View Single Post
Old
02-20-2013, 01:29 PM
  #80
94now
Registered User
 
94now's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Snow Belt, USA
Country: United Nations
Posts: 6,445
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYR Sting View Post
You're doing the same thing . . .

You'd be hardpressed to find someone who think less of Sather as an executive than me. That said, not succumbing to Prust's contractual demands was unquestionably the right move on the Rangers' part.

The same exact things were said about a multitude of role players, including plenty of 4th liners like Prust, season after season.

"This team really misses [Insert dime-a-dozen 4th liner's name here]."
"We could really use [Insert dime-a-dozen 4th liner's name here]."

Oh no!!!

Somehow, we made it through the dark times of losing Jed Ortmeyer. Hard to believe, but we persevered despite not having Colton Orr on our roster. Sjostrom, Prucha, Strudwick, etc.

Prusts come and Prusts go.

You want to talk about a role player that we should have held on to? How about Pascal Dupuis?
Rangers persevered without all and everyone. Wrong argument, IMHO.
Orts was a damaged good, still was difficult to replace. I don't find Dupuis being as big of a loss as Dom Moore was. I liked Betts too. Those guys you listed were replaced pretty soon.
I was not saying Slats should have paid Prust all he (or his agent) wanted, but he should have found the replacement for Prust. I don't think it is possible, really.

If Callahan paid 5 million this year (4,275K hit), how much less a very similar, but less skilled Prust would be valued? I'd say half. That half is 2.5 million Prust wanted. Keep in mind in reality this season Prust is more equal to Callahan in his play than to, say, Sjostrom.

94now is offline   Reply With Quote