View Single Post
Old
05-15-2011, 01:40 PM
  #101
Yellot00tr
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Long Island
Country: United States
Posts: 67
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jxmarts View Post
I went back and checked my numbers, and I did make an error. The Knicks current cap total for the 10 signed players they'll have (including their 1st round pick) for 2011-12 will be $62 million, not $65 million. Either way, it puts them already $4 million over the current cap for next season.

You're right that salaries might be rolled back in a new CBA, and that could create a little more cap room for the Knicks. It's impossible to know exactly what the rules will be so I tried to make my scenario as simple as possible. There are possibilities I left out, but none of them are sure things.

My point, though, is that the Knicks painted themselves into a dubious corner with the Melo trade. They left themselves with little cap room and almost no assets to deal and no depth. I was not against acquiring Melo, but I thought it was critical that they emerged from the trade with flexibility to improve their roster because the Knicks are not contenders yet, despite having Melo & Stat. Whether it was Dolan or Walsh that was responisible, the Melo trade has handcuffed them for the next several years.

The topic of this thread is whether the Rangers need a Walsh type President/GM. If we're asking whether the Rangers should go in the direction of the Knicks and acquire a couple of high priced stars at the expense of virtually all of team depth, cap space and tradeable assets, then I say no. Depth is even more important in hockey than it is in basketball. I'd rather go forward and take my chances with the current Rangers than turn them into the Knicks.

You're definitely right about the fact that depth is even more important in hockey than it is in basketball. On an nba team where you only have 12 active players, 2 or 3 players who are playing almost 40 minutes a night can make a HUGE impact. It would take the equivalent of 4 or 5 players on an nhl team playing almost 50 minutes a night to have the two be almost even in terms of percentage, and that would be crazy considering that Staal led us with barely 28 min of time on ice.

I don't think we should turn them into the Knicks, but there's something to be said for stinking it up for a few seasons all to have the ability to rebound and turn it around after that. That's not my issue with the Rangers. We can probably all live with that as Rangers fans. Tell us we'll stink for 2 or 3 years, not make the playoffs, and then after that, we'll be either really playing for a cup, or at least making it to the top of the eastern conference every year. I just don't think that Sather is the right guy to do it. Everyone who defends him comes up with all these reasons that he's done well, but in reality, he's had over a decade to fix this team, and he hasn't. Fine, the potential is there, but potential is only that-potential. I have the potential of winning the mega millions, I have the potential of pulling a royal flush in the world series of poker's final table, I have the potential of finding the dutchman's lost gold, but again, what the hell does that mean to have potential? Jessiman had potential, Montoya and Korpikoski had potential-both in the same draft, Immonen and Kondratiev had so much potential that we dumped Leetch on his 36th birthday, so basically potential is like pissing in the wind.

For 11 years and millions of dollars spent in salaries, as a Rangers' fan I expect more. I will say this about Sather though-mercifully at least, we should all thank god he's not Isiah Thomas. We're not paying millions in sexual harassment lawsuits, his guys aren't harassing female employees, and no Rangers are having sex with interns in jeeps. Guess there is a silver lining to every situation.

Yellot00tr is offline   Reply With Quote