HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   New York Rangers (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=24)
-   -   Brooks On Sather's Moves (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=535711)

nyrage 07-13-2008 07:56 AM

Brooks On Sather's Moves
 
http://www.nypost.com/seven/07132008...655.htm?page=2



He GM gave Naslund, who will be 35 at the end of the month and is coming off two consecutive disappointing seasons in Vancouver, a full no-move clause.

It also seems Wade Redden needed a sweetener to take his $39M, seven-year deal. So the GM gave the defenseman the annual right to give management a list of eight teams to which he cannot be traded, and it will just be unfortunate if Atlanta should want him in a deal for Ilya Kovalchuk, won't it?

The Rangers have way too many marginal forwards in the $1M range. Is Pat Rissmiller at $1M really necessary? Unless Fred Sjostrom is going to be a regular third-liner, there was no reason to qualify him at nearly $814,000, and if he does play on the top three lines, then Ryan Callahan or Petr Prucha or Nigel Dawes or Lauri Korpikoski or Aaron Voros ($1M) won't. Where in the world does salary arbitration-seeking Dan Fritsche fit in?

abev 07-13-2008 08:11 AM

Did Brooks happen to mention that the "Rangers Blueprint" he wrote about 2 weeks ago was a complete fabrication?

RMcDonagh 07-13-2008 08:23 AM

Really don't like Brooks but I have to say that he's not in the wrong here..

Don't know why Naslund was given a NMC, and Redden shouldn't of got a NTC - at least a partial one. At these prices, they should be expendable.

Turambar 07-13-2008 08:27 AM

Unbelievable.

squishy 07-13-2008 08:47 AM

I really, really hate it when I agree with Larry Brooks, but he's dead on with this one. This is two summers running that I think Sather's made a massive error in judgment with his free agent signings.

ECL 07-13-2008 08:54 AM

I don't really see a problem with Naslund's contract.

At worst, he's Shanahan in his 2nd year. Effective, but not nearly enough.

At best, he regains his form after playing with scrubs the last few years.

I don't see the huge problem.

Definitely don't like the partial NTC for Redden, though. That's just ********.

NorthlandPro 07-13-2008 08:56 AM

When Brooks talks about the internal issues facing the NHL he is accurate, when he starts talking about teams and their on ice performance he is lost. He is a horrible beat writer. Brooks is like the NY Times, very bias in his writing. He won't tell you that the reason NT clauses were added is that it is a standard operating procedure in UFA contracts in the marketplace. He also won't mention how NT clauses are irrelivant, many GMs today just pressure the player into yielding thier NT clause. Go ask Dan Boyle and his recently minted NT clause. Ask him how far it got him? Brooks is a rectum when it comes to writing about teams. I won't be surprised if he is actually Eklund! They are about equally inaacurate.

ECL 07-13-2008 08:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NorthlandPro (Post 14855789)
When Brooks talks about the internal issues facing the NHL he is accurate, when he starts talking about teams and their on ice performance he is lost. He is a horrible beat writer. Brooks is like the NY Times, very bias in his writing. He won't tell you that the reason NT clauses were added is that it is a standard operating procedure in UFA contracts in the marketplace. He also won't mention how NT clauses are irrelivant, many GMs today just pressure the player into yielding thier NT clause. Go ask Dan Boyle and his recently minted NT clause. Ask him how far it got him? Brooks is a rectum when it comes to writing about teams. I won't be surprised if he is actually Eklund! They are about equally inaacurate.

Maybe you weren't around for the whole year last year, but Redden had a NTC and refused to move it multiple times. McCabe the same. Sundin the same.

There are a lot of players who use it to their full advantage.

Don't just skip over them to make a point.

Vitto79 07-13-2008 09:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NorthlandPro (Post 14855789)
When Brooks talks about the internal issues facing the NHL he is accurate, when he starts talking about teams and their on ice performance he is lost. He is a horrible beat writer. Brooks is like the NY Times, very bias in his writing. He won't tell you that the reason NT clauses were added is that it is a standard operating procedure in UFA contracts in the marketplace. He also won't mention how NT clauses are irrelivant, many GMs today just pressure the player into yielding thier NT clause. Go ask Dan Boyle and his recently minted NT clause. Ask him how far it got him? Brooks is a rectum when it comes to writing about teams. I won't be surprised if he is actually Eklund! They are about equally inaacurate.

Yea he's a dink.............man it must be terrible that the team has depth now and competition for spots in camp..........terrible!................plus they are one of the teams that can pull off a 3 for 1 deal if they need and they have more chips than most to move at the deadline

RMcDonagh 07-13-2008 09:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jonathan. (Post 14855774)
I don't really see a problem with Naslund's contract.

At worst, he's Shanahan in his 2nd year. Effective, but not nearly enough.

At best, he regains his form after playing with scrubs the last few years.

I don't see the huge problem.

Definitely don't like the partial NTC for Redden, though. That's just ********.

I see a big difference between Naslund and Shanahan. Don't get me wrong, I'm excited to have Naslund here, I believe he will regain form... something you probably have to do when you start playing with players who don't belong in the AHL. However, Naslund is fast. Naslund has a game that you can be excited to watch. I was never excited watching Shanahan, ever. The high point in his Rangers career was the fight with Brashear. Even the shootouts became boring after a while. Shanny was way too slow to keep up with anyone, his game diminished so much from 06-07 to 07-08, and he was a disaster to watch.

I'm praying Naslund isn't anything like the declining Shanahan.

I don't agree with giving him a NMC, but I don't agree with giving most players a NMC/NTC - so that's just me. The availability of movement should be there in case he is a bust, and that's on Sather.

Levitate 07-13-2008 09:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jonathan. (Post 14855774)
I don't really see a problem with Naslund's contract.

At worst, he's Shanahan in his 2nd year. Effective, but not nearly enough.

At best, he regains his form after playing with scrubs the last few years.

I don't see the huge problem.

Definitely don't like the partial NTC for Redden, though. That's just ********.

Eh, I'd bet most of these UFA signings have these kind of things though. Most players seem to be demanding them, and you might not be able to sign anyone if you're not willing to at least give out a partial no trade clause.

Besides, I know the real reason people don't like the NT clauses is that then players can't be moved at the deadline for more prospects :p:

BrooklynRangersFan 07-13-2008 09:48 AM

Don't really mind the Naslund NMC - he was signed to fill a hole in the top 6 for two years and then roll off the books.

Disappointed to hear that Redden got even a partial one. Of course, that still leaves 21 teams that he CAN be traded to, but still it shouldn't have been necessary. Of course, Brooks' example of Atlanta is just silly, because if they do trade Kovalchuk, it'll be for guys under 30.

BTW, this is the first I've heard of these terms - anyone got slightly more substantial conversation than an offhand comment from Uncle Larry? Something with a source, for example?

Blueblood 2 07-13-2008 10:01 AM

No big deal on two years with Naslund. Redden deal wasn't that good to start out with, so picking 8 teams a year doesn't make it much worse. Brooks just likes to stir the pot and will switch on the dime if things head in a different direction. Redden can't put Hartford on his list. That is where he is headed if it doesn't work out, or to Atlanta on his way through waivers. Just like the Boyle threat.

SML 07-13-2008 10:02 AM

This is ridiculous. A guy like Naslund came here to be on a contender. While I think there are better teams out there, our defense and goaltending should make us at least a playoff team. Why would you trade naslund anyway, unless things go terribly wrong and we're completely out? In which case, Naslund would probably agree to a trade anyway. We've proven this year, that we're not going to unload "rentals" when we have a shot ourselves. We could have gotten alot for Shanny, Straka, Jagr, Malik, etc at the deadline, but we kept them for our own chances. So Naslund will probably be with us for the full two years regardless. As far as Redden for Kovalchuk, I almost fell out of my chair. Only in the mind of larry Brooks could you come up with a scenario where a guy who was an UFA is getting traded for one of the 3 best goal scorers in the game. If Waddell even answered the phone to hear that offer, he should be fired.

Turambar 07-13-2008 10:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrooklynRangersFan (Post 14856016)

BTW, this is the first I've heard of these terms - anyone got slightly more substantial conversation than an offhand comment from Uncle Larry? Something with a source, for example?

I've been trying to find something about this since the contracts were signed, this is the first I've heard of it. I even spoke to Weinman about it, he indicated he didn't know and doubted that information was even released to the press. It's therefore possible that this is Brooks just making things up, something we've seen in the past.

BrianLeetch2 07-13-2008 10:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SML (Post 14856081)
This is ridiculous. A guy like Naslund came here to be on a contender. While I think there are better teams out there, our defense and goaltending should make us at least a playoff team. Why would you trade naslund anyway, unless things go terribly wrong and we're completely out? In which case, Naslund would probably agree to a trade anyway. We've proven this year, that we're not going to unload "rentals" when we have a shot ourselves. We could have gotten alot for Shanny, Straka, Jagr, Malik, etc at the deadline, but we kept them for our own chances. So Naslund will probably be with us for the full two years regardless. As far as Redden for Kovalchuk, I almost fell out of my chair. Only in the mind of larry Brooks could you come up with a scenario where a guy who was an UFA is getting traded for one of the 3 best goal scorers in the game. If Waddell even answered the phone to hear that offer, he should be fired.

very good point....naslund still has plenty in the tank and for 2 years at 4 mil is a good deal even with the NTC....The Redden deal on the other hand WOO!!!

NYR Viper 07-13-2008 10:42 AM

hate this........neither of them should have a NMC..........at all......i like both of those players, and i liked the signings, but what the hell is sather thinking?.....NMC for older players now will handcuff him later on

DutchShamrock 07-13-2008 10:44 AM

I wonder how many people are hemorraging over being forced to agree with either Brooks or Sather.

FutureGM97 07-13-2008 10:49 AM

Naslund's NMC doesn't bother me really. He is here for 2 years to be a top 6 winger...its not like we were going to get rid of him anyway. As for Redden if he can turn his play back up to wat it was then I really don't care if he got a limited NTC. Now that he has the contract he wanted hopefully he will play the way used to. Lets not call these bad signings until we at least give these guys a chance to earn them.

NYR Viper 07-13-2008 10:54 AM

i just dont understand why he had to give them to him.....now 4 players on the team have NMC's?.....if anything happens, like brooks says and they want redden+ for kovalchuk in 2 years and the rangers cant send him because of his NMC sather will be kicking himself.......its not like he didnt give him enough money to give him the extra NMC

SupersonicMonkey* 07-13-2008 11:01 AM

Really the only difference between Naslund and Shanahan is that Naslund can still skate.

So, you have to figure they will be at least the same in production, but it will be less painful to watch Naslund, because he is still mobile.

NYR Viper 07-13-2008 11:03 AM

naslunds i dont have a problem with because he is 35 and he came for less money.....however redden got paid more than many people thought he would and for a longer duration, so why did he need to get a NMC?

frankthefrowner 07-13-2008 11:18 AM

What 4 players have an NMC... I bieleve Drury and Naslund are the only ones, Gomez and Redden have NTC's i bieleve, which still how them to be moved down the minors and Reddens is a partial NTC, thats really not that big a deal cause it would be teams not in contention and I doubt those teams would want him anyway.

SML 07-13-2008 11:25 AM

I have no problem with the limited NMC for Redden. If you think about it, any player could refuse to report if they really were dead set about going. If they made it public before the deal, it would effectively kill the deal anyway. I wonder if the clause would stay in effect if he were traded? Say we want to trade him to Los Angeles, and he refuses. Could we three way him to say, Columbus, who would then trade him to L.A.? It's the outright no movement clauses, like the "Toronto five" had, that really tie your hands.

Trxjw 07-13-2008 12:13 PM

Brooks is just sour because his "Jagr + Sundin = Cup" scenario didn't come to fruition. In what world is Atlanta going to want a 31+ y/o Redden in exchange for one of the best goal scorers in the league? You can bet your ass they'd be asking for Staal. Limited NMC is fine. If they really want to move him, theres still 21 other teams that he could go to.

Naslund's NMC isn't an issue either. If he winds up in the same situation Shanny was in this year, who the hell is going to want him anyway? Nobody has signed Shanny as a free agent, so what team was really going to trade for him?


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:35 AM.

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com, A property of CraveOnline, a division of AtomicOnline LLC ©2009 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.