HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > New York Rangers
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Brooks Lastest Article - Jagr/Sundin + Lots More

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
07-01-2008, 05:53 AM
  #1
FLYLine24
The Mac Truck
 
FLYLine24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: NY
Country: United States
Posts: 29,914
vCash: 500
Brooks Lastest Article - Jagr/Sundin + Lots More

-The New York Rangers want Mats Sundin and Jagr . They want them on one-year over-35 contracts.
-Jagr arrived yesterday in NY
-It's believed Sundin will ultimately choose between the Rangers or Wings.
-Teams interested in Avery Maple Leafs, Blackhawks and Canucks, with other suitors expected to emerge.
-Rangers to check in about Hossa but the Post learned the Bruins will offer him a 12 years, 100 million dollar contract.
-The Rangers, who will check in on Brian Rolston
-The Blueshirts have essentially targeted four free agent defensemen of whom they hope to sign two - their own Michal Rozsival, Ottawa's Wade Redden, Pittsburgh's Brooks Orpik and Montreal's Mark Streit.
-Sather rejected Rosy's offer of 4 years for 5 million per season.
-Rangers have zero interest in Campbell's 7M contract he wants.
-Orpik wants a 6 year, 4 million per contract with a NTC. Rangers will probably offer him a 4 year, 4 millin contract.
-Streit will ask for about 3-3.5M.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/07012008...dar_118031.htm

FLYLine24 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-01-2008, 05:59 AM
  #2
jas
Unsatisfied
 
jas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NJ
Posts: 13,213
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by FLYLine88 View Post
-The New York Rangers want Mats Sundin and Jagr . They want them on one-year over-35 contracts.
-Jagr arrived yesterday in NY
-It's believed Sundin will ultimately choose between the Rangers or Wings.
-Teams interested in Avery Maple Leafs, Blackhawks and Canucks, with other suitors expected to emerge.
-Rangers to check in about Hossa but the Post learned the Bruins will offer him a 12 years, 100 million dollar contract.
-The Rangers, who will check in on Brian Rolston
-The Blueshirts have essentially targeted four free agent defensemen of whom they hope to sign two - their own Michal Rozsival, Ottawa's Wade Redden, Pittsburgh's Brooks Orpik and Montreal's Mark Streit.
-Sather rejected Rosy's offer of 4 years for 5 million per season.
-Rangers have zero interest in Campbell's 7M contract he wants.
-Orpik wants a 6 year, 4 million per contract with a NTC. Rangers will probably offer him a 4 year, 4 millin contract.
-Streit will ask for about 3-3.5M.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/07012008...dar_118031.htm
I'd be happy with Redden and Orpik on the back line. Once Bobby Sangs is ready, Tyutin and/or Girardi make a nice trade chip. Also, I'm glad to see both Hossa and Campbell are pricing themselves out of the Rangers range.

jas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-01-2008, 06:03 AM
  #3
jas
Unsatisfied
 
jas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NJ
Posts: 13,213
vCash: 500
Also, Dellapina had this blip this morning -

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/ho...r_rangers.html

Quote:
However, the Rangers did make qualifying offers to retain the matching rights to restricted free agent forwards Nigel Dawes, Fredrik Sjostrom and Hugh Jessiman

jas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-01-2008, 06:17 AM
  #4
2Leetch_94
Registered User
 
2Leetch_94's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 1,466
vCash: 500
There's nothing there I strongly disagree with. Stay away from Campbell and his huge payday. Same with Hossa. I think Streit would be an underrated signing wherever he ended up. Orpik would be an ideal addition for our defense but 4M a season is a little rich but I suppose if Marek Malik can make 3M a season, it's doable. Redden is going to be too rich and Rozsival needs a shooting clause so he's forced to shoot so whatever team inks him better try it. Rolston would be an interesting pickup but I'm assuming that's a fallback option if Sundin doesn't end up here.

2Leetch_94 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-01-2008, 06:52 AM
  #5
Turambar
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 1,724
vCash: 500
I'd be giddy as a schoolboy if the Rangers end up with Redden & Orpik, while also retaining Jagr & signing Sundin.

I seriously doubt Sather can pull that off, but after what happened last year, ya never know.

Turambar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-01-2008, 07:05 AM
  #6
gaglinefan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 304
vCash: 500
I'd be giddy as a schoolboy if the Rangers end up with Redden & Orpik, while also retaining Jagr & signing Sundin.

I seriously doubt Sather can pull that off, but after what happened last year, ya never know.
If the #'s work what would be better? Drury may feel left out but it's up to him to help us win (why we signed him in the first place). Given the available options I don't think this is so bad.

gaglinefan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-01-2008, 07:15 AM
  #7
eco's bones
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Elmira NY
Country: United States
Posts: 12,753
vCash: 500
12 years and $100 million for Hossa!?!?! He'll be around 40 years old when that's up.
Insane. Really--for what reason did we blow off the 04-05 non-season?--to install a salary cap so as to help NHL owners to control their spending. This is why the salary cap ceiling will from year to year go higher and higher.

On Rangers going after Jagr, Sundin, possibly Avery, Rolston and two of Roszival, Redden, Orpik and Streit. I don't think we have the cap room for 4 or 5 players.

I didn't care much for Campbell anyway.

eco's bones is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-01-2008, 07:35 AM
  #8
zestystrat
Registered User
 
zestystrat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: NYC > Atlanta
Country: United States
Posts: 621
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by eco's bones View Post
12 years and $100 million for Hossa!?!?! He'll be around 40 years old when that's up.
Insane. Really--for what reason did we blow off the 04-05 non-season?--to install a salary cap so as to help NHL owners to control their spending. This is why the salary cap ceiling will from year to year go higher and higher.
Couldn't agree more with these statements.

zestystrat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-01-2008, 07:42 AM
  #9
Turambar
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 1,724
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by eco's bones View Post

I don't think we have the cap room for 4 or 5 players.
We damn well better, because without that many players it becomes difficult to ice a full roster.

Turambar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-01-2008, 07:48 AM
  #10
Pogo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Israel
Country: Israel
Posts: 788
vCash: 500
If the Rangers get: Redden/Streit, Orpik, Roszival, Jagr, Sundin and Rolston.... that's a heck of a team. Doubt that that's possible to get all of those pieces, but wow!

Pogo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-01-2008, 07:48 AM
  #11
Forever Blue
Registered User
 
Forever Blue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 1,048
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by eco's bones View Post
12 years and $100 million for Hossa!?!?! He'll be around 40 years old when that's up.
Insane. Really--for what reason did we blow off the 04-05 non-season?--to install a salary cap so as to help NHL owners to control their spending. This is why the salary cap ceiling will from year to year go higher and higher.
They did it to tie salary to revenue. I don't see how this shows that the lockout didn't work, unless you just take the salary numbers at face value.

Forever Blue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-01-2008, 07:58 AM
  #12
Garfinkel1
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: CT
Posts: 3,446
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pogo View Post
If the Rangers get: Redden/Streit, Orpik, Roszival, Jagr, Sundin and Rolston.... that's a heck of a team. Doubt that that's possible to get all of those pieces, but wow!
Isn't Roloston going to TBL? I mean, who trades picks without being pretty sure that player will sign with you?

Garfinkel1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-01-2008, 08:03 AM
  #13
Levitate
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 21,033
vCash: 500
They might trade for his rights, but not be able to sign him if he wants to go to free agency.

At any rate, should be an interesting plan...my guess is that the Rangers are looking to lock up a more solid defense for the next 2-5 years, but go short term with the offense. Mainly because, well, there aren't any affordable options out there otherwise.

The whole thing seems risky, but we'll see how it goes...if nothing else, hopefully they can snag a forward and a defenseman at least. If not, they're in trouble next year

Levitate is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-01-2008, 08:10 AM
  #14
hockeygoon15
Registered User
 
hockeygoon15's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,500
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by eco's bones View Post
This is why the salary cap ceiling will from year to year go higher and higher.
indirectly, yes. when you bring in a big name talent for the long term, you'll draw more and more fans to your games, raise revenue, and in turn the cap will rise (an almost insignificant amount).

i'm sorry but posts like this anger me. the cap is directly tied to revenue. the fact that it keeps going up is a good thing because it means that our sport is making more money. now it can be argued that the only reason we're making more money is because ticket prices are higher, not because we have more fans, but to say that the cap ceiling rises simply because teams are willing to shell out expensive, long term contracts to star players is ridiculous.

hockeygoon15 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-01-2008, 08:20 AM
  #15
nyr2k2
Can't Beat Him
 
nyr2k2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Washington, DC
Country: United States
Posts: 23,855
vCash: 145
Awards:
Orpik! I want him.

__________________

It's just pain.
nyr2k2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-01-2008, 08:42 AM
  #16
eco's bones
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Elmira NY
Country: United States
Posts: 12,753
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeygoon15 View Post
indirectly, yes. when you bring in a big name talent for the long term, you'll draw more and more fans to your games, raise revenue, and in turn the cap will rise (an almost insignificant amount).

i'm sorry but posts like this anger me. the cap is directly tied to revenue. the fact that it keeps going up is a good thing because it means that our sport is making more money. now it can be argued that the only reason we're making more money is because ticket prices are higher, not because we have more fans, but to say that the cap ceiling rises simply because teams are willing to shell out expensive, long term contracts to star players is ridiculous.
Your reasoning is fair enough hockeygoon15--though please control your temper--I'm sure there are more pressing things to get angry over than a game. Whether or not salaries are tied to revenues we are still IMO heading back to the place we were before--the obscene bidding wars for oftentimes underwhelming talent that directly led to past labor disputes. It may be that you think it fair that market revenues should always set the table for player salaries. I don't particularly. Though there were some good things that came out of the lockout--that lost season was not worth it IMO in the short or in the long run. Escalating salaries sooner or later are going to lead to a dead end. Just take a look around you at a collapsing dollar and a recessionary economy. Optimistic about the future? Sure. Optimistic that it will be pain free? Not at all.

eco's bones is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-01-2008, 08:48 AM
  #17
hockeygoon15
Registered User
 
hockeygoon15's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,500
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by eco's bones View Post
Your reasoning is fair enough hockeygoon15--though please control your temper--I'm sure there are more pressing things to get angry over than a game.
you're right. it hasn't been a pleasant morning thus far, and being a fan of that team out on the island, i'm not expecting today to get any better. my bad.

hockeygoon15 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-01-2008, 08:55 AM
  #18
Levitate
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 21,033
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by eco's bones View Post
Your reasoning is fair enough hockeygoon15--though please control your temper--I'm sure there are more pressing things to get angry over than a game. Whether or not salaries are tied to revenues we are still IMO heading back to the place we were before--the obscene bidding wars for oftentimes underwhelming talent that directly led to past labor disputes. It may be that you think it fair that market revenues should always set the table for player salaries. I don't particularly. Though there were some good things that came out of the lockout--that lost season was not worth it IMO in the short or in the long run. Escalating salaries sooner or later are going to lead to a dead end. Just take a look around you at a collapsing dollar and a recessionary economy. Optimistic about the future? Sure. Optimistic that it will be pain free? Not at all.
Eh, so what's your solution? A hard cap that never moves? (so the owners make all the money and the players probably wouldn't agree to) No free agency? What?

As long as revenues go up, salaries will go up. There's no way around it.

Levitate is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-01-2008, 09:23 AM
  #19
Fletch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 21,469
vCash: 500
The cap will find an equilibirum....

and I think revenues will evenutually begin to level off. I had thought the cap was directly tied to revenues and is a percent of revenues. To me, that's a fair way to determine a cap (fair from both sides). Every sport has its hanger-ons making too much money, a lot of movement due to salary cap constraints, and bidding wars (heck, the Nets are clearing the decks for the arrival of King Lebron, which won't happen for a couple years, if ever). I don't see why hockey should be so different. It forces GMs to manage their assets better, and manage for the long-term. I don't think we should take issue with that. So a couple salaries get out of whack. Those teams will get burned at some point and another cycle will emerge whereby everyone is dishing out 10 year contracts or insane money for mediocre players.

Fletch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-01-2008, 09:31 AM
  #20
Forechecker
Registered User
 
Forechecker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Country: Netherlands
Posts: 4,322
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Forechecker
Unless the Canadian Dollar continues to strengthen against the US$ (doubtful), revenues will level off this year. That has been the major reason for the rise in league revenues (actually Hockey Related Revenues). Attendance is growing, but not at the rate to keep the cap moving forward at 5%+ per year.

As far as the B's and Hossa go, they need to make a big splash to get some attention in Beantown. They are now a distance fourth to the Sox, Pats, and Celtics. Hossa would grab the headlines, and put people in the seats.

Forechecker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-01-2008, 09:35 AM
  #21
HockeyBasedNYC
Registered User
 
HockeyBasedNYC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Here
Country: United States
Posts: 12,954
vCash: 500
I have a feeling this is going to be a baaaad day for the Rangers future.

HockeyBasedNYC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-01-2008, 09:37 AM
  #22
DontStepanMe
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Queens, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 5,381
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyBasedNYC View Post
I have a feeling this is going to be a baaaad day for the Rangers future.
so you think that they are going to build around Gomez and Drury?

DontStepanMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-01-2008, 09:58 AM
  #23
GAGLine
Registered User
 
GAGLine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 9,344
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by gaglinefan View Post
If the #'s work what would be better? Drury may feel left out but it's up to him to help us win (why we signed him in the first place). Given the available options I don't think this is so bad.
Hey look, I've got a fan lol.

GAGLine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-01-2008, 10:09 AM
  #24
BrooklynRangersFan
Change is good.
 
BrooklynRangersFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brooklyn of course
Country: United States
Posts: 10,554
vCash: 500
Quote:
-The New York Rangers want Mats Sundin and Jagr . They want them on one-year over-35 contracts.
Jagr - yay! One year contracts - yay! Sundin - meh (too much of the team's performance tied up in the last generation).

Quote:
-Teams interested in Avery Maple Leafs, Blackhawks and Canucks, with other suitors expected to emerge.
Buh-bye, Sean.

Quote:
-Rangers to check in about Hossa but the Post learned the Bruins will offer him a 12 years, 100 million dollar contract.
Stay a million miles away, Glen.

Quote:
-The Rangers, who will check in on Brian Rolston
ONLY if Jagr and Sundin take a pass.

Quote:
-The Blueshirts have essentially targeted four free agent defensemen of whom they hope to sign two - their own Michal Rozsival, Ottawa's Wade Redden, Pittsburgh's Brooks Orpik and Montreal's Mark Streit.
Would love, love, love Orpik - the one FA I really, truly want. Redden would be nice, if the price is right. Rozsie/Streit only at good values.

Quote:
-Sather rejected Rosy's offer of 4 years for 5 million per season.
4MM or less per year represents a good value to me.

Quote:
-Rangers have zero interest in Campbell's 7M contract he wants.
Good. We have NO business making any 7MM offers to anyone this summer.

Quote:
-Orpik wants a 6 year, 4 million per contract with a NTC. Rangers will probably offer him a 4 year, 4 millin contract.
4 yrs/16MM I do in a heartbeat. NTC, I don't. 6 years is tough. I go to 5 years if I absolutely have to.

Quote:
-Streit will ask for about 3-3.5M.
Meh.

BrooklynRangersFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-01-2008, 10:12 AM
  #25
HockeyBasedNYC
Registered User
 
HockeyBasedNYC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Here
Country: United States
Posts: 12,954
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by FLYLine88 View Post
-The New York Rangers want Mats Sundin and Jagr . They want them on one-year over-35 contracts.

I thought they couldn't do bonus contracts this year.

HockeyBasedNYC is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:35 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.