The Hunt for the Veteran Defenseman

It is no surprise that the Rangers are in the hunt for a veteran defenseman. The defense has been inconsistent at best, and there are many gaping holes, particularly a blue liner that hits on a regular basis. General Manager Glen Sather is looking at low risk, high reward type players to help fill this gap. To be more specific, Sather is looking for a player that won’t cost a high-end prospect/pick, and will be a UFA at the end of the year. Unfortunately, that is what everyone and their mother wants.

But the real question here is this: Who sits when that new defenseman arrives? Of the most notable players available (Garnet Exelby, Christoph Schubert, Denis Seidenberg), none are seventh defensemen. Each of them is capable of playing top-six minutes, and none will want to sit in the press box, keeping Donald Brashear and either Aaron Voros or Enver Lisin company.

The player every Rangers fan wants to sit is Wade Redden. Redden barely plays 15 minutes a game, and it is mostly due to the fact that he simply cannot skate with the above average players anymore. But this raises another question: Does Rangers brass have enough balls to sit Redden continuously? If not, then the most likely candidate to get the axe will be Matt Gilroy. Here’s why. (Update 12:15pm: This is strictly from a business standpoint, not stats/results.)

Matt Gilroy has not played 60 games this season, he has played 54. Matt Gilroy can be optioned to Hartford without passing through waivers or re-entry waivers, because he has not reached teh the 60 game threshold. Dumping Matt Gilroy in Hartford also clears enough cap space to take on a more expensive contract. It will also give the Rangers some additional time to evaluate how the new acquisition adjusts to his new team. If he can’t adjust, then Gilroy is simply recalled and inserted back into the lineup, with zero repercussions.

Some may not like this thinking, some will. The bottom line is that if the Rangers do not want to sit Redden, then Gilroy is the most likely candidate to go. Sometimes, it’s not about who is playing the worst, but who is the safest to get to Hartford.

Sather On Thin Ice? Doubtful

GM Glen Sather’s relationship with the New York Rangers fans has been rocky at best. His free agent signings in the post-lockout era have been questionable at best. His one saving grace is his ability to make great trades, dealing from spare parts or strengths in an attempt to fill holes and make the team better. There are some fans that absolutely hate him, and want him gone yesterday. There are others, like myself, who believe that he is doing a better job than most realize, but a few signings really overshadow some of his other, more shrewd moves.

In a recent column by E.J. Hradek (ESPN Insider, sorry), Hradek says there are grumblings that Sather might step aside as GM, assume his role as President, and give the GM reins to Mark Messier.

To this, I say bull. There are essentially two problems with these “rumors”. First, Sather is not “stepping down” or being asked to “move aside” any time soon. He has been given the greatest job security in the world, and would probably have to kill someone in the Dolan family to be removed from his post. Second, Messier better not be the new GM so soon. Yes, he is being groomed for the job, but there is absolutely no way that he is ready to take these reins for next season. To become a successful GM, you need years (note: plural) of experience. I would not feel comfortable with Messier at the helm.

Until it actually happens, I will never believe that Sather is going to retire, step down, get fired, etc. I’m actually thoroughly convinced he is a robot, and I will never see another GM of the Rangers as long as I live.

Food for Thought: Buying Out Kotalik

When Glen Sather signed Ales Kotalik over the summer to a three year deal at $3 million per season, I cringed. I was really hoping for one more year of Nik Zherdev, I think his presence this year would have really helped the Rangers. Alas, we were stuck with Kotalik, and now we have $3 million sitting in the Prucha Box.

Just for fun, I ran the numbers for buying out Kotalik at the end of the season, and the numbers themselves aren’t too terrible. Due to the structure of Kotalik’s contract ($3 million a year), the buyout numbers don’t vary from year to year the way they would with a buyout of Michal Rozsival. If Glen Sather decides to buy out Kotalik at the end of this season, the resulting cap hit will be just $1 million for the next four seasons. The Rangers would save $2 million in cap room for the next two seasons, and then have an extra $1 million cap hit for the following two seasons.

If Kotalik can’t find a way to claw his way into the lineup on a consistent basis, what’s the point of having his $3 million on the books? I’d rather it just be $1 million. But hey, I’m biased, I never liked Kotalik.

More Waive Redden Rumors

This past June, Bruce Garrioch wrote that the Rangers were considering waiving Wade Redden. I wrote a quick post on it, but nothing ever came from it. We still have to deal with $6.5 million to play for 14 minutes a game. It is what is.

In his January 10 article, Garrioch (Malkin to the Kings!) mentions that the Rangers are intensifying their talks of waiving the troubled defenseman:

There has been talk the Rangers are going to place D Wade Redden on waivers and then send him to the their AHL affiliate in Hartford. There is nothing to stop the Rangers from doing that because Redden has a limited no-trade clause, but he doesn’t have a restrictive no-movement clause. Signed to a six-year, $39-million deal on July 1, 2007, the Rangers have tried to deal Redden, but haven’t been able to find any takers. Even if New York GM Glen Sather did want to deal Redden, he’d have to get a list from the defenceman of eight teams where he doesn’t want to go.

Garrioch is correct in all his details. Redden has a limited no-trade clause, not a no-movement clause. A NTC does not protect Redden from being waived. Should the Rangers waive Redden and call up Ilkka Heikkinen, then they would be adding approximately $3 million in prorated cap room until the end of the season, not to mention the $6.5 million saved for the upcoming years. I am still unsure what the ramifications are of buying out a player signed to a one-way deal playing in the AHL. I am assuming it is the same as a regular NHL buyout (if someone has any insight to this, please clarify). But, if the Rangers can buy out Redden with no cap penalty if he is in the AHL, then that would be the next logical move.

Yes, Garrioch reports on everything. Keep in mind that talks like these, including any trade rumors, always happen. GMs talk to each other. They check in on each other and available players. If 5% of anything talked about between GMs becomes finalized, then I’ll run naked through MSG (calm down ladies). However, the fact that this is now being reported twice, in two different seasons (off-season, regular season) adds a little bit of value to me. If the Rangers are seriously considering waiving Redden, then now would be the time to do it. Every day he sits on the roster, he is eating up precious cap space for the deadline.

Six Degrees of Chad Johnson

In what was a depth move that flew under the radar for everyone, the Rangers traded a 5th round pick to Pittsburgh for now backup goalie Chad Johnson. Well, the Rangers had 3 5th round picks in the 2009 draft, and the pick that went to Pittsburgh in exchange for Johnson was the last pick in the round.

Where did the Rangers get that pick? Well, it was given to the Rangers in exchange for Ryan Hollweg. That is correct folks, the Rangers turned Ryan Hollweg into Chad Johnson.

A winger with no place on the team for a good backup goalie? Not too shabby.

Buy or Sell: Tough Decision Looms for Sather

After last night’s victory (HIGGINS!), the Rangers sit seventh in the conference with 45 points (20-17-5), and a plethora of teams that are very, very close in that rear view mirror. With just three days in between the end of the Olympic roster freeze and the trade deadline, it is very likely that we will see a few trades occur before the Olympcs in Vancouver. GM Glen Sather has a very tough decision that he has to face; are the Rangers good enough that adding a few extra pieces can increase their chances of advancing in the playoffs?

For four years, we have seen Ranger teams fair no better than one-and-done, sometimes even none-and-done. Sacrificing youth and picks just to get the team to the playoffs is not going to cut it this time around. We expect the Rangers to advance in the playoffs, or build towards a team that will advance through the playoffs.

What exactly is the sign of a team that is ready to make a big push to not only solidify a spot in the post-season, but win a couple of rounds as well? Would another seven-game win streak do it? Maybe. Personally, I think a consistently strong performance over the next month means more than a poorly played win streak. Despite the fact that the Rangers are 6-1-2 over the past nine games, that Philly clunker really sticks out in everyone’s minds, especially when you see that of those six wins, only one was against current playoff teams (Boston). The Rangers are simply making the best out of a stretch of games that they needed to dominate. The next four games (Dallas, Atlanta, Boston, NJ) are the games that will really show if the Rangers belong in the playoffs.

Should the Rangers win convincingly –meaning they play a solid, two-way, consistent game– during that four game streak, they I think most of us will be OK with selling off some non-essential youth to try and fill a hole. Should they play like they did against Philly, then we should expect Rangers brass to sell off some contracts and get a few extra draft picks for what is looking like a strong draft. There will be takers for Chris Higgins and Vinny Prospal, and maybe some takers for some of the “tough guys” as well.

The worst thing the Rangers can do is continue with the inconsistent play that has plagued this team from the start. It will not help Slats make the necessary decisions he needs to make to make this team better, either for the current or the future.

Where Sather Went Wrong: Extending Rozsival

Part One.
Part Two.

This is now the third part of a the decisions of General Manager Glen Sather. Sather has come under some real heat lately, as the Rangers are in what appears to be a free fall, and have no cap room to make any adjustments. The highest paid players on the Rangers have been, to be delicate, disappointing. Sather’s strength during his tenure with the Rangers has been his ability to make trades, but this does not overshadow his weakness of evaluating the market and making the best decision for the team. In this series, I will analyze where Sather went wrong, and where he lost the fans.

In this third installment, we again look at the 2008 offseason. The Rangers found themselves with just four defensemen, and three big names in free agency coming their way. Having just spent a combined $14 million on Scott Gomez and Chris Drury the previous season, the Rangers could only afford one of the big name free agents, while attempting to retain others who were free agents. Of course, the Rangers signed Wade Redden and Dmitri Kalinin, re-upped Paul Mara, and then traded Fedor Tyutin and Christian Backman for Nikolai Zherdev. Perhaps the deal that made the most noise, other than Redden’s signing, was the extension given to Michal Rozsival; a four-year deal worth $20 million.

The Rangers had their fair share of large contracts before Rozsival re-upped with the Rangers. They had the aforementioned Gomez/Drury contracts, and now the Redden contract. In three players, the Rangers had committed more than $20 million. They also had to resign Henrik Lundqvist, who gave the team a break and allowed them to deal with the salary cap woes prior to signing his long term deal. Rozsival was a key cog in the Rangers defense during his stay in New York, and deserved to be resigned. Insert Glen Sather, and his inability to appropriately read the market, and Rozsival now sits with a $5 million cap hit, more than double his previous contract.

This move was, in short, a disaster. For $5 million, the Rangers got a regressing Rozsival who has yet to find his game after his hip surgery. After a career year in which he anchored the powerplay, he became shot-shy, and rarely put the puck on net. Instead, he deferred to the larger contracts of Gomez and Drury to create. He stopped hitting people, and forwards just started skating by him, untouched.

Meanwhile, the current Rangers defense, already with Redden’s abysmal contract, became one of the softest in the league. A more appropriate contract for Rozsival, say three years $10 million, and the Rangers find themselves with more wiggle room, and maybe the ability to trade Rozsival to fill the hole of physical defenseman.

Chalk up this signing to poor timing and a regressing player. Had the Rangers not already committed $6.5 million a year to Redden, this signing would be easier to swallow. As it stands now, both signings are terrible, but Rozsival has become a black hole on defense, and prone to epic turnovers that have cost games.

Luckily for the Rangers, buying out Rozsival is a feasible option (If you haven’t checked out that post, you should, it took me forever to write). It’s not the prettiest of solutions, like the Gomez trade, but it gets the job done.

Why You Can’t Trust NHL ‘10

A few days ago, I wrote a post on the common misconception about dealing monstrous contracts. Well, there is something to add on to this, and that is the trade offers you can make in video games. Some believe that these are a simulation of real life. To that, I give you the trade the computer offered me during the offseason:

To NYR:
Joe Thornton
Manny Malholtra

To SJ:
Wade Redden
Matt Gilroy
P.A. Parenteau

I rest my case.

A Common Misconception

As a fan of the business of hockey, in particular when it comes to trades, I find myself perusing the HFBoards fairly regularly. I love reading trade offers thought up by people not in the “know”. Some are well thought out, but most are completely asinine. Regardless, it’s still fun for me to read through them.

One thing I have noticed is that everyone is under the impression that in order to dump a bad contract, you have to give up prospects and picks in return. I believe this notion was made popular by Brian Burke, who has stated that he will take on salary dumps if top picks/prospects are included. Last time I checked, Burke hasn’t made any salary dump acquisitions. As a matter of fact, I can’t remember any trades made that were clear salary dumps in which high draft picks were sent as well.

The one acquisition, that was a clear salary dump, that sticks out in my mind is the Scott Gomez trade. For those who need a refresher, the Rangers sent Gomez, Tom Pyatt and Michael Busto to Montreal for Christopher Higgins, Ryan McDonagh, Pavel Valentenko, and Doug Janik. The Rangers didn’t send one of their top 30 prospects over to Montreal, but yet acquired a 1st round pick and blue chip prospect in McDonagh. The Rangers held on to all of their draft picks for 2010 as well.

So if you think the Rangers will have to part with a top prospect to rid themselves of the Wade Redden or Michal Rozsival contracts, you are sadly mistaken. The same goes for Chris Drury. Of course, teams are going to have to actually want these players before a trade can be made.

Buying Out Michal Rozsival

To say that the Rangers have had trouble on defense is an understatement. They have been terrible, and the worst culprit of them all has been Michal Rozsival. He has been flat out horrible, getting caught out of position on a shift-by-shift basis. Many, including myself, thought that Rozsival would have a good year this year in an offense-first system. Instead, he has regressed even further.

The Rangers won’t be trading or waiving Rozsival any time soon. He is impossible to trade with that contract, and waiving provides too many risks. It looks like for this year, the Rangers are stuck with him. One remaining option, that unfortunately cannot be exercised until after the 2010 playoffs conclude, is buying him out.

For those who may be unfamiliar with how the buyout works, you can find an explanation here on BSB. In short, a buyout lets a team sever ties with a player for 2/3 of their remaining salary (not the cap hit) over twice the remaining years on the contract. The math is also explained in the link.

With the salary cap expected to drop after this season, and the Rangers already at the cap limit for this year, they will need to find cap room for raises to Marc Staal, and possibly Dan Girardi. Assuming the Rangers let Chris Higgins go, but decide to retain Vinny Prospal, there isn’t much wiggle room left.

Thus comes the intriguing option of buying out Michal Rozsival and his $5 million cap hit. If the Rangers were to buy him out at the end of this season, the cap hit for each of the following four seasons would be as follows:

• 2010-2011: $2.16 million
• 2011-2012: $3.16 million
• 2012-2013: $1.16 million
• 2013-2014: $1.16 million

The Rangers would save roughly $3 million in cap room for the 2010-2011 season, which is more than enough to keep their RFAs in town, and may leave for some wiggle room at the deadline to improve the team if need be. The interesting part here is that the savings for the Rangers actually decreases for each subsequent year. This is due to Rozsival’s contract structure.

A buyout is calculated based on the savings in salary versus the cap hit. Since Rozsival is set to earn $4 million in 2010-2011 and $3 million in 2011-2012, the Rangers’ savings actually decreases, thus the cap hit increases. The final two years ($1.16 million) compensate for the “twice the remaining years”, meaning that although Rozsival’s contract would expire at the end of the 2011-2012 season, the buyout would add two extra years of cap hits to the Rangers.

Is it worth it for the Rangers to buy out Rozsival? The quick answer is obviously yes, and the long term answer is yes as well. The Rangers will need that $3 million for raises, and maybe to add a bruiser to a blue line that sorely needs one. But, when considering these options, one needs to look long term as well. The economy is slowly recovering, meaning ticket sales will be on the rise. The salary cap is tied to revenue, so as sales go up, revenues go up, and the salary cap goes up.

Looking ahead to the $3.16 million cap hit the Rangers will have to endure for the 2011-2012 season, the extra $2 million saved can go to potentially resign Matt Gilroy and Bobby Sanguinetti. It is unlikely that either will command a large raise on their current salaries. But, the other notables that will be resigned, and need to be resigned, are Ryan Callahan, Brandon Dubinsky, and Artem Anisimov. All three will be due raises, either through arbitration or just a raise from an entry-level contract. While the $2 million is not a huge savings initially, you add that to the $2.4 coming off the books in the form of Aaron Voros and Donald Brashear, and suddenly, the five players can each get an average raise of $800,000. Couple this with an increasing salary cap, and there shouldn’t be an issue in resigning these players.

The extra two years are where things get really interesting. The Rangers will be on the hook for $1.16 million in salary that was not expected to be there. However, the Rangers have a whopping $12 million coming off the books (Chris Drury, Sean Avery, Ales Kotalik). The two biggest names to be resigned are Evgeny Grachev and Michael Del Zotto, which will be done. The slightly disturbing part is that for each of these two years, the Rangers have just three players signed, to the tune of $20.875 million. There will have to be some savvy maneuvering to get a decent team on the ice.

A buyout seems to be the most logical choice for the Rangers when it comes to the Michal Rozsival situation. It makes sense for the betterment of the team, it makes sense financially, and it makes sense with the fans. Of course, the question of it actually being done though, is a whole other topic.