Rangers Acquire Andrew Copp From WPG for Morgan Barron and Two 2nd-Round Picks

[Phil]

20 minutes ago, RangersIn7 said:

That I agree with. I’ll admit I expected more from him by now, but the factors involved have been way less than favorable, plus there’s also the ice time and lack of PP time too, and he hasn’t for the most part, played with the most talented of line mates.

 

We will see what happens with him moving forward, but it’s still very early in the game, there’s been progress, so I’m still very optimistic and confident that it will work out.

 

I mean, I guess, but I'd argue that ice time is earned based on level of play, so it's not so much that he wasn't given the opportunity, but that he showed so little that he didn't deserve it. Same on PP. You don't put unproductive players on the PP. You put productive ones there. You have to show something at 5v5 in order to suggest to the coach that you'd be of more value with the man advantage.

 

But this has been a perception issue forever. Not just with you, but the two camps largely, where one sees most everything through the lens of "didn't get opportunity," and the other sees it through "didn't earn it." I'm firmly in the latter camp. It's why I'm not crying about Lundkvist — who I had high hopes for, too — being in the AHL.

 

Quote

On Scheifele, it may in fact be fantasyland. Only time will tell on him and what Winnipeg does. But just looking at the facts.

 

They’ve clearly taken a step back from where they were a few years ago. Roster depth and quality isn’t what it was. They’re getting older. And Scheifele just turned 29. He’ll be 31 by the end of this deal. As the article stated, they’re coming to decision time on him. And given their current trajectory, it just seems to make more sense to maybe move him, bring back “futures” for him, and try to rebuild around others. Connor, Ehlers, Morrissey, duBois if they keep him, Helleybuck, etc., are all young enough to where they can keep those guys around while they retool/rebuild. I don’t think they really want to give him a long-term extension at 31, nor do they want to lose him for nothing in 2024. Plus, the more term he has when dealt, more likely to get a better return.

 

Agreed.

[RangersIn7]

7 minutes ago, Phil said:

 

I mean, I guess, but I'd argue that ice time is earned based on level of play, so it's not so much that he wasn't given the opportunity, but that he showed so little that he didn't deserve it. Same on PP. You don't put unproductive players on the PP. You put productive ones there. You have to show something at 5v5 in order to suggest to the coach that you'd be of more value with the man advantage.

 

But this has been a perception issue forever. Not just with you, but the two camps largely, where one sees most everything through the lens of "didn't get opportunity," and the other sees it through "didn't earn it." I'm firmly in the latter camp. It's why I'm not crying about Lundkvist — who I had high hopes for, too — being in the AHL.

 

 

Agreed.

Yeah, as far as ice time goes with young, highly drafted players, it’s a slippery slope at times. Obviously coaches don’t want to gift ice time to a guy, especially if it’s at the expense of someone else. And you want to see a guy earn those minutes and if not, make the best of his opportunity if he’s playing less, or if he does get a bump up here and there. 
 

And I’m in no way saying he hasn’t gotten the opportunity, or that he deserves more, or anything like that. Just saying that sometimes, you have to say screw it, let me just run this guy out there, and whatever happens is what happens. But that’s hard to do when you’re a coach trying to win. It’s a hard balance. And you don’t want to force anything. 
 

They bumped LaFreniere up … 9 points in 14 games. 
 

But I get you. 

 

Personally, he might’ve seriously benefited from the AHL. But who knows. 

[Phil]

10 minutes ago, RangersIn7 said:

Yeah, as far as ice time goes with young, highly drafted players, it’s a slippery slope at times. Obviously coaches don’t want to gift ice time to a guy, especially if it’s at the expense of someone else. And you want to see a guy earn those minutes and if not, make the best of his opportunity if he’s playing less, or if he does get a bump up here and there. 
 

And I’m in no way saying he hasn’t gotten the opportunity, or that he deserves more, or anything like that. Just saying that sometimes, you have to say screw it, let me just run this guy out there, and whatever happens is what happens. But that’s hard to do when you’re a coach trying to win. It’s a hard balance. And you don’t want to force anything. 
 

They bumped LaFreniere up … 9 points in 14 games. 
 

But I get you. 

 

Personally, he might’ve seriously benefited from the AHL. But who knows. 

 

Absolutely, and it's part of the unique position the Rangers were in relative to other teams who tanked to earn top picks. Lafreniere they very much lucked into having already signed Kreider and Panarin long-term. It was always going to be tough to find him PP time and/or top-six minutes. Kakko had less in front of him. Only Buchnevich, and still largely failed to impress. There were rumors/reports that Panarin literally said he wanted to play with Blackwell instead of Kakko. That speaks volumes about how unimpressive he's been thus far.

 

I actually think in both their cases, the AHL would have been tremendously valuable in allowing them to get their feed under them playing against men without the pressure of the produce-or-bust atmosphere that surrounds top picks. It also would have been a helpful trend re-setting to allow teams to go back to not immediately placing top picks into the NHL as teenagers when they're not ready, more often than not.

[BrooksBurner]

16 minutes ago, Phil said:

 

Absolutely, and it's part of the unique position the Rangers were in relative to other teams who tanked to earn top picks. Lafreniere they very much lucked into having already signed Kreider and Panarin long-term. It was always going to be tough to find him PP time and/or top-six minutes. Kakko had less in front of him. Only Buchnevich, and still largely failed to impress. There were rumors/reports that Panarin literally said he wanted to play with Blackwell instead of Kakko. That speaks volumes about how unimpressive he's been thus far.

 

I actually think in both their cases, the AHL would have been tremendously valuable in allowing them to get their feed under them playing against men without the pressure of the produce-or-bust atmosphere that surrounds top picks. It also would have been a helpful trend re-setting to allow teams to go back to not immediately placing top picks into the NHL as teenagers when they're not ready, more often than not.

Should we read too much into that? He likes Hunt too and Hunt is terrible when looking through a top 6 lens (and maybe any lens). With Kakko it could have been an age thing, personality thing, having a grunt worker thing, etc., unrelated to Kakko’s ability to play hockey. Even Vatrano lasted all of like 2 games. Panarin/Strome seem to have an affinity for “scrubs” on the right of them. I get the concept of why this might be the case, but when production slips from the two it sticks out like a sore thumb that there’s a blackhole of no offense on the right side.

[Phil]

Just now, rmc51 said:

Should we read too much into that? He likes Hunt too and Hunt is terrible when looking through a top 6 lens (and maybe any lens). With Kakko it could have been an age thing, personality thing, having a grunt worker thing, etc., unrelated to Kakko’s ability to play hockey. Even Vatrano lasted all of like 2 games. Panarin/Strome seem to have an affinity for “scrubs” on the right of them. I get the concept of why this might be the case, but when production slips from the two it sticks out like a sore thumb that there’s a blackhole of no offense on the right side.

 

Yes, because if you look at the players who've routinely flanked Panarin — Fast, Blackwell, and Hunt — it serves as an indictment of what Kakko isn't doing if Panarin is speaking up to request someone else who will. Again, given his billing, given all the highlight videos showing him dominant, in complete control of the puck, unable to be knocked off, owning the walls, it's very concerning that none of that translated so much so to the point that a star player asked that he be taken off his line.

[RangersIn7]

26 minutes ago, Phil said:

 

Yes, because if you look at the players who've routinely flanked Panarin — Fast, Blackwell, and Hunt — it serves as an indictment of what Kakko isn't doing if Panarin is speaking up to request someone else who will. Again, given his billing, given all the highlight videos showing him dominant, in complete control of the puck, unable to be knocked off, owning the walls, it's very concerning that none of that translated so much so to the point that a star player asked that he be taken off his line.

It’s A LOT more difficult to do that in the NHL, vs top tier NHL players, than it is Liiga. 

[BrooksBurner]

27 minutes ago, Phil said:

 

Yes, because if you look at the players who've routinely flanked Panarin — Fast, Blackwell, and Hunt — it serves as an indictment of what Kakko isn't doing if Panarin is speaking up to request someone else who will. Again, given his billing, given all the highlight videos showing him dominant, in complete control of the puck, unable to be knocked off, owning the walls, it's very concerning that none of that translated so much so to the point that a star player asked that he be taken off his line.

Yeah, but you could put Zibanejad there and he’s not going to do what those 3 grunts are/were doing. It’s not his game. Kakko isn’t that kind of player either. Why is this the only type of wing that seems to be to Panarin’s (and Strome’s?) liking? Seems to be a valid question that is unrelated to Kakko in particular.

[Phil]

3 minutes ago, RangersIn7 said:

It’s A LOT more difficult to do that in the NHL, vs top tier NHL players, than it is Liiga. 

 

Sure is. If only there were an alternative between continuing his career in Liiga and abjectly failing in the NHL.

[Phil]

Just now, rmc51 said:

Yeah, but you could put Zibanejad there and he’s not going to do what those 3 grunts are/were doing. It’s not his game. Kakko isn’t that kind of player either. Why is this the only type of wing that seems to be to Panarin’s (and Strome’s?) liking? Seems to be a valid question that is unrelated to Kakko in particular.

 

Because neither Panarin nor Strome are going to do that work themselves, or want to. Putting Zibanejad there might work against some teams, but it's a recipe for disaster when they go up against a buzz saw club like, say, the Flames, Canes, or others, who would physically abuse you for lacking that element.

[RangersIn7]

1 hour ago, Phil said:

 

Absolutely, and it's part of the unique position the Rangers were in relative to other teams who tanked to earn top picks. Lafreniere they very much lucked into having already signed Kreider and Panarin long-term. It was always going to be tough to find him PP time and/or top-six minutes. Kakko had less in front of him. Only Buchnevich, and still largely failed to impress. There were rumors/reports that Panarin literally said he wanted to play with Blackwell instead of Kakko. That speaks volumes about how unimpressive he's been thus far.

 

I actually think in both their cases, the AHL would have been tremendously valuable in allowing them to get their feed under them playing against men without the pressure of the produce-or-bust atmosphere that surrounds top picks. It also would have been a helpful trend re-setting to allow teams to go back to not immediately placing top picks into the NHL as teenagers when they're not ready, more often than not.

That’s a part of it too.

Its a pretty screwy blend of whiskey when you look at Kakko and the circumstances of his first 3 seasons. Pandemic nonsense. Interrupted season. Long lay off. Bubble playoffs. Then delayed start to abbreviated season. He gets COVID. Now the wrist. 
Plus, they win him in the lottery, cause they sucked. And they have this really nice year in 19-20, way earlier than anyone expected, and all of that. And we’re now going into 20 and they add LaFreniere out of nowhere. And now stuff gets really serious. 
 

But I will agree… despite all of that, his play has still been his play. Are there some significant improvements in some areas. Yes.

Is there more to be had there that we haven’t seen and are expecting. 
Totally.

Are we getting to a point to where he needs to start showing it. 
Absolutely we are.

 

 

[Phil]

2 minutes ago, RangersIn7 said:

That’s a part of it too.

Its a pretty screwy blend of whiskey when you look at Kakko and the circumstances of his first 3 seasons. Pandemic nonsense. Interrupted season. Long lay off. Bubble playoffs. Then delayed start to abbreviated season. He gets COVID. Now the wrist. 
Plus, they win him in the lottery, cause they sucked. And they have this really nice year in 19-20, way earlier than anyone expected, and all of that. And we’re now going into 20 and they add LaFreniere out of nowhere. And now stuff gets really serious. 
 

But I will agree… despite all of that, his play has still been his play. Are there some significant improvements in some areas. Yes.

Is there more to be had there that we haven’t seen and are expecting. 
Totally.

Are we getting to a point to where he needs to start showing it. 
Absolutely we are.

 

Yup, and I think we're in agreement, too — the Rangers have little choice but to keep holding out for hope. In both their cases.

[BrooksBurner]

12 minutes ago, Phil said:

 

Because neither Panarin nor Strome are going to do that work themselves, or want to. Putting Zibanejad there might work against some teams, but it's a recipe for disaster when they go up against a buzz saw club like, say, the Flames, Canes, or others, who would physically abuse you for lacking that element.

I agree. But the direction that points me in is that Panarin/Strome need to be broken up, rather than blaming every non-grunt player that gets paired with them. Otherwise we continue to cycle through career bottom 6ers/AHLers to play in the top 6.

[Phil]

Possibly, yeah.

 

Which brings us full-circle back to why we're going to see what we're going to see tonight: Panarin-Strome-Copp.

[Keirik]

You can’t trade Kakko. He’s exactly the low pay value bridge contract we are going to need. 
 

Kakko > Chytil so Chyil would be the one to go along with Nemeth if you wish to try and keep Copp and Strome. Plus a backup that costs no more than 1.5m max. You just have to hope for a team friendly deals which is going to be a bit tough. For all the lack of production Kakko has shown, it’s still more than with Chytil. At least Kakko has shown he can actually perform on the pp somewhat and considering he’s lined up to take a 2.5m bridge deal, I’d def keep him and kick the cam there for a 20 year old Kakko than a 22 year old Chytil. 

[RangersIn7]

11 minutes ago, Keirik said:

You can’t trade Kakko. He’s exactly the low pay value bridge contract we are going to need. 
 

Kakko > Chytil so Chyil would be the one to go along with Nemeth if you wish to try and keep Copp and Strome. Plus a backup that costs no more than 1.5m max. You just have to hope for a team friendly deals which is going to be a bit tough. For all the lack of production Kakko has shown, it’s still more than with Chytil. At least Kakko has shown he can actually perform on the pp somewhat and considering he’s lined up to take a 2.5m bridge deal, I’d def keep him and kick the cam there for a 20 year old Kakko than a 22 year old Chytil. 

And I think that’s what they’re doing, if the intent/plan is in fact to try to keep both Strome and Copp.

Chytil goes. You try to move Nemeth or another contract out to create a little more space. You lose Georgiev and create a little more space there. 

Also, they’ll be aided by $1 million bump in the cap. 
Hopefully you can get them to take a little less. 
 

If that’s actually possible, you do it.

And you bridge Kakko, which is the right move at this point, and just keep running him out there for another 2 years.

 

Philosophically, when you’re talking about a 1st round pick, and in particular, a top-tier 1st round pick, I’m very hard on the belief that you give that player an absolute minimum of 250-300 games before you make a decision on him.

Really hard to find success in any endeavor with a lack of patience. 
I want to really look at where he is at a year from now. 

 

 

[Keirik]

4 minutes ago, RangersIn7 said:

And I think that’s what they’re doing, if the intent/plan is in fact to try to keep both Strome and Copp.

Chytil goes. You try to move Nemeth or another contract out to create a little more space. You lose Georgiev and create a little more space there. 

Also, they’ll be aided by $1 million bump in the cap. 
Hopefully you can get them to take a little less. 
 

If that’s actually possible, you do it.

And you bridge Kakko, which is the right move at this point, and just keep running him out there for another 2 years.

 

Philosophically, when you’re talking about a 1st round pick, and in particular, a top-tier 1st round pick, I’m very hard on the belief that you give that player an absolute minimum of 250-300 games before you make a decision on him.

Really hard to find success in any endeavor with a lack of patience. 
I want to really look at where he is at a year from now. 

 

 

I don’t think trading Georgiev creates any more space than the 10m or so we currently have this coming offseason because he’s not under contract next year. Either way, whatever goalie thry have still eats into that space. It just has to be less than Geos 2.4m

 

As we both said, we create space by saying bye to Chytil and Nemeth.  That’s 4.8m more space but even that’s going to be very tough because you still need a backup, would need to replace Nemeth with a body, Strome, 3c, 4th line options with Rooney, Motte, Blais, plus need some cap room for performance bonuses that might have been hit by anyone….

 

 

   I know it was extremely unpopular but this is why I wanted to bridge Fox. Not with a real bridge, but at least a 6-7 million bridge that isn’t a slap in the face just because these couple of years now are pretty thin cap wise to upgrade.

[RangersIn7]

3 minutes ago, Keirik said:

I don’t think trading Georgiev creates any more space than the 10m or so we currently have this coming offseason because he’s not under contract next year. Either way, whatever goalie thry have still eats into that space. It just has to be less than Geos 2.4m

 

As we both said, we create space by saying bye to Chytil and Nemeth.  That’s 4.8m more space but even that’s going to be very tough because you still need a backup, would need to replace Nemeth with a body, Strome, 3c, 4th line options with Rooney, Motte, Blais, plus need some cap room for performance bonuses that might have been hit by anyone….

 

 

   I know it was extremely unpopular but this is why I wanted to bridge Fox. Not with a real bridge, but at least a 6-7 million bridge that isn’t a slap in the face just because these couple of years now are pretty thin cap wise to upgrade.

I’m not saying trade Georgiev. That ship has sailed. Maybe they move his rights in the summer and grab a 6-7th rounder, but that’s it.

What I’m saying is you create some savings and extra space there. Georgiev carries a cap hit of $2.425 million. He’s not getting qualified. So his $2.425 comes off the books. Then they find another backup for about half of that. And you save $1million plus. They’ve done it before. Finding and getting a backup that can do a passable job has not been any issue for them since Benoit Allaire was hired. 
 

They had to pay Fox. Period. 

[BrooksBurner]

29 minutes ago, Keirik said:

You can’t trade Kakko. He’s exactly the low pay value bridge contract we are going to need. 
 

Kakko > Chytil so Chyil would be the one to go along with Nemeth if you wish to try and keep Copp and Strome. Plus a backup that costs no more than 1.5m max. You just have to hope for a team friendly deals which is going to be a bit tough. For all the lack of production Kakko has shown, it’s still more than with Chytil. At least Kakko has shown he can actually perform on the pp somewhat and considering he’s lined up to take a 2.5m bridge deal, I’d def keep him and kick the cam there for a 20 year old Kakko than a 22 year old Chytil. 

Moving Chytil and Nemeth, and replacing with ELCs, isn’t enough cap freed up to get Strome and Copp both signed (using 5.5 and 4.5 aavs respectively, and those numbers might be hopeful on my part).
 

More needs to be trimmed (i.e., Blais goes, Motte not re-signed) and replaced with ELC or less. ELC or less backup G, 3LD, 7D, 12F, 13F. And you’re barely able to get cap compliant. Or…instead of gutting your team and depth, you trade a Kakko instead of having to give him $2.5-3M or whatever it might cost. Kakko’s value was derived from being on an ELC. That will no longer be the case. He’s not a value contract anymore. He will be overpaid as soon as the ink dries on a bridge contract that will almost certainly be higher than his production commands purely because of his draft position.

[Pete]

1 hour ago, Phil said:

 

Because neither Panarin nor Strome are going to do that work themselves, or want to. Putting Zibanejad there might work against some teams, but it's a recipe for disaster when they go up against a buzz saw club like, say, the Flames, Canes, or others, who would physically abuse you for lacking that element.

Yep. There is a reason Jagr wanted Dubinsky.

[RangersIn7]

32 minutes ago, Pete said:

Yep. There is a reason Jagr wanted Dubinsky.

Those 2 definitely need a guy who is going to bang and grind, be physical, do the work on the boards and corners and such for them. Neither of them are suited for that line of work so to speak. 
 

But also needs a bit of skill and scoring punch too. 

[Phil]

48 minutes ago, Pete said:

Yep. There is a reason Jagr wanted Dubinsky.

 

And why Hagelin played with Richards and Gaborik.

[RangersIn7]

3 minutes ago, Phil said:

 

And why Hagelin played with Richards and Gaborik.

A young Ryan Callahan would’ve been interesting with Strome and Panarin. 
 

Bread, Butter, and Jam. 

[Keirik]

2 hours ago, rmc51 said:

Moving Chytil and Nemeth, and replacing with ELCs, isn’t enough cap freed up to get Strome and Copp both signed (using 5.5 and 4.5 aavs respectively, and those numbers might be hopeful on my part).
 

More needs to be trimmed (i.e., Blais goes, Motte not re-signed) and replaced with ELC or less. ELC or less backup G, 3LD, 7D, 12F, 13F. And you’re barely able to get cap compliant. Or…instead of gutting your team and depth, you trade a Kakko instead of having to give him $2.5-3M or whatever it might cost. Kakko’s value was derived from being on an ELC. That will no longer be the case. He’s not a value contract anymore. He will be overpaid as soon as the ink dries on a bridge contract that will almost certainly be higher than his production commands purely because of his draft position.

I don’t think he’s going to command more than 2m or so for a 2 year deal and that’s fine with me. If we were trading anyone, I’d rather trade Lindgren than Kakko. Lindgren will never blossom into a difference maker when talent wise Kakko can. Trading him is selling on a low when he could be worth so much more. Unless you believe Kravtsov can come in still to this organization. But even if that’s a possibility, I don’t sell on Kakko unless some team blows me out of the water which won’t happen since it makes no sense for a team. 
 Like I said, let’s not forget Kakkos rookie season includes 13 of his 23 points on the pp, a situational stat based purely on offensive potential and production. I’d kick the can on him rather than sell low. 
 

 

[Keirik]

2 hours ago, RangersIn7 said:

I’m not saying trade Georgiev. That ship has sailed. Maybe they move his rights in the summer and grab a 6-7th rounder, but that’s it.

What I’m saying is you create some savings and extra space there. Georgiev carries a cap hit of $2.425 million. He’s not getting qualified. So his $2.425 comes off the books. Then they find another backup for about half of that. And you save $1million plus. They’ve done it before. Finding and getting a backup that can do a passable job has not been any issue for them since Benoit Allaire was hired. 
 

They had to pay Fox. Period. 

a couple of things. First is I’m not sure how that works on projected cap space. If Geo is an rfa with arb rights, is his cap hit QO still counted right now in this coming off seasons projected space or is it calculated on rfas not returning ?

 

 Second regarding Fox. No they didn’t “have” to pay him 9.5m dollars. They chose to. Fox said he only wanted to play here. I’m not suggesting they should have low balled him. I’m not even suggesting they pay him 5m. But they could have tried a MacKinnon and at least get a 3-4 years out of around 7m or so. It’s still a very handsome payday but it’s slightly friendly.  So it means he might make 11m in 2026 when the cap has risen and hopefully we have won a cup already or at the least have a much better grasp on our cap situation  I’d have signed up for that.

 

   I don’t care what other organizations do. The Rangers have continuously bargain from a position of strength to still give away the house. If you’re going g to do it with pending UFAs like Trouba you can’t also do it with RFAs even if they meteorically rose. What was the danger? Fox was going to be insulted if the organization said they would pay him 7m because they want a little cap room in a flat cap world to still use for other people so he can win a cup for his boyhood team? 

[RangersIn7]

10 minutes ago, Keirik said:

a couple of things. First is I’m not sure how that works on projected cap space. If Geo is an rfa with arb rights, is his cap hit QO still counted right now in this coming off seasons projected space or is it calculated on rfas not returning ?

 

 Second regarding Fox. No they didn’t “have” to pay him 9.5m dollars. They chose to. Fox said he only wanted to play here. I’m not suggesting they should have low balled him. I’m not even suggesting they pay him 5m. But they could have tried a MacKinnon and at least get a 3-4 years out of around 7m or so. It’s still a very handsome payday but it’s slightly friendly.  So it means he might make 11m in 2026 when the cap has risen and hopefully we have won a cup already or at the least have a much better grasp on our cap situation  I’d have signed up for that.

 

   I don’t care what other organizations do. The Rangers have continuously bargain from a position of strength to still give away the house. If you’re going g to do it with pending UFAs like Trouba you can’t also do it with RFAs even if they meteorically rose. What was the danger? Fox was going to be insulted if the organization said they would pay him 7m because they want a little cap room in a flat cap world to still use for other people so he can win a cup for his boyhood team? 

If Geo goes unqualified and walks, he goes. That’s it. Free and clear. You can take his $2.425 off the books now. He’s gone.

 

Yeah. I get what you’re saying on Fox. And maybe they could’ve gone for less in both term and money. But I think they didn’t want to even risk any kind of contention with their 23 year old, franchise D who just won the Norris in his 2nd season.

And also, I think there was maybe some belief in the organization that his deal might actually be a bargain in a few years.

 

They give him say, 4x7, then in 3 years you’ve gotta duke him above 9.5 abd do it for 7-8 years then. I think maybe they saw that and got spooked.

 

But I agree that they have a habit of giving away leverage. Totally.

All the fucking time. Like there’s no cap or implications resulting from it.