL none. Retained salary spots are an asset as each team can only have three concurrently at max.

Losing Raanta like that as a cap causality is horrible. He's a really good backup and is on a good contract. Marc Staal as a top pairing defenseman is an atrocious site in 2016.

Overall, I don't like that trade. McDonagh for Subban is the only upgrade. The rest of the moves are downgrades.

And good luck getting Miller at that price tag. He can take us to arbitration.

But I will admit, I am impressed that you freed up enough space for Brouwer and Eriksson with your moves. However, that money would get further on the blue line.
Forum: Armchair-GM25 mai 2016 à 17 h 32
Sujet: Format for the Cap Consequences of Datsyuk Leaving
Hi, Slappers and Stats author here. Thanks for referencing my article! However, as others have mentioned, the CARP is not invoked in this situation. As mentioned near the end of my article:

<div class="quote">Quote: <i>

1. It can only be triggered by contracts signed prior to 9/15/12.

2. It can only be triggered by contracts that are 6+ years long.

3. The only early termination of a contract that will not trigger the CARP is by death of the player.</i></div>
Datsyuk's contract was signed in June 2013 and only carried a 3-year term. So it is not subject to CARP. Instead, the full cap hit of Datsyuk's contract will count against the Detroit Red Wings, in accordance with Article 50 of the CBA [specifically, see Sections 50.2(c), 50.5(d)(i)(B)], unless they trade his contract to another team.
Forum: Armchair-GM18 mai 2016 à 13 h 25
Sujet: Kreider + Faulk
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>Peterman</b></div><div><i><div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>DontTradeNash</b></div><div><i>I'd trade Kreider but not Skjei. I love Barrie and want him on the Rangers but we can't afford to trade a player like SKjei unless we're getting a similar player back.</i></div></div>

For comparison, Yandle returned: Duclair, a 1st, a 2nd, and a solid depth defenseman in Moore. Barrie is better and younger than Yandle, so this trade illustrates what type of return is needed. It is actually less than what Yandle got. I'm sure the Avs could throw in someone like Geertsen if needed.</i></div></div>

Yandle also came 50% salary retained on a great deal. Give us Barrie at $2.6m if you want to make the Yandle comparison.
Forum: Armchair-GM9 mai 2016 à 20 h 15
Sujet: Lundqvist trade (very unlikely, but worth looking at)
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>palhal</b></div><div><i>The team you constructed is almost the same as before. With the bad contracts it almost impossible to improve the team via trades. When I look at the Eastern Conference, the two teams I see that were in the playoffs this year and who won't be next year....Rangers and Red Wings.

Admitting Dallas may not love Lehtonen, but Lundqvist is certainly not worth his contract either. Agree with Marco....The King is staying a Ranger, whether the Rangers and their fans like it or not.</i></div></div>

You're saying a team that's largely the same as one that finished 4th in the Eastern Conference last year is not a playoff team next year. I really need to point out how you need to expand on your thoughts there since the conclusion does not follow from your premises as is.

I'd also disagree that Lundqvist isn't worth his contract. That's to imply that few or no teams in is league would take him on with his current cap hit. I find that very hard believe.

<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>Philu916</b></div><div><i>Yandle isn't the answer and Dylan isn't a 2nd pairing Dman. He's 29 years old and just don't know if his D will totally be shot by ages 33-35. He's not a great defender as is. Hank will stay one more season, then waive it after. I think if shat is somehow acquired, it'd help our D and allow Klein to he 2nd pair dman.</i></div></div>

Yandle was our second-best defenseman all season despite being underutilized by AV. Get him on top-pairing minutes and on the top PP and he'll be transformative for the team. He also takes a lot of pressure off McDonagh. And as long as he doesn't fall off a cliff like Girardi and Staal, he'll be a fine deal at 33-35. Point production might slip about 10%, but I think we'd still be doing well with a guy who can give us 7-35-42 each year while being a steady defender, which he is.

McIlrath has been a pleasant surprise. I think he'll be a lot better this year when he isn't playing with anchors named Staal and Boyle. He's a 2nd pairing guy.

I don't see how we get Shattenkirk. We don't have many tradeable assets. I rarely see Nash for Shattenkirk deals that make sense to me. I think it's more likely we could sign guys like Demers or Goligoski. But I imagine you'd be concerned about their age.
Forum: Armchair-GM9 mai 2016 à 13 h 15
Forum: Armchair-GM5 mai 2016 à 13 h 57
Forum: Armchair-GM3 mai 2016 à 14 h 53
Sujet: 2016-17 trying to be realistic
Overall, really good.

<strong>Some things I like:</strong>

+ Very realistic deal for Shattenkirk. Brassard would fill the void for them if Backes leaves and Klein helps them fill a bottom-4 slot with a dependable guy.

+ Buchnevich and Caggiula would make us much younger and deeper for a cheap price.

+ Stalberg and Brodziak are nice depth signings. And realistically, they're interchangeable with whoever is willing to take that sort of money next year. Boyes played for cheaper than that this year so there's always an opportunity to find those cheap gems.

<strong>Some things I'm iffy about:</strong>

~ Having Stamkos and Nash. Like them both, but I'm not sure a team needs both. You'll have to build the top-6 around them and I think they'd need to be on separate lines. Do we have the personnel we need to put around them? We might. I'm also just worried about tying up about $20m in just two forwards. That's a lot of money.

~ Medvedev is a question mark for me. He looked good but I still feel like we don't know if he's really suited for NA ice. But, that's a fair price point for a low risk, high reward chance.

<strong>Some things I don't like:</strong>

- I hate how people think we can just dump people in Arizona because they have the cap space. Here's the thing: cap space is a valuable asset. If you want someone to eat your cap issues, then it will cost you. There is no way that Arizona wants to take the chance on a guy who is likely to make almost $1.5m in the AHL. Their pocket books can't justify that. That's why they make moves like acquiring Pronger. Pronger moved them $5m closer to the cap floor for only $575k in actual salary. They're imply not a dumping ground.

- The M. Staal trade seems unlikely to me. First: NMC. Second: I doubt they give up a 3rd round pick for him. His stock is low. And they're going to want good defenseman rather than overpriced ones. They'll go after guys like Vatanen, Shattenkirk, Yandle, Demers, and Goligoski. Those guys have tons more value on the ice than M. Staal does and they won't cost much more.
Forum: Armchair-GM3 mai 2016 à 12 h 11
Sujet: Rangers w/ Staal + Girardi buy outs
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>JohnPance</b></div><div><i>This team is excellent, however to be honest I would rather have Alex Goligoski than Yandle. While Yandle is undoubtedly one of the best passing defenseman in the NHL, his defense is severely lacking. Now this can be made up for if he is with a defensive stalwart like McLRath but it may not. Also Goligoski will be considerbly cheaper (approx 5.5 million) also will have championship experience from Pitt and now Dallas making a run. In addition, I drop Kreider down to 3rd line because Buchenevich is useless outside the top 6, I believe if he is in the bottom 6 he can turn into a Yakupov and eventually leave to Russia. He is our best asset in 10 years and we need to put him the greatest position to prosper while learning defense, him with Stepan makes the most sense.</i></div></div>

I prefer Yandle. I think he's better defensively than Goligoski is. Goligoski's rel. CA60 (relative Corsi against per 60 mins) was positive while Yandle's was negative in 5v5. Overall, they had similar rel. CF% numbers, which means that Goligoski provided a larger offensive jump for the Stars than Yandle did for the Rangers. Yandle is better defensively than a lot of people give him credit for. His errors are very obvious when they happen, but 98% of the time he's playing things right and just makes the play look pedestrian. But would I pass up Goligoski at $5.5m for 5 years? Nah. He's a good signing.

As for the playoff experience issue, Goligoski played 2 games in Pitt's SC run. He had a total of 20:44 TOI in that entire run. And right now Goligoski has 29 games of playoff experience to Yandle's 51. Keep in mind, Yandle went to the WCF from the Coyotes in 2012 and to the ECF with us last year.

If Kreider is going to be a third liner, then he needs to be moved instead of signed for $4.5m with term. But I do agree that having Buchnevich on the 3rd line doesn't make sense. I just had him there to list off what our depth chart looks like. Maybe this means moving Kreider/Miller so that the guy who is left plays on the second line with Buchnevich. Or maybe it means moving Nash although I think that would really weaken us on the wing.

<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>JohnPance</b></div><div><i>Also, what about don't spend on Brodziak and Stalberg and pick up Dale Weise? Big, gritty, can score?</i></div></div>

Yeah, I'd be fine with him. He's certainly serviceable and would probably be fairly cheap.
Forum: Armchair-GM2 mai 2016 à 22 h 45
Sujet: NYR MD 16-17
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>BroodSquad</b></div><div><i><div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>palhal</b></div><div><i>Youth? Ladd and Ericsson, nope. Sensible moves...not if you're a Blues or Yotes.</i></div></div>

Ladd and Eriksson (the spelling is literally right there, BTW) are both 30. They're not old by any stretch. But those would fall under 'sensible moves' (reasonable but realistic price; fits team needs). The youth aspect would be Skjei &amp; McIlrath as mainstays, Hrivik staying on the main roster, and resigning the young talent that needed extensions (Hayes, Miller, Kreider) rather than keeping that money attached to Nash.

As far as Blues go... they have a similar cap issue as the Rangers. Backes is a UFA this year, and Shattenkirk next year. They can't afford both, and would find themselves in a NYR-Yandle situation. If they can acquire a good offensive talent, and move their UFA due a huge raise with only a year left on his deal, it works for them. The Coyotes... they are an extremely young team, and it wouldn't hurt to add a veteran defensemen. Plus they have tons of cap space, so the cap hit wouldn't hinder them like it currently does NYR. Plus we are throwing in a D prospect (which they don't have many of) and getting back a F prospect (which they have a ton of).

It's easy to just leave negative comments without actually knowing other teams' situations or needs.</i></div></div>

30 is definitely old. Most players today are peaking at 25-27. Just look at our players who are declining right now: Girardi, Staal, Nash, etc. All ~30 years old. Our team is needs to get younger like the other poster suggested.

If the Blues are having cap issues, why do you think they'll accept Nash? He's about $3.5m more expensive than Shattenkirk and has a few years left. Doesn't that make things worse for the Blues? And then thinking they'd take Glass as a salary dump on top of that? It is unrealistic.

The Coyotes do have a lot of cap space and I imagine they see it as a commodity. If they are going to take a cap dump, you can bet they'll ask for more than than just a prospect trade. They'll want an extra prospect back and/or a pick. But other problems: Girardi isn't a "veteran defenseman", he's close to being a fringe NHLer with ~4 more years at $5.5m AAV left. And he's a big paycheck for a cash strapped club to pay for. They'll want to spend their money more wisely than that. Plus, Girardi has a NMC through this year. Do you expect him to waive that?

<strong>palhal</strong> was right. These moves are unrealistic because they completely disregard the other teams.

Plus one additional thing: Those Miller/Hayes/Kreider deals don't look good to me. Kreider at $4.2m for purely RFA years? Huge overpayment. Then in three years we have Kreider/Hayes/McIlrath to re-up only one year before they hit UFA. That causes a whole new problem for us to try and retain our drafted talent. We should try and go long term and/or trade at least 3 of those 4 players now so that we don't hit another cap crunch only a few years down the line.

And just a minor little nitpick: Max salary for Buchnevich will be $925k. He can get performance bonuses on top of that, but those would be piled on after the fact if he gets them.