: Larry Brooks:
Rangers talking contract with Brandon Prust
View Single Post
02-22-2012, 08:05 AM
Change is good.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brooklyn of course
Originally Posted by
Rupp is overpaid for what he does. The Rangers had bigger plans for Rupp when they signed him
Rupp is a 4th liner with 2 more years of his contract.
Great guy. That's about it. He is not capable of playing on the 3rd line. The Rangers thought they were getting a more capable player. He looks like a diminished player.
The cap isn't going up with the players taking a % cut. Bettman will fight to the death to keep his hard cap and keep the link between the cap and revenue %. The Rangers have a boatload of players to re-sign. Instead of doing the same song and dance with the AHL,buy Rupp out. He can hook on with another team. The Rangers free up the money. It won't count against the cap. This team should have bought Wolski and Avery out for 1/3. Both of those players sucked out too much money for nothing. Avery has essentially been Georges Laraqued. He receives his salary and never plays. Avery hasn't been banished like Laraque was but he is a healthy scratch in the AHL. Wolski can't get into the line-up. They would rather play a D at wing instead of Wolski.
I dunno, RB. It all depends on what the buyout rules are. Do you only get one? Can you hold onto it for future use (as the NBA allowed in this most recent CBA)? Assuming the former is true, I'd have to think that they'd rather use it on Redden to free up the summer cap. If the latter is true, I think they'd frankly even keep Redden and prefer to pocket the buyout as insurance against Richards (or perhaps Parise if they offer him a similar retirement deal this summer) getting injured or otherwise losing effectiveness earlier than anticipated (a la Drury).
Now, if you get unlimited bites at the apple, THEN do you MAYBE look at guys who are perhaps a couple of hundred thou overpaid...? Eh... Maybe.
I dunno. Personally, if the team feels the need for a heavyweight (and I think Slats does), then I'd much rather have one who can play a competent shift, chip in a couple of goals and who has PO experience. That's why I was good with the signing in the first place. At two years left on the deal, I'd be fine with keeping him under the current contract. If they no longer feel they need the enforcer or if they feel that someone else can step up and do the job as well for less, then I'm fine with that too.
As to Pruster, I love him as much as everyone else. Just need to make sure you recognize him for what he is - a 4th liner. If he's willing to be paid appropriately, great. If he wants more, you have to let him walk.
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by BrooklynRangersFan