rangers libor hajek ryan strome jesper fast chris kreider

Three questions this week for the mailbag this week. As always, use the widget on the right to submit your questions.

Rjcy asks (states? I cut this down a bit and rephrased it): In my opinion, the Rangers should be keeping Chris Kreider over signing Artemi Panarin, if it comes down to it. He’s a rare package of physical attributes and will be cheaper than Panarin.

I agree here. As great as Panarin is, the Rangers have a horrible history with free agents. Some of it is bad decision making, but there’s also some poor luck thrown in here. The caveat here is the looming lockout (probably) and the amnesty buyout that will come with it (probably). The Rangers can give Panarin something incredibly unique here, a long-term deal that is front-loaded, and then a chance to be a free agent again in 2022. Now of course that doesn’t necessarily matter if the players opt-out on September 1 this year, which would render that opportunity obsolete.

Panarin does a lot for the Rangers, and would certainly be a good presence for the influx of Russian prospects coming overseas. However the only way this can be done is without Kreider and by trading two of the bad blue line contracts. The lower salary cap hurt the Rangers here.

Steffen asks: With the salary cap increasing less than expected, is it possible to add bonuses on the basis of a cap percentage? Or a bonus when the cap passes a certain amount.

This is a creative idea, but the way the CBA is structured today is not doable. Signing bonuses must be a concrete amount of the contract, and performance bonuses are only allowable on ELCs and 35+ contracts. Standard player contracts are not eligible to receive performance bonuses.

Stef asks (I think these two came from the same person?): Can a contract be construed in such a way that the cap hit is formulated as a percentage of the salary cap?

Another very creative idea that I would love to see. It gives teams and players more options when structuring a contract, which is good. It guarantees a player a raise as the salary cap goes up, but it also means his contract goes down if the cap goes down. I don’t know if that’s something any player would go for.

No other league allows contracts structured in such a manner, and the NHL is no different here. I’d be intrigued by it, but as of now it can’t be done.

Share: 

More About: