Other than some unsubstantiated tweets from Don Cherry, there’s really no basis to suspect or conclude a Nash/Stamkos trade is anywhere in the realistic future. Yet I thought I’d take a moment to share some feelings about the very idea of such a trade, and evaluate its merits and reasoning. Again, I am NOT reporting a likelihood of this trade. I’m poking around the inert idea of it, seeing how such a big-named swap would go over in concert with a few key factors to consider.
So...
Here’s the tricky thing about evaluating a given Nash/Stamkos trade:
Stamkos has a no-movement clause on the final year his contract, so he’d have to approve any trade. The only conceivable reason that Tampa would trade their franchise asset would likely be a trade quest made by SS himself. That, and if Stamkos’ approved destinations were so limited, would be one of the few reasons why Tampa would approach New York. Of all the teams for Tampa to swap scorers with in such a trade, their chief rival of the Eastern Conference would unlikely be the favorable preference.
Martin St. Louis asked out of Tampa, among other reported reasons, to be geographically closer to his home in Connecticut. Should SS demand a trade, it’ll likely include more suitors than strictly Tri-State proxies. So I wouldn’t jump out of my chair to compare the Martin St. Louis exile to that of a hypothetical Stamkos jettison.
However, if we’re supposing a Nash/Stamkos trade of some capacity, we’re still assuming Tampa does not have the leverage it normally would in unloading a big name. One would think it’s all but a given that Tampa will throw the big money at Steven before his final contract year burns away. And even if Tampa were to shop Stamkos on the trading block after contract negotiations dwindled, it would likely be sometime next season near the trade deadline… not in the Summer of 2015.
But for the sake of argument, we’ll assume this is the case: Stamkos informs General Manager Steve Yzerman he wants to be traded and is not interested in renewing his contract in Florida.
As of today, Rick Nash’s contract contains a full no-movement clause. But in a few weeks on July 1st, it will convert into a limited no-trade-clause… presumably one where Nash submits a list of teams he will not accept a trade to. It’s unknown how many teams he can list, but it would be doubtful that Tampa would be specifically blacklisted. Typical teams would include Buffalo, Edmonton, and Arizona… teams with unattractive geography in addition to an abysmal franchise. Tampa is a contender, with an arguably enjoyable culture.
So in terms of required permission, Stamkos would seem to have much more control in yay-or-nay of an arranged transaction between the two clubs than that of Nash.
But another question: Who’s the more valued asset? Stamkos or Nash?
Stamkos is the better player. He’s scored 0.56 goals-per-game through his 7 total seasons in the NHL. Other than the 2013-14 season where he missed several months with a broken leg, Stamkos has finished 1st or 2nd in goals scored since his 20th birthday. Nash, on the other hand, has produced 0.47 goals-per-game since becoming a Ranger in July 2012.
Stamkos is five-and-a-half years younger than Nash, suggesting he has that many more years ahead of him than his counterpart. Given historical trends, we’re seeing Stamkos in his absolute prime, while Nash will be expected to gradually decline. Had he been healthy, Stamkos would’ve been 1st or 2nd line for Team Canada in the 2014 Olympics. Nash was 4th line.
There’s very little to suggest Nash, all-else-equal, as the superior asset. He’s not. SS is.
However: what about from a contractual standpoint?
Stamkos is a year away from hitting the open market, where he could field dozens of maximum-salary offers. So of course, a team acquiring him in a trade knows the risk that he could just end up being a 1-year rental. It’s all but guaranteed that a team interested in trading for him this summer would be adamant towards re-signing him to a monster contractual commitment.
Nash on the other hand?
While tit-for-tat he falls inferior to Stamkos, in the wonky world of pro sports contracts, Nash maintains a clear superiority. Nash, with a cap hit of $300,000 more than Stamkos, has 3 seasons remaining on his contract. This means a team acquiring Nash would have his services ensured until 2018. That’s thrice the certainty versus the team acquiring Stamkos.
Why wouldn’t Tampa trade Stamkos for a replacement center?
Interestingly enough, Stamkos was not relied upon much as a center during the 2015 postseason, but more so as a winger. Valtteri Filppula (15.7), Tyler Johnson (13.6) & Brian Boyle (11.5) all took more faceoffs-per-game than Stamkos (8.7). In fact it would make sense if Tampa was looking to unload one of their centers to relieve the crowding, and stand pat with the top-3 they remain with now.
Why wouldn’t New York trade Nash for a replacement winger?
We will assume New York has every intention of centers Derek Stepan & Derrick Brassard returning as the team’s 1st & 2nd pivots for the 2015-16 season. If a Nash/Stamkos swap is to truly be realistic, it would suggest to me that Broadway would be wishing for Kevin Hayes to be put back on wing, thus opening a hole in the center lineup.
No, Stamkos wouldn’t be their 3rd line center; but if Hayes is put at wing, then Nash being traded for a center makes a lot more sense. It would also offer theory that the Rangers identified a lack of center depth as a flaw in the team, and are apt to correct it. With Stamkos, Stepan & Brassard, head coach Alain Vigneault would have all the liberty in the world to feverishly roll 3 lines interchangeably, which he's enjoyed doing both of his years in New York.
So Stamkos is the better player, but Nash has more ensured service under contract.
What would be the side dishes in a Stamkos/Nash trade?
Stamkos is only contracted to score another 30-50 goals, while Nash could reasonably be expected to deliver 60-100 before UFA expiration. Yet trading Stamkos includes his exclusive negotiation rights, so how much can Tampa viably treat him as an asset projected to score more than 50 goals? How much can Tampa say “it’s not our problem if you can’t re-sign Stamkos, we’re trading him like a player under contract for more than a year.” Conversely, how well would a team like New York respond to that supposed evaluation of Stamkos from the Lightning’s end?
This is a tough thing to configure. It would really depend on how both traders assessed Stamkos’ chances of re-signing with his new team… as well as how both parties predict Nash’s calibre of contribution will hold up the next 3 years. Honestly I think we’ll just leave this discussion here, as attaching a draft pick to either side of the trade seems arguably valid. Let me just say a Stamkos/Nash swap wouldn’t be the craziest trade in the world, but it would just require a certain aligning of the stars from the Stamkos camp.
I will say that both the Rangers and the Lightning had fine campaigns, and both will be the Eastern teams to beat next October. While we see franchises make notable moves to go from ‘very good’ team to ‘excellent’ team, there is just as often the team that feels no need to go out and make sweeping changes. A dynamic move between two clubs of the same conference often occurs when both teams are willing to experiment to get to the upper stratosphere.
Both of these teams are already there, which is why a blockbuster like this may not even be sought out for discussions by Tampa in the first place… EVEN IF Stamkos does actually want out of Tampa AND approves of Broadway for relocation.
The only other quirky reasoning that comes to mind is this: both players, coming off of admirable postseason runs in the Eastern Conference, have their highest-paid forwards receiving criticism for lack of postseason scoring. Nash scored “just” 0.74 points-per-game, while Stamkos notched 0.69. Both teams swapping “underperforming” juggernauts could have merit, if the belief is a dual change in scenery would be mutually beneficial to both teams and players. No, not an enthralling argument, but an interesting footnote to observe.
There's some debate that Henrik Lundqvist's league-leading salary of $8.5 million per year is too much. More specifically, some Rangers fans feel it hurts the team's chances at a Stanley Cup since all that money is not allocated towards forwards nor defensemen. So with the 2014-15 NHL regular season statistics locked in the books from now to eternity, I thought I'd spend this summer day snooping around this theory. Here we go...
First I took all goaltenders who faced a minimum of 328 shots in the regular season (or faced a minimum of 4 shots on goal per team game during the season). This narrowed the field to 61 NHL goalies from which to extrapolate our data. Then I looked at their total Goals Saved Above Replacement, a nifty stat meant to compare a goaltender to the theoretical average goalie in the given season. I also jotted down their time on ice (rounded to the nearest minute) & 2014-15 salary cap (Average Annual Value).
When tabulating the averages of this data, we arrived at:
- The average NHL goalie stopped 1.037377 Goals Above Average in 2014-15
- The average NHL goalie played 2,267 minutes in 2014-15
- The average NHL goalie had a cap hit of $3,011,066 in 2014-15
Taking these three findings into account, we can bundle them into a single, concise "going rate" of the average NHL goalie in 2014-15:
- The typical NHL goalie stopped 0.027525 Goals Above Average per 60 minutes, paid at a $3,011,066 cap hit
So...
How does King Henrik compare relative to that clearinghouse rate?
- Lundqvist stopped 10.43 Goals Above Average in 2014-15
- Lundqvist played 2,743 minutes in 2014-15
- Lundqvist had a cap hit of $8,500,000 in 2014-15
Therefore...
- Lundqvist stopped 0.228144 Goals Above Average per 60 minutes, paid at a $8,500,000 cap hit
How does Lundqvist directly contrast against our mean findings?
- Lundqvist's GSAA/hour rate was 8.29 times the NHL's average goalie rate
- Lundqvist's salary cap hit was 2.82 times the NHL's average goalie cap hit
In essence, Lundqvist performed over 8.3 times the market rate for only 2.8 times the price!
If you go to a supermarket to purchase frozen TV dinners... but they have a special offering 8.3 times the amount you intended to get, but for less than triple the price you were expecting to pay... kinda hard to categorize that as anything but a good deal.
Why did I make frozen TV dinners the example? Because a frozen meal purchased today will likely expire right around the time Lundqvist's play will [historically] decline. Do we see Lundqvist becoming anything less than an above-average goalie at any point in the next few years? It seems highly unlikely, barring a massive injury and/or drop-off. While year-to-year subtle regression is the historical norm, HockeyGraphs analysis suggest at least 3 years before major regression.
So even with his league-leading super-hefty cap hit, Lundqvist was still an absolute bargain in the 2014-15 season, the 1st year of his 6-year contract.
Let's look at a few graphs to evaluate Lundqvist's legitimacy as a top-paid netminder in the post-post-salary-cap era:
- Lundqvist has had 10 consecutive seasons of either accumulating 30 wins and/or leading the NHL in wins during a shortened season.
- Lundqvist, compared to the top dogs of the past decade, has yet to have a below-average season.
- Lundqvist's first 9 years saw him win the Vezina once (2012), where he received 80% of the votes, smashing the record for most-lopsided Vezina voting result since votes were made public in 1981-82.
- Though his streak may very well end in a few weeks, Lundqvist has gone 9 consecutive seasons while placing no worse than 6th in yearly Vezina votes. In other words, there has yet to be a season where Lundqvist was not voted one of the Top-6 NHL goalies by the league's general managers
- Lundqvist has never gone a season without receiving votes for at least 1 NHL trophy.
Lundqvist's contribution to the NY Rangers last multi-round playoff runs the past 4 seasons undoubtedly suggest value, even at the steepest price in the land:
So, while Lundqvist's heavy cap hit will ultimately depreciate in terms of bang-for-buck, as he is contracted until his late 30's... it is not a liability yet. In fact the numbers suggest that it unbelievably remains a bargain, at least in this point in time. In fact, until we see significant regression, there is no way someone can honestly claim Lundqvist (or his plump contract) has actually hurt the Rangers' chances at winning it all.
Recent goalies to remain extremely productive and valuable to their team, even north of their 35th birthdays, include...
Tim Thomas
Dominik Hasek
Patrick Roy
Has Lundqvist not earned the right to be compared to Thomas, Hasek or Roy? While all these players went on to win a Cup (which Lundqvist obviously hasn't...yet?)... he is inarguably one of, if not the, best goalie of his era.
Thomas & Hasek also poke holes in the theory "If Lundqvist hasn't won a Cup by now, he never will!" That contention, plus the absolute myth that Lundqvist himself has cost the Rangers a Cup, is irrefutably flawed. Who can genuinely believe it was Lundqvist's contract which cost the Rangers the 2015 postseason, instead of, oh I don't know... The injuries to Mats Zuccarello, Ryan McDonagh, Dan Girardi, Keith Yandle, & Jesper Fast?
If 10 consecutive coinflips are all heads, how logical is it to conclude "since there hasn't been any tails before, their never will be in the future!"
... That logic simply doesn't hold water.
Speaking of injuries... other than a few weeks in 2006, a few games in 2013, and the freak vascular injury suffered last February... Lundqvist's healthiness in his career has been absolutely remarkable. No torn ligaments, no broken bones, no concussions, no major or relevant surgery... in a decade! His high-quality production aside, surely his abnormally high attendance in regular season & playoff games also validate his contractual worth.
Quality, quantity, relativity... they all point towards Lundqvist being a resounding "positive" on the New York roster.
We'll be posting more goaltender analytical evaluations throughout the summer, including league-wide goaltender stats we've personally created here at SatherOnWaivers. Follow us on Twitter (@HockeyStatMiner ) to receive further updates, and feel free to leave feedback as well.
July 6, 2013 - Jerome Iginla signs a 1-year deal with the Boston Bruins. Contract has a base pay / cap-hit of $1.8 million… but contains an additional $4.2 million in potential performance bonuses
July 23, 2013 - Jaromir Jagr signs a 1-year deal with NJ Devils. Contract has a base pay / cap-hit of $2 million… but contains an additional $2 million in potential performance bonuses
June 15, 2014 - Kimmo Timonen signs 1-year deal with Philadelphia Flyers. Contract has a base pay / cap-hit of $2 million… but contains $1.5 million in potential performance bonuses
As the NHL prepares for a stagnantly minor increase in the 2016 salary cap… teams that are already up against its ceiling will look to maneuver economically this summer. Of course, the New York Rangers are no exception. There are two particular methods of cap-friendly methodology that big-payroll clubs like Broadway will especially explore (and probably patronize). They are:
Signing free agents to short-term contracts with small cap-hit base salaries, but hefty performance bonuses
Acquiring a player in a trade in which that team wouldn’t especially pursue, but does this summer so long as the team they’re trading with retains salary
PERFORMANCE BONUSES
The NHL bonus cushion is defined as 7.5% of the given salary cap ceiling. This means a team can dish out a set amount of money in performance bonuses. If bonuses exceed the bonus cushion, they are counted against the team’s cap directly for the following season (aptly called “bonus overages”).
Thanks to the wonderful website RangersUnlimited, we see Kevin Hayes’ potential performance bonuses he is eligible to unlock in the 2015-16 campaign. Each category would earn Hayes $212,500 in bonuses, with $850,000 being the max payout (he stops getting paid after four categories are achieved).
$212,500 if Top-Six in NYR forward ice time per game (minimum 42 games)
$212,500 if Top-Six in NYR forward ice time total (minimum 42 games)
$212,500 if 20 goals scored
$212,500 if 35 assists made
$212,500 if 60 points scored
$212,500 if .73 points-per-game (minimum 42 games)
$212,500 if Top-Three in NYR forward +/- rating
$212,500 if selected to/plays in NHL All-Star Game
$212,500 if named NHL All-Star Game MVP
Then there is a maximum of $2 million total in attainable performance bonuses for the following end-of-season achievements:
Top Five voting/placement for Hart, Selke and/or Rocket Richard Trophies
Top Three voting for Lady Byng award
Winning Conn Smythe Trophy
Being named to 1st or 2nd NHL All-Star team by hockey writers
Finishing Top 10 in NHL goals, assists, points or points-per-game
So, while Hayes can earn up to $2.85 million in performance bonuses next season… It’s very likely his actual bonuses earned will fall under $850,000... unless Hayes has a breakout season and actually unlocks the league-elite $2 million bonuses. So for all intents and purposes, we’ll treat Hayes’ maximum performance bonus for 2015-16 at $801,000.
Many of New York’s prospects on their entry-level contracts have performance bonuses as well, yet its unlikely anyone other than Brady Skjei to make the jump to the pro roster next season. (It’s currently unknown what Skjei’s max performance bonuses may be, but its extremely likely they exist on his contract).
If next season’s NHL salary cap is $71.5 million, then 7.5% of that (the bonus cushion) would be $5,362,500.
So if we treat Hayes’ estimated performance bonus “threat” as $801,000… then:
$5,362,500 - $801,000 = $4,561,500
That’s just north of $4.5 million theoretically available in performance bonuses to be expended on the free agent market this summer for the Rangers. Or, should we take Hayes’ chances at a seriously impressive season into more liberal account, plus Skjei’s unknown… Perhaps a figure of $4 million is a more realistic figure.
Should the Rangers sign coveted free agent defensemen Mike Reilly or Robbie Russo, it would almost assuredly include performance bonuses akin to Hayes’ contract. Since the new Collective Bargaining Agreement mandates a maximum entry-level base salary of $925,000 per year, the league wide bidding war for such assets will come down to bonuses.
So…
Looking over our guesstimated NYR salary cap spreadsheet, the team (at first glance) looks like this:
If next year's salary cap is indeed approximately $71.5 million... this team simply won't fit.
However, as we’ve noted in previous article, we predict Kevin Klein & Cam Talbot to be traded away to accommodate the cap. We’ll theoretically assume this once again, replacing them with cheaper players at their respective positions…
Now this roster is coming in snugly at $71.5 mil (Skjei could be 7th D, or a UFA signed for $925k cap hit).
How could the Rangers taking advantage of performance bonuses affect the buildup of this team?
Well…
“A backup goalie for 1-year, $750,000? Isn’t that a massive downgrade?”
Talbot had a spectacular season, and it’ll be hard to replace his quality as a backup in any event. But… what the Rangers sign a veteran free agent goalie to a 1-year, $750,000 contract… with additional hundreds of thousands of dollars in bonuses? Broadway has all the bonus room in the world to sign a $1 million/yr goalie for only 75% of the (cap-hit) price.
“Are you suggesting singing a 4th line winger to a $925,000 contract with bonuses?”
This is unlikely. Usually forwards on the 4th line are so replaceable that it almost never makes sense to include performance bonuses. But… what if instead of a 4th liner getting a $925k deal with bonuses attached… we go after a 3rd line forward.
In this regard, a pertinent question is “Does New York rely on Kevin Hayes being the team’s 3rd center going forward? Or is it better to revert him to his natural position as winger?” Looking over the impending list of Unrestricted Free Agents this summer, how about targeting a veteran centerman?
Brad Richards, Mike Ribeiro & Mike Fisher are all 35 years old. Matt Cullen is 38. Fan-favorite (/sarcasm) Olli Jokinen is 36.
What if we sign one of the centers to a 1-year, $925,000 contract with performance bonuses, and slide Hayes to the 3rd line wing? Now the team could look like…
... or ...
RETAINED SALARIES IN TRADES
Under the new Collective Bargaining Agreement, teams can now acquire players in trades, with the trading team retaining up to 50% of an asset’s actual salary & cap hit. The NY Rangers exercised this liberty twice in the 2014-15 season: Arizona retained half of Keith Yandle’s remaining salary, and Minnesota retained $100,000 of James Shepherd’s contract. Both were imperative moves for Broadway to acquire these players while barely staying below the salary cap ceiling.
We’ve seen other teams do it as well, particularly with big-payroll teams doing business with low-payroll teams.
And there’s the rub.
Now that players full services can be imported at cap discounts, the new CBA has carved out a brand new aspect of trade compatibility. Suddenly a team with low payroll can literally use their vast cap space as an advantage against big-market teams whom have little or none. An interesting concept, as that disconnect had historically provided small-market teams a distinct disadvantage against the big boys.
As the Rangers seem to have little cap room for maneuverability this offseason, this concept allows for the Rangers (or any team) to fit players they normally shouldn’t be able to fit, perhaps by paying a little extra for the incoming player to come along a tad cheaper. Franchises which previously had little leverage in these matters suddenly find themselves with actionability, just as teams which had little chance at acquiring big-name players in a tight payroll can now do so feasibly.
Instead of a 4th line winger making $700,000 per year (which would probably be a low-value asset to sign)… what if the Rangers acquire someone with a $1.4 million cap hit for a 50% retention? Suddenly Fast or Miller could be put on 4th line, and a 3rd-line-or-better player can be brought on board for the price of a 4th line plug!
CONCLUSION
With performance bonuses & retained salaries now in play for NHL teams, the off-season potential for moves, signings and trades have taken on an expanded realm of possibility. Major teams (like the Rangers, Blackhawks, Flyers, Maple Leafs & Bruins) can still impose their big-market advantages on free agents with that of bonuses. And yet, the teams unlikely to win bidding wars or make competitive offers find themselves holding the cards when major teams are looking to save cap space via retained salary.
For better or worse, we find ourselves in the post-post-salary-cap-era NHL.
In our previous article, we predicted Cam Talbot & Kevin Klein would be traded by the NY Rangers this summer, largely for salary cap reasons. In today’s article, we’ll analyze a hypothetical trade with the Calgary Flames involving both players. We’ll try to figure if this is a realistic trade or not.
NY Rangers acquire:
* = 50% of Cap Hit retained by Calgary
Calgary Flames acquire:
Calgary Flames could be in the market for Talbot. Like any team currently interested in Talbot, they’ll likely make a pitch to Devan Dubnyk, should he hit the open market. Otherwise, the team could logically look to trade for Talbot. In their playoff run, Calgary rotated Jonas Hiller & Karri Ramo in net. If acquiring Talbot, Calgary would have both goalies with expiring contracts next July, making the 2015-16 season a true audition for the big payday. (While prospect goalie Joni Ortio continues to knock at the door, the restricted free agent could very well remain in the AHL for another season until Hiller's contract expires).
Much like the Rangers, Calgary has six (multi-million-dollar) defensemen already under contract through the 2015-16 season. So, if packaging Klein into the mix, it is all but essential to have a defenseman coming back on Calgary’s end. Russell is a good defenseman, but quite likely a pure rental, as his contract expires next summer, and Calgary will almost definitely offer Mark Girodano big money for his oncoming extension. In short: the Flames’ chances at re-signing Russell are akin to that of New York’s chances at re-signing Talbot; slim.
A large question for Glen Sather & co. is to figure out if Kevin Hayes is the team's optimal 3rd-line center, or should he be reinstated on the natural wing? If the latter, importing Hudler makes sense. Hurdler, much like Russell, will also be an unrestricted free agent next summer, and with the budding plethora of young centers… could a long-term contract offered to the then-33-year-old Hudler be competitive against the market? If both teams determine a “no” answer, it furthers the case for a trade such as this to make amicable sense
Calgary would seem to fit the bill on this swap, as they’d have to pay Hudler & Russell a combined $3.3 million against the cap in retaining 50%. Since New York is pressed against the cap, and the Flames enjoyed a 2nd round exit in the postseason despite having oodles of cap space… the element of “small market team retaining salary to accommodate large market team’s payroll” ought to come into play. New York simply cannot afford this trade unless both players’ salaries are 50% retained by Calgary. Even in retaining a couple of salaries in a trade such as this, Calgary is set to have plenty of cap space for offseason maneuvering. The NY Rangers are the exact opposite.
Glass & Klein have 2 and 3 years remaining on their contracts respectively. Talbot only has 1, but along with Ramo, he will be given every opportunity to ensure a large contract by July 2016. If Calgary believes Talbot could realistically be worthy of the team's starting goaltender position for the next several years, their prerogative in acquiring Talbot (even with Hiller's cap hit at $4.5 million for one more season) makes sense.
Lindberg and McIlrath are restricted free agents (without the right of salary arbitration). They’re guaranteed multi-year value as long as tendered qualifying offers. The salary cap hit figures listed above are roughly their respective minimum qualifying offers.
Hudler & Russell are probably rentals. If Stepan, Kreider, Hayes & Yandle are retained in Summer 2016, it seems unlikely Hudler or Russell would be re-signed. Yet, importing a quality center (to join a pair of already-capable centers), along with a big-minute defenseman for half price… well… like the trades that rented Nik Antropov, Ryan Clowe or Martin St. Louis… Sather has shown a propensity to “gamble” or “overpay” on rentals. The “win-now” philosophy embodied in Lundqvist’s age-vs-contract dynamic would certainly qualify a rental trade (perhaps such as this) to be made. I'm not sure if this is "overpayment" or "underpayment", but a trade like this (discount rentals in exchange for quality players with more easily 'guaranteed' or 'likely' future years) is right up Sather's alley.
So...
Let’s take a look at the NY Rangers salary cap situation should this trade be made:
What we see in New York packing the team to the brim for 2015-16, and having 9 to 14 contracts expire in July 2016. However, the team would have over 22 million in cap space available to make the big decisions. The Rangers would improve their depth at center; should Stepan, Brassard, Hudler or Moore get injured... NY would have Hayes or Miller as available substitute centermen. While Russell-for-Klein-and-McIlrath is an improvement in the Top-6 defensive reserve... the depth of better 7th & 8th blueliners (ready to step in adequately in case of injury) remains unchanged. The big difference heading into next year in that regard wouldn't be this trade, but rather D Brady Skjei, and what he may have to offer as a 7th man. Don't count out soon-to-be Unrestricted Free Agent ex-collegiate defensemen Mike Reilly or Robbie Russo either, as the Rangers are sure to make a pitch at each prospect. While Reilly is considered the better bluechip, it is Russo the righty who would make more sense in signing. Russell, McDonagh, Staal, Yandle & Skjei are all left-handed (and in this hypothetical we are assuming McDonagh or Russell play on the right side).
We’d also see Calgary renting out a couple of quality skaters whom they’re less likely to re-sign next summer, thus renting them out for a crack at a franchise goalie and contracted years of depth players. Even though the 2015 Unrestricted Free Agent market appears to be underwhelming, the Flames appear to be in position to be shoppers, with or without this hypothetical trade.
I'm not sure if this is a realistic trade (it would depend greatly on how Calgary would view the value of Cam Talbot, Kevin Klein & Oscar Lindberg)... but conceptually, it seems a logical place to tinker.
I won't elaborate upon this aspect, but if Hayes were somehow involved in a Talbot/Hudler/Russell trade... don't ya think Calgary would love to reunite Hayes with Johnny Gaudreau? (They were linemates at Boston College).
To make this hypothetical more viable, perhaps the Rangers have to replace D Dylan McIlrath with a younger prospect who may actually have potential upside. Or, trade away even more future draft picks to secure in-the-moment NHL talent fruitful towards winning the 2016 Stanley Cup. Perhaps take out McIlrath and insert the rights to unsigned prospects such as Pavel Buchnevich, Brandon Halverson, or Ryan Mantha?
McIlrath is largely a throw-in. He's purely interchangeable with any other non-roster asset New York could potentially offer. IN the mid-season onslaught of NYR defensemen injuries... Dylan McIlrath, along with Connor Allen, Mike Kostka and Mat Bodie, failed to make the leap from the AHL and establish any competition with Matt Hunwick as the team's 7th D. No, none of those names will make Calgary's top-7 next season (with Tyler Wotherspoon likely ahead of all of them on Calgary's depth chart). Thus... McIlrath may need to be replaced with an asset of far more substance.
If Calgary is apt to rent out Hudler & Russell on the trade market, New York's offer would have to be competitive with other fielding offers. While giving Calgary the chance at giving Talbot a chance a starting gig is good, and 3 years of moderately-priced Klein is also valuable... this deal may need more spice on New York's end for it to be closer to realistic. How much more? Hard to determine without insight of the two organizations' opinions.
As for New York's backup goalie if Talbot is traded away? Even though our estimated salary chart only lends $625,000 for a backup goalie to replace Cam... The Rangers will also have upwards of $2.5 million in performance bonuses available to dish out. Signing a veteran back-up to a small cap hit ($625k) but bonus-levied contract is not only an option, but a great way to ensure quality goaltending in case Lundqvist suffers another freak injury, without being burnt for pinching pennies.
Later this month, I'll tinker with similarly hypothetical Talbot trades involving other suitable candidates for his departure; my shortlist (in addition to Calgary) is Buffalo, Edmonton, Minnesota & San Jose. The secondary Talbot acquisition candidates would be Arizona, Dallas & Toronto. But... who knows? The market breathes in and out with Dubnyk's impending choice where to sign. Talbot's trade value will be much more defined immediately following Dubnyk's summer contract, whenever that may be.
This article is cut up into two halves: Needs & Values.
The “Needs” section will discuss what roster needs Broadway will have this summer, and for next season, and how to digest these objectives into brainstormed solutions. In other words, ‘needs’ are a synonym for ‘how to correct roster deficiencies.’
The “Values” section will take our conclusions in the “Needs” prologue and assign a measurement of ‘value’ to each asset on the roster. How valuable is Martin St. Louis or Matt Hunwick to the 2015-16 roster? We’ll elaborate on each individual as best we can.
Needs
The 2014-15 New York Rangers were great, but not great enough. In the hours after elimination from the Eastern Conference Finals, countless fans have taken to social media to give their two cents on “blaming” or “assigning fault” to various aspects of the team.
Correct, most NHL teams have pieces that are banged up and battered, somewhat nullifying the advantages or disadvantages of skaters playing through pain. The thing is this: ultimately, some teams will be more injured than others, in varying degrees of severity-of-injury, as well as degree-of-skill overall afflicted with ware-and-tare.
I think the clearer, more important argument to have is about depth. Roster depth. As in “how many players outside of your Top-20 roster spots can you reliably inject into vital postseason games without the risk outweighing the reward?” Because while comparing hidden, discreet, nearly immeasurable baskets of comparative team injuries is virtually impossible… examining a franchises’s depth, which is the key to battling through injuries in the first place, is much more practical place to examine.
So...
Why didn’t this team win the Cup? Outside the small consideration of injuries (being worse than Tampa’s?) and sheer variance (luck)… The NY Rangers’ lack of roster depth ultimately prevented them from overcoming Tampa’s tenacious adversity. If you don't believe it, just look at Game 7: New York burned a roster spot on the 4th line so Hunwick could only play 4:17 in the 1st period while McDonagh received a cortisone shot? Only then to have a healthy, rested Hunwick not play another shift upon McDonagh's return, rendering Game 7 basically a 17-skater Broadway lineup?
That doesn't sound like much faith in the depth of your defenseman. Either that, or a big error on the part of the caching staff... But since I'm the first to assume Alain Vigneault knows what he's doing, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and place the blame on (lack of) roster depth.
Comparing Broadway’s Top-20 roster (12 forwards, 6 defensemen, 2 goalies) to the rest of the league, it was superb. Tit-for-tat, the cream of the roster was exquisite, and very much deserving of their regular season success.
But what about the Top-22? In this case, that’s comparing Matt Hunwick and James Sheppard as the “extra skaters” compared to the rest of the league’s standby fill-ins. The Rangers’ Top-22 still probably fared favorably in contrast to the rest of the league (although probably even less so against Anaheim, Chicago or Tampa).
From the 23rd roster spot onwards? Not so much.
It’s difficult to sit broken-boned McDonagh and Staal because they comprise so much of New York’s effective defensive core. But who would you rather have, those two performing far less than 100%… or a 3rd pair of Mike Kostka & Matt Hunwick at 100%? Yeah… the Rangers were a defensive injury away from dressing Mike Kostka (or Conor Allen, maybe).
Remember in the 2013 NHL Playoffs, where the injuries to Marc Staal & Anton Stralman forced John Tortorella to play Michael Del Zotto & Roman Hamrlik? As if the 5-game-defeat to Boston was at all the coach’s fault… it was the General Manager (Glen Sather), as putting a lot of eggs in not a lot of baskets can prove fatal should a few of the Top-6 defensemen baskets incur a concussion, sprain or broken bone.
In fact, the Boston Bruins of that postseason, who went on to lose the Stanley Cup in 6 games to Chicago, actually used 9 different defensemen during the 22-game run! NINE. DEFENSEMEN. While they failed to capture it all, the team demonstrated the amazing ability to not be set aside by injuries, and having competent depth in the 23rd, 24th, 25th & 26th roster spots, should the rainy days come.
They did, and Boston nearly weathered the storm.
The Rangers, this spring? Decidedly less the ability to seek refuge in their 8th or 9th defensemen in the franchise arsenal (I thought Matt Hunwick was a competent 7th D). The Blueshirts needed short & sweet series, playing as little needed time and encountering as few injuries as possible, to make a run of it. Unfortunately, Washington and Tampa provided an exhausting series, and ultimately ate away at the team’s thinner stamina.
So… I think we can certainly agree the big “need” is improving depth. Molding the roster into something less top-20 concentrated, into something more designed to EXPECT a few injuries, and be able to cope accordingly. Surely that’s at least a fair assessment, eh?
The other side of the coin is: the team overall proved to be an honest contender, even if the 2015 postseason was indeed a futile run of it. So, while improving depth is indeed a logical diagnosis… keeping the team somewhat intact, wherever possible, would seem to be for the most part an imperative maxim to keep in mind.
No, there will be no Canyon of Heroes parade in the Big Apple this summer. But it wasn’t exactly the Toronto Maple Leafs or Dallas Stars, either. The team met expectations up until the last week of May. There’s more positivity in that, despite the emotional negativity of Game 7 heartbreak the past 72 hours.
To conclude: an increase in depth is perhaps the chief need for the organization, yet there should be a rejection of any “pressure” to blow up the roster and make sweeping changes, unless absolutely needed or genuinely fitting. Let’s try to walk that subjective line, shall we?
Values:
Once again, here’s a look at next year’s Top-20 roster. Let’s sift through the pieces, shall we?
Derek Stepan:
Stepan is set to become a restricted free agent with arbitration rights. His qualifying offer is $3.85 million, but it will be easily tendered by NYR, and easily rejected by Stepan. The fact is Stepan is likely due a substantial payraise, one way or the other, as providing to be the #1 center on the team. In fact, Stepan was the only Rangers forward to play more than 18 minutes per game (18:11) in the regular season, and the only forward to play over 19 minutes per game (19:31) in the playoffs.
He ranked 2nd among forwards in total PP time on ice, 2nd among forwards in ES time on ice, and 3rd among forwards in total PK time during the postseason. Like it or not, Stepan is an intricate ingredient in the Rangers rosters, and any idea of trading him in a deal must configure on those minutes being replaced… which is easier said than done, as quality centers playing quality minutes in this league usually demands a ripe premium.
That, and coupled with Stepan’s summer-long contract holdout from July to October of 2013, suggest the man will get his money, one way or the other. The only question? How much, and for how long.
In January, HockeyRodent compared Stepan to that of Ryan O’Reily last summer, in terms of similarity in both performance, position and contractual point in careers. Below I’ve updated the numbers of that comparison, and it remains a valid guide to help us determine what Stepan’s new salary ought to be.
If O’Reilly is any indicator (which, in all likelihood, is an excellent comparable for Stepan’s summer negotiations)… He received a 2-year $6 million/year deal from Colorado, days prior to their salary arbitration hearing (which was filed by the team, not player). Granted that O’Reilly is roughly a year-and-a-half younger than Stepan… but still, this is the realistic figure Glen Sather will be dealing with.
Stepan could realistically refuse any offer he doesn’t like, go to arbitration, likely get a 1-year ~$6 million arbitration judgement, and set his sights on becoming an Unrestricted Free Agent in Summer 2017. It doesn’t take an economist to realize Stepan has the leverage, and while lowballing is not an option, it will very likely be “cheaper” to sign Derek to a long-term deal this summer rather than next summer, with as much as 29 other teams bidding for the productive center.
Of all the aspects of long-term considerations from which to pinch pennies on next year’s payroll, Stepan is likely that last place to do so. I think we can assuredly predict Stepan receives a cap hit of $6 to $7 million per year, with the former being 1-or-2-year-deals, and the latter representing 6-7-or-8-year-deals.
If that still seems like an unfairly high prediction-of-pay for Stepan, just remember last summer. The 31-year-old Jason Spezza received a 4-year $7.5 million/year contract from Dallas. The 28-year-old Paul Stastny received a 4-year $7 million/year contract from St. Louis. So… what do you think a 27-year-old Derek Stepan would fetch in 26 months, with the salary cap possibly in the mid $70-millions range?
A lot.
And it’s foolish to think Stepan, his agent, & Glen Sather aren’t aware of the market’s atmosphere through any of this. Our guess at Stepan’s 2015-16 cap hit will be something like $6.25 million/year, assuming some sort of multi-year-deal is signed this summer.
Having the dynamic-duo of Derek Stepan & Derrick Brassard around for their late 20’s at a total annual cost of $11-$12 million per year is not a bad going rate in the current NHL. And of course, we assume we like that 1-2 punch, as they have notched 3 respectable runs in the postseason since they began playing together in February 2013.
Which brings us to Brassard and his line:
Mats Zuccarello, Derrick Brassard, & Rick Nash:
All 3 players excelled on their line, with Brassard & Zuccarello enjoying success on the same line for the 2nd consecutive campaign (it was Benoit Pouliot in lieu of Nash in ’13-’14). All 3 players are under contract, with varying No-Move/No-Trade clauses, for the next 3-4 seasons.
There’s no reason to think any of the 3 forwards will be moved, nor should it be thought they must be moved, going forward for New York. In sum, they will cost a total of $17.3 million, which is certainly not a “bad” rate for a top offensive line, realistically projected to score 70-80 goals next regular season.
Indeed, we can only wonder the true effect of Zuccarello’s absence in the 2nd & 3rd round of the postseason as far as Rangers chances at success. The line proved to be effective, time and time again, and will most likely be kept together for next October, barring some crazily unlikely trade.
Jesper Fast & J.T. Miller:
Both of these players had strange, versatile journeys in the 2014-15 season & postseason, varying from AHL minor leaguer, to 4th line specialist, to Derek Stepan’s top-linemate. Even though both players had NHL experience prior to this year, it was their first taste of NHL regularity. We can reasonably assume both can be expected as roster regulars for next season, both coming off their respective entry-level contracts this summer.
Neither player has the right to salary arbitration, which means barring a grandiose offer sheet, both forwards will be without leverage against Broadway lowballing. Glen Sather, historically shrewd and stingy with restricted free agents whom are without arbitration or recourse, should probably pursue that tactic, and save as much cap space on the duo as possible.
J.T. Miller’s qualifying offer is 1-year $777,000. Given his draft pedigree (15th overall in 2011), Sather would probably reluctantly succumb to a “higher” contract offer on Miller, than of Fast, who was taken 157th overall.
A 1-year deal of $800,000 - $900,000 is perhaps optimistic on Miller’s part (just ask John Moore last summer, whom received not a dollar more than his qualifying offer), but not impossible. If Miller looks to make at least $1 million annually, a 2-year “bridge” deal of $1-1.5 million seems a lot more realistic.
We’ll guesstimate that Miller and the Rangers end up agreeing to a 2-year, $1.1 million deal in July or August.
As for Quickie? … ehrm… I mean, Fast?
His qualifying offer is for more than that of Miller, which is 1-year $851,000. It would not surprise me at all if Fast signs a 1-year deal for his exact qualifying offer, even though I doubt he nor his agent would be thrilled. And much like Miller, a 2-year “bridge” contract for a little more, say $900,000-$1 million per year, could just as easily make sense for both parties.
So… we’ll make the assumption both are signed to 2-year deals, stiff-armedly lowball deals, at roughly $2 million per year totaled between the two.
As far as the depth chart? Coach Alain Vigneault would have the lineup flexibility of putting either skater on any of the 4 lines. Miller has shown a greater upside and potential for offensive production, while Fast has already locked up his reliability as an excellent defensive forward, whom was particularly successful on NYR penalty kills.
Carl Hagelin:
The only remaining Restricted Free Agent we have not talked about yet. Hagelin has the right of salary arbitration, and like Stepan, only two summers away from Unrestricted Free Agency. His qualifying offer is $2.4 million.
What’s his value?
If Hagelin goes to arbitration, the most recent (and very logical) comparable to examine is that of Vladimir Sobotka, and his 1-year arbitration result which found he was “worth” $2.725 million. How similar is Sobotka last summer to Hagelin THIS summer? Let’s take a look…
Prev 2 Seasons Avg/Gp: .16 G, .32 A, .48 P … ~16:10/gp
CURRENT:
HAGELIN (Age 27)
NHL Career: 266 games, 130 points (58-72-130)… 15:38/gp
NHL Career Avg/Gp: .22 G, .27 A, .49 P
Prev 2 Seasons: 154 games, (34-34-68)… ~15:20/gp
Prev 2 Seasons Avg: .22 g-.22a - .44 p
In addition to the nearly identical age (Sobotka was 1 month younger than Hagelin is now when he went to arbitration), nearly identical stats, and nearly identical role on respective teams… It seems to be a very fitting comparable for Hagelin’s camp to gauge his value. Perhaps this very article will come up in the arbitration hearing?
... A lonely, disheartened blogger can dream, can't he??...
All-in-all, Sobotka was awarded roughly 4% of the incoming 2014-14 salary cap ($69 million). Should Hagelin’s 1-year arbitration award mirror a 4% figure, then we can projected Hagelin’s value at about 1-year $2.85 million if the salary cap is $71.5 million.
Is Carlos worth $2.85 million to speed the flank on Broadway’s 3rd line? Perhaps, or perhaps not. It certainly wouldn’t be an “unfair” sum for either player nor team, yet if the Rangers are destined to have to cut salary by October, this is one of the likeliest candidates to be traded away.
It’s probably 50-50 on Hagelin returning next year or ending up with another NHL club. The only reason he wouldn’t return would be salary cap reasoning, as he’s proven to be a fine 3rd line speedster, particularly pivotal on a team which has won so many games with more speed than sizzle.
But most importantly: if you dump Hagelin, you need to replace his top-tier penalty killing minutes and abilities.
Chris Kreider, Kevin Hayes, Tanner Glass & Dominic Moore:
All four of those skaters are under contract for the 2015-16 season, all of which have relatively minor salary cap hits. There’s no reason to think any of them will depart the team this summer. Even in the art of cutting salary to stay below the cap, this quartet totals a very modest collective cap hit of only $6,325,000. That’s not bad for one-third of the Top-20’s stock of forwards.
Actually… it wouldn’t be the craziest thing if Glass was traded, and a minimum-wage 4th liner was signed off the market to replace his spot. It could save the Rangers up to $875,000 in cap relief. But like I say, it’s unlikely any of these forwards are exiled for salary cap reasons, unless a very interesting trade in orchestrated in the coming months.
Cam Talbot:
Unfortunately for Cam fans, it seems he is the prime candidate for being traded this summer. If there’s a place to start cutting salary, it’s the backup goalie making $1.45 million next season. That, coupled with Talbot’s brilliant play the past few seasons, should make him very attractive to NHL teams fielding starting goalie auditions.
If Broadway trades Talbot, and then signs a veteran backup goalie to a 1-year $575,000 contract (perhaps with a few hundred thousand more in performance bonuses)… That’s a cap hit saving of $875,000. It’s also the “easiest” way to cut salary, since ~ barring another long-term injury to Lundqvist~ it will only influence 20-25 games in the regular season… and (hopefully) none in the 2016 playoffs.
The biggest NHL shoppers expected to utilize this summer’s goalie market are likely Buffalo, Calgary, Edmonton, Minnesota & San Jose.
I think it can be argued successfully that Talbot’s inherent value for the 2015-16 Rangers is not what he can do as the backup goalie, but what assets can he help return for the team in aspects other than goaltending. I would even go as far to say Talbot is very unlikely going to remain a Ranger over the next 4 months.
Dan Boyle, Dan Girardi, Ryan McDonagh & Marc Staal:
These four defensemen are unlikely to be traded or bought out by New York this summer, and are all-but-guaranteed to remain on the roster for next season’s crusade. All for have No-Trade and/or No-Movement clauses in their respective contracts, and have been irrevocable investments on the blueline for New York. Unless somehow one of these men willingly waives his contract clauses in some unforeseen trade, which is highly improbable; all the fans calling for their roster removal has no basis for actually being considered possible.
Keith Yandle:
A mixed review of offensive contribution and defensive dullness, Yandle’s pricey acquisition proved to be ultimately unfruitful in the 2015 attempt at Stanley. But, he is on contract for one more year before hitting the Unrestricted Free Agent market, and continues to be 50% of his actual cap hit, with Don Maloney and the Arizona Coyotes footing the other 50% of the bill.
Trading Yandle? Possible, but his $2.625 million cap hit is extremely friendly. What 2nd or 3rd pair defensemen could he be replaced with for below cost? While it is “less impossible” for Yandle to be moved than any of Boyle/Girardi/McDonagh/Staal… I still think any of those 5 defensemen getting traded is a far cry from reality.
Which brings us to the 6th defensemen…
Kevin Klein:
Klein, a retrospectively absolute steal from the Nashville Predators in the straight-up exchange for Michael Del Zotto, has enjoyed 2 deep playoff runs in the 2 seasons he’s been Broadway bound. In fact this season the 30-year-old defenseman put up career-high stats in goals (9), assists (17) and points (26).
So why do I think it’s very likely he’s traded?
For a team pressed up against the salary cap, like the Rangers will be this summer, a 3rd pair defenseman making $2.9 million/year is an easy place to cut. The fact that he enjoyed a career year (despite missing 17 games with a broken arm) only makes his trade value that much more enticing.
Like Talbot, his expandability in terms of salary vs “minor” playing time, coupled with his perky trade value after a successful season… spells out the perfect storm to be traded as the Blueshirts scramble to get under $72 million by October 1st.
Klein does not have any no-trade or no-movement clauses, meaning he is powerless to stop any trade he might be packaged within. And certain teams hungry for fair-value reliable-defensemen would certainly be willing to talk trade with Sather.
The fact that he has 3 more years under his contract makes his trade value all the more genuine. It strikes me as “highly likely” both Talbot and Klein are banished from Broadway to reduce the overall budget. I am NOT suggesting they be traded because of “poor performance” or “dislikability.” Quite the opposite, actually, which is what makes them all the more tradable.
Yes, Sather COULD trade Stepan or Hagelin to dump salary… but both of those players only has 1 season to play before becoming an Unrestricted Free Agent. Even if a team fully intends to acquire one of the two, and sign them to a long-term deal… all the player has to do is go to arbitration, reject all offers, and find himself in the 2016 July marketplace.
Klein’s got 3 years. That means even though Stepan and Hagelin are probably more “valuable” pieces to a team… Klein’s guaranteed service at a guaranteed price makes him the most convenient and effective trade asset. Particularly teams where quality defensemen are at a low.
And finally, the rest of the best…
Oscar Lindberg:
Having finished his 2nd professional season in North America, including a “breakout” season and playoff run with the Hartford Wolf Pack the past 9 months… Lindberg’s candidacy for a 2015-16 roster spot remains a very possible one. The Swedish centerman played his first and only NHL game earlier this season.
He will be a Restricted Free Agent without arbitration rights, so it’s a safe bet the 23-year-old will be re-signed for something around his $709,000 qualifying offer.
Carl Klingberg:
The minor-league winger acquired from Winnipeg in the Lee Stempniak deadline deal… Klingberg fit in nicely, playing with Lindberg’s line successfully. He notched 11 points in his only 13 AHL games with Hartford, and delivered 7 points in 13 postseason games before the Wolf Pack was swept in their Conference Finals.
He will be a Restricted Free Agent without arbitration rights, and like Lindberg, will likely be re-signed for something very near his qualifying offer ($683,000), and given every opportunity to make a roster spot in the NHL come September’s training camp.
Matt Hunwick, Conor Allen, Dylan McIlrath, Mike Kostka:
All four defensemen will have expiring contracts in July. Hunwick managed to separate himself from the other 3 in terms of a bonafide “7th” defensemen throughout the season… yet none of these players were given much of a chance unless a rash of injuries made it so. I don’t believe these will be Rangers blue liners in the coming years (although Hunwick re-signing a low contact to return as the 7th D isn’t exactly “unlikely”, either).
Defenseman Prospects - Future Value:
Brady Skjei
As stated earlier in the article, the Rangers were depleted of defensemen ready to step in and relieve others’ injuries. I’d focus more attention on the crop of younger blueliners New York has brewing in the farm systems.
Is it not a fair conclusion to figure that the need to acquire bluechip bullion prospects over the next 12 months is an extremely logical one? Once Boyle and Yandle are gone, the 3rd pair will need cheap fill-ins. That means scourging the market for more “Matt Hunwicks”, “Steve Emingers” & “Matt Gilroys.” Or… perhaps like the case of Girardi, McDonagh & Staal… have a young, cheaply-contracted prospect organically transition into the big leagues on the 3rd pair.
So, to answer, who or what would we trade Klein & Talbot for?
Klein+Talbot+McIlrath for San Jose’s #9 overall pick?
Klein+Talbot+McIlrath for Calgary’s #15 overall pick?
Klein+Talbot+McIlrath for Edmonton’s #16 overall pick?
A deal like this, is it so far-fetched? It could be a great way to add another quality defenseman prospect to our farm system, and hope the pick could be NHL-ready in 16 - 18 months?
Or, another means could be raiding the free agent out-of-college market, as the Rangers have aggressively done in recent years without a 1st round draft pick. Girardi, Hayes & Talbot all broke onto the Rangers with this method (as well as AHL’ers Conor Allen, Mat Bodie, & Ryan Haggerty).
Mike Reilly, a left-handed defenseman out of University of Minnesota, is coming off his 3rd season in the NCAA. The 22-year-old scored 6 goals & 36 assists in 39 games. While drafted by Columbus in 2011 (4th round), if he does not sign a deal with them by August 15, he will be on the completely open market, in the same fashion Kevin Hayes was.
I count two dozen NCAA skaters drafted in 2011, still without a contract, who could also be totally on the open market this summer. It seems all but certain that the Rangers will pursue at least a few, depending on their scouting consensus.
As of now, Brady Skjei seems the likeliest prospect to contend for an NHL roster spot come training camp. By the training camp after that, it’d be nice to have 2-3 more candidates to fill the Boyle/Yandle void, almost assuredly coming.
Unless the Rangers will tap into a hot pool of premium defensive prospects, this next season could be the “deepest” Top-6 unit the team will have for the foreseeable future.
Conclusion:
The Rangers will not be shoppers on the market this summer. The Rangers actually won’t have too many decisions at hand, as most of the roster is essentially already set up for the 2015-16 season. The only kinks are a few restricted free agent details as far as length & pay, as well as the inevitable need to dump a few million in salary (I still think it’s overwhelmingly Klein+Talbot). But that’s it.
This team had a good run. They played well, were coached well… the problem is they didn’t have an actual "well.” The top-heaviness of the Top-20 roster spots’ salary should be shaved off… and will be, as far as I can tell… but what really kept New York out of the Finals was a lack of depth. A lack of talented prospects bursting at the seems who could be asked to step in and play minutes.
… And that problem will only be exacerbated come a year from now, when the franchise will truly need to have defensemen with cheap contracts but not cheap playing ability. Look for the Rangers to at least draft a defenseman with their 2nd round, #59 overall pick.
There’s no reason why the 2015-16 Rangers should be any less competitive, competent or capable than their predecessor… considering it will likely be a near duplicate of its predecessor… and one more crack at a playoff run before Lundqvist’s 35th birthday.
The “window” may be closing, but it should remain at least cracked open, for one more season.
P.S.: I did not discuss Martin St. Louis because he is just as likely to return to New York as any of the other 2015 Unrestricted Free Agent wingers or defensemen out there. I don't think any of us will be surprised if he did not return to Broadway for next season...
And if not, we undoubtedly thank him for his tremendous service and dedication to the Rangers lineup the past 15 months. It will never be forgotten, despite no championship glory.
