Dubinsky on the block (Garrioch)
View Single Post
02-14-2010, 05:13 PM
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Land of no calls..
Originally Posted by
It's rhetoric. You try to downplay a player by comparing him to three previous players who disappointed in some way. The problem is, it's not a good comparison. Dubinsky accomplished more in his first season than any of those players have in ANY season (save Prucha). As to your "1 freakin point," that's significant, since people were going on about how Dubinsky only got points by playing with Jagr. Improving, even if only by "1 freakin point" without Jagr on his wing is significant. Being on pace to improve significantly, while adding two minutes of PK time is even more significant. You just choose not to see it.
And last season he played with Zherdev on his wing, this year he's played primarily with Gaborik, without either one, he's been invisible. Do you choose not to acknowledge that?
I compared him with 3 different players that, at multiple times over their careers, have looked like they would reach another plateau, but it never came to fruition. It has nothing to do with my opinion of Dubinsky, but everything to do with overvaluing a player based on
Yes, I will be. I do think he will get better (not 1st line better, but great 2nd line better), and his trends make that look likely. Even if he does max out as a 40-45 point average second line player, I would be content with that.
Well then that's where we disagree. Dubinsky should be a better player than that. If he ends up as a 40 point player and we had, at several points, refused to trade him for a player that was proven to be better, I'd be very upset about that.
Assuming Sather doesn't do something stupid like trading the youth, both Drury and Roszival come off the cap in 2012. During those two years, Stepan, Werek, Sanguinetti, Grachev, Del Zotto, Kreider and co get to improve. Not all of them will make it, but most of those that do should be ready to make the jump (and some will have done so already). That gives the team a great young core and a ******** of room under the cap to address a hole or two in free agency (I'd guess a true number 1 center). If patience prevails, 2012 should be the start of a lot of fun years as a Rangers fan.
That's a lot of assumptions to try and justify something. You're assuming a GM, that has a laundry list of UFA mistakes to his credit, is going to manage to avoid another one with $10MM+ in cap space? Not likely.
I'm as high on some of our prospects as anyone, but passing up an opportunity to fill a void because prospect X
be NHL ready in a few years just doesn't work.
Horton was the "expensive" player I was referring to. He makes 4million now. His deal runs out and allows him to hit free agency right when we get cap flexibility. Even if his numbers stay where they are right now, he won't be re-signing for 4million per year. He will likely enter free agency as a player that will earn much more than he's worth. So we either lose him or sign him, and if we sign him, we have another cap issue on our hands.
Another cap issue on our hands? Didn't you just say you wanted to address problems via free agency? You're willing to forgo three more years of Horton at a manageable cap hit just because he'll eventually become a free agent? I'm sorry, but that's just kind of silly to me.
Plus, not to mention, how do you know he'll demand more money if his numbers stay the same? You have no idea what the cap, or the market for FA's is going to look like in 2013.
Dubinsky's salary cap hit can be controlled for far longer than Horton's. Since this team is unlikely to compete seriously for another couple of seasons yet, moving out a lesser player on a better long term contract situation for a better player whose contract will be an issue is short-sighted thinking. So I ask again- Which do you prefer- quick mediocrity or long-term competitiveness?
Controlled? We are talking about the same Dubinsky, right? The same one that held out over the summer for more money? I don't see an issue trading a player making less money for a player making more money, especially if the cheaper player has already proven to be a problem during negotiations. You'll have to renegotiate with Dubinsky at least once more before you even have to consider negotiating with Horton.
Assuming Dubinsky and Horton do not improve their games between now and then, explain to me how one more year of a cheap-ish Dubinsky is better than 3 more years of Horton being under contract? How does a cheaper player, but a better contract, make us more competitive in the long-term? You're acting as if Dubinsky will be cheap in 2012, but do you realize he needs to be re-signed
Because this isn't a video game. The long-term cap implications of any move need to be considered if you want to build a serious cup contender. It's not as simple as Player A is better than Player B, so let's trade for them. Cap considerations, team chemistry, and a good mix of skill sets is key to building a team. Dubinsky, with his lower long-term cap hit, his chemistry with the core of this team's youth and his physical play, is more important to this TEAM than Horton with his higher point totals, lackadaisical attitude and cap disaster waiting to happen contract situation.
I agree, those things are important, but I'm not really concerned with disrupting this team's "chemistry" if all that chemistry does is drive us closer to a lottery pick. I could understand that argument if we were having a lot of success, but we're not.
If Dubinsky becomes useful enough that he's contributing at the same level as Horton is, you're only going to avoid those cap implications for another year at most. If he's putting up 60+ points like Horton has, you can bet that you're going to be paying him at least as much as Horton makes now.
I appreciate toughness and work ethic as much as the next guy, but when your team is desperate for scoring, sometimes concessions need to be made. Still, as I said before, the deal needs to be right before you part with Dubinsky.
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Trxjw