Darren Dreger tweeted the following yesterday:
"I’m told that there was a team that offered two second round picks for Cam Talbot and that didn’t close the deal."
Immediately that set off speculation as to who made the offer. We had discussed last week who was rumored to be interested in Talbot and who had multiple picks in the second round. That list is:
Edmonton: 1, 16, 33, 57, 79, 86
Buffalo: 2, 21, 31, 51
Calgary: 15, 42, 52, 53, 76, 83
Speculation immediately centered Calgary as the team that made the offer, Karri Ramo is a free agent and the Flames are rumored to be the market for a goalie. GM Glen Sather is likely looking at the free agent goalie or trade market, seeing Devan Dubynk, who will be a pricey, and Antti Niemi, likely expecting a healthy contact, as well as Eddie Lack and thinks he has the most cost effective option that's out there. Of course, that has to be balanced with Talbot only be signed for this year and slated to be a UFA, which lowers that value to an extent.
Personally, if Calgary had offered 42 and 52 or 52 and 52, I likely would have taken it. Same if Buffalo offered 31 and 51. But Sather has to be thinking that somehow he can extract 15 Sent from my iPad
It's pretty much a foregone conclusion that Talbot will be dealt, which we discussed recently. The only question is where and for what. Sather is playing a game of chicken expected one of those teams to blink and up their offer, cognizant that others have interest. From what we have see from Sather on prior deals, don't be surprised if he comes out a winner here as well.
NHL cap set: Lower Limit of $52.8 million, Upper Limit of $71.4 million
Looking at the upper limit, one might initially be disappointed. But given what we heard the past few months, as to how the weak Canadian would adversely impact the cap, seeing the rise to $71.4 is better than expected to news. It's at least 400k above where we thought it might land and resulted from the NHLPA exercising the 5% escrow on the deal. Of course, the doom and gloom for the future, where the indication is that the cap could fall next year, must be factored in when offering deals, for RFAs and UFAs, so this is where forethought and prudence has to come in to the process.
Larry Brooks tweeted yesterday at that the #NYR are at $59.525 without RFA's Stepan, Hagelin, Miller, Fast; UFA's St. Louis, Hunwick, Sheppard.
This means that the Rangers have just under $12 million available. Miller and Fast will be back, unless some team offers them a deal which is way too rich for the Rangers blood. Unless Tanner Glass is traded, as there are teams that value what he brings, but the two years remaining at $1.4 mil per makes that unlikely, Sheppard is gone. The same can probably said for MSL, unless he takes a mil for a year with some incentives, though I don't see that happening. If both walk, that frees up room for Oscar Lindberg to make the team. Hunwick most probably will be re-signed at a slight raise from last year, but I could see a team overpaying for him, even though he is a 6/7 d-man.
Stepan will be signed to a long term deal, unless like Miller and Fast, some offers a ridiculous deal, figure $7 mil per, that makes it untenable for the team to match. My guesstimate, and will go more into this in a separate blog as it's one of the 20+ questions, is that he gets a deal similar to what Brassard got. There has been some bashing of Stepan on Twitter and views that he should be traded to clear room, but I strongly disagree with that thought.
Hagelin is the one that seems to be the most complicated. We know what he is, a solid penalty killer, third line forward with speed, who will get 17-22 goals and score 35-40 points. The question is what is that worth, especially with the cap projected to possibly fall next year and rising less than what was projected two years ago? Can you pay $3.5-$4 mil for that? It may be a 'luxury' New York can't afford, especially if Lindberg can replace some of that.
The other trade chip, besides Talbot, is Kevin Klein. I don't believe he is overpaid, as was written by others, at $2.9 mil for the next three years. A RH shot who can play second line at that salary point and years is still reasonable despite his struggles after the injury. But dealing him and Talbot frees up $4.35 mil that can be used elsewhere. Especially if Brady Skjei or Dylan McIlrath is viewed as ready and Hunwick is brought back. However, that would result in a downgrade of the defense, further impacted by Dan Boyle being a year older and seeing how he struggled during the regular season last year, despite his improved play in the playoffs.
Bob McKenzie tweeted the following last night: Pending B of G approval, NHL will go to 3-on-3 overtime for 5 minutes in regular season games next season.... NHLPA was adamantly opposed to AHL-tested model (4 mins of 4 on 4 and 3 mins of 3 on 3) so NHL choice was no change at all or 3 on 3 for 5.
We have gone from one gimmick, 4-on-4 and then shootout to a second one with now using 3-on-3 plus a shootout. All in the notion to have a conclusion, which the viewing public likes and a way to try and increase scoring. A bit surprised that a possible extra two minutes of play, if they use four minutes at 4-on-4 and then 3 minutes at 3-on-3, was such an issue for the NHLPA, resulting in the use of five minutes at 3-on-3.
The bigger issue to me, and I said this before, is the point system that is used. It's still too easy to play for the shootout and know you have a point locked in. I am surprised that the Board of Governors did not discuss a 3-2-1 approach or something to further reward winning in regulation or in the overtime rather than in the shootout. If it's close late in game, too often teams will just play for the OT or SO. The ROW isn't sufficient enough to drive teams to avoid playing for the extra session. Yes, there is the extra point from a win in regulation while the loser gets nothing, but as I said above, too often teams will just pull in the reigns and make sure they get the point. This needs to be fixed next year to avoid the participation award of the point for getting to overtime or a shootout.
What should be interesting from the change is how do teams play it. Do they go two forwards and a defenseman? Do they play one forward and two D? What about using three forwards? Will coaches put out fully offensive minded players, a balance of O and D or go with those who are a bit more defensive minded, especially late in the OT?
Also, how will this impact player negotiations. Let's use a player like Hagelin as an example. He finished short of 20 goals. But his speed is an asset on 3-on-3 in overtime. If he plays a lot in overtime and gets three goals, he then becomes a 20 goal scorer. Besides the three goals being discounted in our minds and impacts the career totals, how will teams and agents treat them? Is the player viewed as a true 20 goal scorer or are his totals augmented by a gimmick and that's how teams will argue in negotiations? Something to think about as this plays out.
New York Rangers Blogger • 
Join the Discussion:
»