The Athletic NHL Contract Efficiency Rankings, 2023: Which Teams Spend Their Money Most Wisely?

[Phil]

2 minutes ago, RangersIn7 said:

Neither would likely be here though if you didn’t pay them that money. And I think we can agree that Panarin and Goodrow are pretty important. 

 
What you would have in savings if they were getting what they “should” would be probably in the $1.5-2 million range.

You’d have another bottom-6 player or bottom pair D. Not unimportant. But not greatly impactful either.

 

I don't understand why that matters? They were getting paid in free agency regardless, the same as Panarin. Panarin technically took less to sign here. The Isles were offering him like $12.5 million, and the Avs apparently were willing to give him $15 million (but only for like four years).

[RangersIn7]

7 minutes ago, Phil said:

 

I don't understand why that matters? They were getting paid in free agency regardless, the same as Panarin. Panarin technically took less to sign here. The Isles were offering him like $12.5 million, and the Avs apparently were willing to give him $15 million (but only for like four years).

It matters a great deal for the Rangers as they wouldn’t be here and who knows who they would have instead. 
Door swings two ways.

Those guys were getting paid in free agency regardless.

Rangers we’re spending that money in free agency regardless. 
Just a question of where (player) and on whom (team). 

 

Panarin took less to be here cause he wanted to be. But I don’t believe he’d have take too much less than he did, if at all.

 

Goodrow, it seems, they paid a premium for in dollars and term, cause he conceivably had an offer or two from places he liked but came here cause they gave him more. 

[Phil]

Just now, RangersIn7 said:

It matters a great deal for the Rangers as they wouldn’t be here and who knows who they would have instead. 
Door swings two ways.

Those guys were getting paid in free agency regardless.

Rangers we’re spending that money in free agency regardless. 
Just a question of where (player) and on whom (team). 

 

Panarin took less to be here cause he wanted to be. But I don’t believe he’d have take too much less than he did, if at all.

 

Goodrow, it seems, they paid a premium for in dollars and term, cause he conceivably had an offer or two from places he liked but came here cause they gave him more. 

 

I don't know where you are getting this from, but Goodrow was always getting what he got. Blake Coleman got fuckin' paid, too.

[RangersIn7]

3 minutes ago, Phil said:

 

I don't know where you are getting this from, but Goodrow was always getting what he got. Blake Coleman got fuckin' paid, too.

You think?

 

I don’t know. I always felt like they dukes him some more. Maybe in just contract term. 
I have no idea what he had on the table. I’m speculating. 

[Phil]

So am I. He technically had no offers on the table because he re-signed with the Rangers after they acquired his rights ahead of free agency. I'm saying that based on what free agents get/got (especially Coleman), the idea that no one would sign his line mate for a comparable deal to what the Rangers gave him just doesn't hold up for me.

[RJWantsTheCup]

I know Gallant was a very hands off coach without much of a system if any at all, but didn't any of the Rangers get coached at some point in their careers before Gallant?

[RangersIn7]

1 hour ago, Phil said:

So am I. He technically had no offers on the table because he re-signed with the Rangers after they acquired his rights ahead of free agency. I'm saying that based on what free agents get/got (especially Coleman), the idea that no one would sign his line mate for a comparable deal to what the Rangers gave him just doesn't hold up for me.

That’s right.

I forgot he never went to market.
 

But if you’re saying he was going to fetch what Coleman did, I think you’re way off Phil.

Goodrow was never getting nearly $5 million per. 
Never.

 

Coleman had a pair of 20-goal seasons. Goodrow had never been over 8 goals in a season. You can’t really compare them offensively to that point. Coleman is a better, more skilled player offensively, and he’s got a lot of speed. 
 

Coleman got A LOT more Phil.

Same 6 year term. But nearly $5 million AAV.

About 33% more than Goodrow in AAV.

Thats a huge difference

And Coleman got something like $8-9 million more over the life of the contract in total dollars. 

And better trade protection in years 1-3, basically the same for both in years 4-6. 
 

Im sorry but Goodrow wasn’t getting $30 million from anyone or $5 million per from anyone. 

Edited August 1, 2023 by RangersIn7

[Pete]

1 hour ago, RJWantsTheCup said:

I know Gallant was a very hands off coach without much of a system if any at all, but didn't any of the Rangers get coached at some point in their careers before Gallant?

Of course, but they game isn't free flowing and you need all 5 guys on the ice to be on the same page executing the same plan the same way.

 

If you want to see what it looks like to have 23 guys coached by 23+ coaches playing for 1 team...well just watch the last 2 seasons. That's what that looked like. Look at how confused Trocheck was after coming from the Canes.

[Phil]

Just now, RangersIn7 said:

I think you’re way off Phil.

Goodrow was never getting nearly $5 million per. 
Never.

 

Coleman had a pair of 20-goal seasons. Goodrow had never been over 8 goals in a season. You can’t really compare them offensively to that point. Coleman is a better, more skilled player offensively, and he’s got a lot of speed. 
 

Coleman got A LOT more Phil.

Same 6 year term. But nearly $5 million AAV.

About 33% more than Goodrow in AAV.

Thats a huge difference

And Coleman got something like $8-9 million more over the life of the contract in total dollars. 

And better trade protection in years 1-3, basically the same for both in years 4-6. 
 

Im sorry but Goodrow wasn’t getting $30 million from anyone or $5 million per from anyone. 

 

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying Goodrow was always getting paid something very close to what he got from the Rangers had he gotten to free agency. I'm not specifically comparing them as players, I'm saying they were line mates who elevated each other, and their playoff run resulted in both players getting huge paydays in UFA.

 

Yes, Coleman had a pair of 20-goal seasons, but he's a career 35-point player. Goodrow is a career 26-point player. He had 20 points in 55 games in a career year with Tampa. For both men, that monstrous playoffs with Tampa is what directly resulted with the deals they got — deals that they'd have been given comparable offers on had they not chosen to sign with Calgary and New York, respectively.

[RangersIn7]

1 minute ago, Phil said:

 

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying Goodrow was always getting paid something very close to what he got from the Rangers had he gotten to free agency. I'm not specifically comparing them as players, I'm saying they were line mates who elevated each other, and their playoff run resulted in both players getting huge paydays in UFA.

 

Yes, Coleman had a pair of 20-goal seasons, but he's a career 35-point player. Goodrow is a career 26-point player. He had 20 points in 55 games in a career year with Tampa. For both men, that monstrous playoffs with Tampa is what directly resulted with the deals they got — deals that they'd have been given comparable offers on had they not chosen to sign with Calgary and New York, respectively.

Ok

I gotcha.

 

Yeah… I’d say that if Goodrow had gone to market, he’d have gotten in the $2.5-3.5 range, and certainly towards the higher end of that. 

[Phil]

9 minutes ago, RangersIn7 said:

Ok

I gotcha.

 

Yeah… I’d say that if Goodrow had gone to market, he’d have gotten in the $2.5-3.5 range, and certainly towards the higher end of that. 

 

He'd have been offered in the $2.5–$3.6 million range. He'd have signed for something nearest to what he did with New York, I agree. Boston had a very comparable offer in for Coleman at the time, as a point of comparison.

[RangersIn7]

17 minutes ago, Phil said:

 

He'd have been offered in the $2.5–$3.6 million range. He'd have signed for something nearest to what he did with New York, I agree. Boston had a very comparable offer in for Coleman at the time, as a point of comparison.

Yes. That’s exactly what I meant. But I think you got that.

IMO, Coleman is a good player and gives you more speed, skill and offense, but is in no way worth what he got. He’s not a $5 million a year player. And I like Coleman.

 

But it all goes to a previous post I made… market determines price. If you can get it, that’s what you’re worth. Value and worth, economically, aren’t the same thing, but if you want a player, the cost is whatever the market says it is, and you’ll have to pay at least close to that to get him. And if you won’t, it’s almost a total certainty someone else will. 

Whether it’s a middle-6 guy like Goodrow, or an elite guy like Panarin. 

[RJWantsTheCup]

36 minutes ago, Pete said:

Of course, but they game isn't free flowing and you need all 5 guys on the ice to be on the same page executing the same plan the same way.

 

If you want to see what it looks like to have 23 guys coached by 23+ coaches playing for 1 team...well just watch the last 2 seasons. That's what that looked like. Look at how confused Trocheck was after coming from the Canes.

Of course a team not coached and with no system will have no cohesion, but the excuse that so many players are going to be better with coaching is getting a little old.  All these players should know how to play the game to some degree at this point.  I'll give Miller more of an excuse than the rest since he hasn't been a defenseman his whole career.

[Phil]

1 minute ago, RangersIn7 said:

Yes. That’s exactly what I meant. But I think you got that.

IMO, Coleman is a good player and gives you more speed, skill and offense, but is in no way worth what he got. He’s not a $5 million a year player. And I like Coleman.

 

But it all goes to a previous post I made… market determines price. If you can get it, that’s what you’re worth. Value and worth, economically, aren’t the same thing, but if you want a player, the cost is whatever the market says it is, and you’ll have to pay at least close to that to get him. And if you won’t, it’s almost a total certainty someone else will. 

Whether it’s a middle-6 guy like Goodrow, or an elite guy like Panarin. 

 

100%. I've subscribed to that same line of thinking forever.

 

Generally speaking, almost no unrestricted free agent is "worth" the deal they sign. Certainly not the big ticket guys. This is a natural byproduct of the fact that the majority of players don't reach UFA until the age of 27. 25 is the absolute earliest, and it's an absolute rarity. But the fact is, teams who sign free agents out of unrestricted tend to do so at a premium and in order to stand a chance at landing the player, often have to give up significant term they know they'll regret later on down the line.

[Pete]

13 minutes ago, RJWantsTheCup said:

Of course a team not coached and with no system will have no cohesion, but the excuse that so many players are going to be better with coaching is getting a little old.  All these players should know how to play the game to some degree at this point.  I'll give Miller more of an excuse than the rest since he hasn't been a defenseman his whole career.

Call it what you want, coaching or something else, but there will be an actual plan that they can all lean on. That's huge and it's being undervalued. That's what we're saying we we say "They will be coached"...It's not just fundamentals.

 

Some of the small space/positional play/support stuff will probably be newer than what they've ever done under Quinn and GG.

[RangersIn7]

1 hour ago, Phil said:

 

100%. I've subscribed to that same line of thinking forever.

 

Generally speaking, almost no unrestricted free agent is "worth" the deal they sign. Certainly not the big ticket guys. This is a natural byproduct of the fact that the majority of players don't reach UFA until the age of 27. 25 is the absolute earliest, and it's an absolute rarity. But the fact is, teams who sign free agents out of unrestricted tend to do so at a premium and in order to stand a chance at landing the player, often have to give up significant term they know they'll regret later on down the line.

Yup.

Cost of doing that kind of business.

[Scott]

4 hours ago, RJWantsTheCup said:

Of course a team not coached and with no system will have no cohesion, but the excuse that so many players are going to be better with coaching is getting a little old.  All these players should know how to play the game to some degree at this point.  I'll give Miller more of an excuse than the rest since he hasn't been a defenseman his whole career.

Yet somehow essentially  the  same non-coached free wheeling team beat the superior coached CAR team just the year before in the 2nd rd of the playoffs.  I wish it was just a coaching fix that was needed here. 

[Pete]

17 minutes ago, jsrangers said:

Yet somehow essentially  the  same non-coached free wheeling team beat the superior coached CAR team just the year before in the 2nd rd of the playoffs.  I wish it was just a coaching fix that was needed here. 

You're conveniently leaving out losing their goalies and their top line RW. 

 

But why let facts get in the way. 

[RangersIn7]

1 hour ago, jsrangers said:

Yet somehow essentially  the  same non-coached free wheeling team beat the superior coached CAR team just the year before in the 2nd rd of the playoffs.  I wish it was just a coaching fix that was needed here. 

Why bother even watching then, if it’s so irredeemably awful. And everyone sucks. And LaFreniere is fat and he sucks. And Kakko has celiac and diabetes. And all of that.

 

 

[BrooksBurner]

1 hour ago, jsrangers said:

Yet somehow essentially  the  same non-coached free wheeling team beat the superior coached CAR team just the year before in the 2nd rd of the playoffs.  I wish it was just a coaching fix that was needed here. 

 

Same, man. We might disagree a bit on the young guys, but there's no doubt the issue runs through the top of the lineup just as much, if not more, as it did with the coach or the young guys. Two star forwards did zilch in the playoffs and we've got guys saying it was coaching when they were 90+ point scorers in the reg season with the same coaching. It's absolutely mind boggling to be player homers of that degree.

[Scott]

39 minutes ago, RangersIn7 said:

Why bother even watching then, if it’s so irredeemably awful. And everyone sucks. And LaFreniere is fat and he sucks. And Kakko has celiac and diabetes. And all of that.

 

 

Yes on Laugh, I never made fun of Kakko's medical challenges (clearly you have the wrong guy and I'm tempted to tell you to piss off over that but I won't), however his lack of production is absolutely fair game in my book. 

 

I get it you're a better fan I guess or we just disagree on how we see things. I'll look for a new pair of red and blue blinders so we can always be on the same page and I don't hit a nerve.   My main issues are imo it's much more that just the need for a new coach, it's not a roster composition issue or lack of coaching it's both. Call me crazy for thinking both are possible at the same time. Secondly without question again in my opinion getting so little from two top picks in the draft is something that has a had a detrimental impact and will continue to hurt this team going forward, believe it or not a team I like as much as the next guy.

[Long live the King]

3 hours ago, jsrangers said:

Yet somehow essentially  the  same non-coached free wheeling team beat the superior coached CAR team just the year before in the 2nd rd of the playoffs.  I wish it was just a coaching fix that was needed here. 

 

[RangersIn7]

7 hours ago, jsrangers said:

Yes on Laugh, I never made fun of Kakko's medical challenges (clearly you have the wrong guy and I'm tempted to tell you to piss off over that but I won't), however his lack of production is absolutely fair game in my book. 

 

I get it you're a better fan I guess or we just disagree on how we see things. I'll look for a new pair of red and blue blinders so we can always be on the same page and I don't hit a nerve.   My main issues are imo it's much more that just the need for a new coach, it's not a roster composition issue or lack of coaching it's both. Call me crazy for thinking both are possible at the same time. Secondly without question again in my opinion getting so little from two top picks in the draft is something that has a had a detrimental impact and will continue to hurt this team going forward, believe it or not a team I like as much as the next guy.

Im kidding bro

its a long summer

[RangersIn7]

10 hours ago, jsrangers said:

Yet somehow essentially  the  same non-coached free wheeling team beat the superior coached CAR team just the year before in the 2nd rd of the playoffs.  I wish it was just a coaching fix that was needed here. 

In all seriousness though, I’m not sure what it is you’d like to see in terms of roster changes or how’d they’d actually pull off any that would be impactful. Especially in this climate where no one has much money or the ability to take too much on it that regard.
 

They’re basically locked into their core right now, and obviously there’s a few guys you simply can’t move- and I don’t mean necessarily because of trade protection, I mean along the lines of them being indispensable and they’d lose any trade they made involving that select group. 
 

If there’s a hockey trade out there that made them better, I’m always open to stuff like that. Just not sure there is one.
 

 

[RangersIn7]

8 hours ago, BrooksBurner said:

 

Same, man. We might disagree a bit on the young guys, but there's no doubt the issue runs through the top of the lineup just as much, if not more, as it did with the coach or the young guys. Two star forwards did zilch in the playoffs and we've got guys saying it was coaching when they were 90+ point scorers in the reg season with the same coaching. It's absolutely mind boggling to be player homers of that degree.

It isn’t all coaching. Not at all. The talent they threw on the ice in that series, to get that result, is mind boggling, and it totally falls on the players as well. Just look at how they played in those games. It’s like they forgot they were good at hockey after Game 2 or 3. Games 4, 5, and 7 were a disaster. So I totally get the bad taste it’s left. That and some really poor individual performances from several top players. 
 

 

Nearly everything that could go wrong, in terms of how they played, in 3 games in that series, did. 
And you can’t fire, trade, etc., 23 players, or even a good chunk of them, so the coach takes the bullet. That’s sports. 

 

IMO, it’s pretty clear that the fracture between Drury and GG was real and ran deeper than was on the surface. 100 wins and a trip to ECF will cover up a lot of that, but I suspect it was there for quite some time, probably in year 1 on some level, and I don’t think I’m alone on that. Plus it’s not a coincidence that that has happened with GG in every place he’s been and within 2-3 seasons. 
 

Obviously, change was needed. 

Just don’t know what anyone is looking for beyond the coaching staff. 
 

Honest question: What roster move was out there that they could’ve made that would make them look better at this point?