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

Are people freaking out unnecessarily about re-signing our young guys under the cap?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
07-26-2008, 12:45 PM
  #26
Son of Steinbrenner
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Country: Tromelin
Posts: 9,481
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrooklynRangersFan View Post
SOS, you start out ranting as if you read my original post, but then you wind up with the same laments that I explained were unfounded!
They aren't "unfounded" going into NEXT offseason the Rangers have very little cap space. You are attempting to spin it that it's somehow a good thing and it's not. We aren't the Red Wings or the Penguins here...The Rangers are a young team with no cap space....Doesn't that bother you? Don't you see something wrong with that?


Quote:
Okay, this much is true - we don't have the room to go out and make any big moves for a player who's got a contract of any size (unless one of ours goes back). But as I said in a post above, I think what Slats has done is to pick the core FAs he wants and is now filling in with youth. Drury, Gomez and Redden are the veteran first order players he wants to build around.
Redden is not a guy to build around. 31 year old defenseman with a ton of mileage coming off TWO poor seasons are not guys to build around.

The Rangers have no room for outside improvment. RIGHT NOW the roster is incomplete and we are up against the cap. We can already see down the road the cap being an issue because we have guys that are VASTLY overpaid on the roster. It's not like the "youth" we have are all 1st and 2nd line players.....The Rangers are still going to need help and not have the cap room to do anything about it....That isn't something to praise....

Quote:
Furthermore, by signing the guys he's targeted early in the life of the CBA, he benefits from the fact that the contracts will become more and more economical in relation to an increasing cap. How much would Gomez, for example, have commanded if he'd been an UFA THIS year? How much NEXT year? When the big name UFA Dman hits the market in 2 years and gets $9MM per anum, Redden's deal is going to look mighty cheap by comparison.
Do you really think somebody is giving Gomez $8.0 or $9.0 a year if he was a free agent this year? What about Drury? do you reallly think somebody would give Drury a huge raise from what he is receiving now from the Rangers?

If Redden reverts back to his old form the deal might look cheap BUT if he doesn't work out then what? It doesnt' matter that a better defenseman would be making more money, the reality of the situation would still be Redden is getting overpaid by the Rangers........


Quote:
And here's where you're back to the same old lament. By the time it's time for Dubi or Staal to get paid, we will have the room to do it! Did you not read my original post? We will either be able to sign them to a reasonable contract over the next couple of years or will get handsomely compensated with draft picks. When they get close to UFA status, the contracts everyone hates will be off the books and there will be plenty of room for all to be paid (hopefully at the hometown discount that we see other organizations receiving).
So we get to be compensated with draft picks (that may or not work out) for guys that are proven NHL'ers....Call me crazy if i don't jump for joy for that....

You aren't seeing the other side to that....

If one of the kids who are making $800k as Rangers gets signed away for more money how do you replace that production for the amount of money you have left under the cap?

You can't say by a prospect......Do you see another Marc Staal in the system?

We can do this for almost all of the future core Rangers....

The trade off of losing them vs the draft pick compensation is a terrible argument...You aren't taking into consideration that the Rangers WOULDN'T be able to replace that young player from within the system....AND...They won't have the cap room to replace the player from outside the organization...

But that's ok right?

I'm not talking about the future 3rd liners here...(although all you would need is one of Fritcshe or Callahan to exceed expecatons to really throw a monkey wrench in your theory) I'm talking about the core young players like Dubinsky, Staal, Dawes, and Zherdev

Also...

What kind of compensation do you see if Zherdev walks to the KHL? You realize if Zherdev scores 30 goals this season we are going to have a touch time matching any offers he receives from Russia?

How do we replace that production with no cap room?

your "theory" is easy to poke holes through...


Quote:

EXACTLY.
So in two years when Staal is Restricted Free Agent $5.0M isn't a possibilty? Look at what young defenseman are signing for now....Then use YOUR rate of inflation of $2.5M that you have above in your argument of Redden Vs a $9M dollar defensman in the future?

Do you think that inflation is going to hit EVERY aspect of free agency BUT Restricted Free Agent defenseman?


You are saying that Sather is managing the cap "masterfully" and i disagree with that....

You are basing that all on two restricted free agents in Dawes and Fritsche....Do you expect BETTER Restricted Free Agents in an inflated market to sign for what Dawes and Fritsche signed for?

You are saying Tyutin and Girardis deals are going to be good comparisons YET if the core group develops as expected they will be better players then both Tyutin and Girardi...Do you really expect an Agent in 2010 to use those contracts as a starting point for Staal?

Do you expect and Agent to compare Dawes contract to Dubinsky? You can on a message board but Agents won't in a year or two...They will use what the market is in the NHL...NOT what the Rangers have spent on worse players.....in the past...

You aren't looking at the whole picture........

I hope your right though!


Last edited by Son of Steinbrenner: 07-26-2008 at 12:55 PM.
Son of Steinbrenner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-30-2008, 10:46 AM
  #27
NYR Viper
Moderator
 
NYR Viper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: PA
Country: United States
Posts: 28,420
vCash: 500
for people who think all of the rangers RFA's will get BIG money, look at filpula.....he got 3 million per for 5 years.....i would consider that a reasonable contract.......

NYR Viper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-30-2008, 11:03 AM
  #28
Son of Steinbrenner
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Country: Tromelin
Posts: 9,481
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeyviper87 View Post
for people who think all of the rangers RFA's will get BIG money, look at filpula.....he got 3 million per for 5 years.....i would consider that a reasonable contract.......
your not taking into consideration the red wings cap situation nor the fact they are a BETTER team and better organization for a player to be a part of....

the red wings can in a matter of 8 weeks..

win the stanley cup

sign the best free agent

resign a key restricted free agent

Do you see the Rangers being able to do that in the near future?

Son of Steinbrenner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-30-2008, 11:11 AM
  #29
NYR Viper
Moderator
 
NYR Viper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: PA
Country: United States
Posts: 28,420
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Son of Steinbrenner View Post
your not taking into consideration the red wings cap situation nor the fact they are a BETTER team and better organization for a player to be a part of....

the red wings can in a matter of 8 weeks..

win the stanley cup

sign the best free agent

resign a key restricted free agent

Do you see the Rangers being able to do that in the near future?
last season they signed two of the best free agents.......

they will be able to resign their RFA's......staal wont command 5 million a season....dubinsky wants to be a rangers and we all saw what dawes got........if they all improve i could see them maybe getting 3 million each, but even that is a lot

you talk like playing for the new york rangers is exactly like playing for the kings or florida.....no where near the same

NYR Viper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-30-2008, 11:27 AM
  #30
Son of Steinbrenner
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Country: Tromelin
Posts: 9,481
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeyviper87 View Post
last season they signed two of the best free agents.......

they will be able to resign their RFA's......staal wont command 5 million a season....dubinsky wants to be a rangers and we all saw what dawes got........if they all improve i could see them maybe getting 3 million each, but even that is a lot

you talk like playing for the new york rangers is exactly like playing for the kings or florida.....no where near the same
Why would't Staal command $5M a year? In two years with inflation why would Staal leave money on the table...What if he is the Rangers best defensman....why would he take less then Redden and Rozsival? (actually he would still take less then Redden at $5.0M a year)


What do you do about Zherdev after this season? Best case scenario Zherdev scores 30 goals and has 30 assists this season...how much of a raise does he command? Can the Rangers match an offer from a KHL team? Lets say worse case scenario we lose Zherdev.....how do we replace his production with his current salary cap space? Do you see any 30 goal scorers signing for $2.5M?

Dubinsky wants to be a Rangers player means nothing...Money talks

The problem is the Rangers can't resign all there restricted free agents AND sign any unrestricted Free agents....I don't care what prospects are in the system you can't have a team of unproven prospects...unless you want to turn into the kings or florida....

you talk like playing for the new york rangers is the only option in the league....hate to break it to you but new york isn't the only great city in north america...it also isn't for everybody..

Son of Steinbrenner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-30-2008, 11:35 AM
  #31
SupersonicMonkey*
DROP THE PUCK
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: USA
Country: United States
Posts: 15,193
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrooklynRangersFan View Post

Breaking it all down:
-Prucha and Sjostrom are Rangers property for at least two years.
-Zherdev, Fritsche and Girardi are Rangers property for at least three years.
-Dawes, Dubi, Cally, Korpi and Staal (and pretty much everyone else in the system except for Jessiman and Moore) are Rangers' property for at least four years, when - what a coincidence! - Drury and Rozsival come off the books.
No, no it really doesn't guarantee anything.

How does Zherdev becoming a Ristricted Free Agent next summer make him Rangers property for 3 more years?

Where is your logic?

If ANYTHING, he is only guaranteed to be Rangers property ONE more year. He would either get resigned long term, or go to arbitration. If he goes to arbitration he then becomes an UNRESTRICTED free agent the following summer.

That means he is only guaranteed to be Rangers property this up coming season and the following season. NOT 3 years.

And you have to have the cap space to give him and others their raises in order to keep them.

Age has NOTHING to do with this.

Explain how Lundqvist was eligible for UNRESTRICTED free agency this summer if we wasn't resigned. He is only 26.

SupersonicMonkey* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-30-2008, 11:38 AM
  #32
trench23
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 238
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Son of Steinbrenner View Post

Do you see any 30 goal scorers signing for $2.5M?
..
Prucha

trench23 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-30-2008, 11:57 AM
  #33
GAGLine
Registered User
 
GAGLine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 9,216
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Son of Steinbrenner View Post
I don't agree with the veterans brought in nor the sudden change of philosphy by Sather and the rest of the organization. I'm not talking about going younger I'm talking about giving out no trade clauses and No movement clauses to no sure thing players.
I really don't see why people make a big deal about this. Naslund has a 2 year deal. Odds are we aren't going to trade him this year so that leaves 1 year where his NMC might matter. And plenty of players waive their NMC in order to move to a better situation (unless they play for Toronto).

Redden is even less of a factor. He has a limited NMC that says he can pick 8 teams he can't be traded to. That leaves 21 teams he can be traded to. And again, he isn't likely to be traded any time soon, at least not in the 1st 2 years of the deal. If his play regresses too much and we can't trade him, we can just bury him in Hartford. We did it with Kaspar.

This is what everyone always forgets about the salary cap. Just because these players are guaranteed the money doesn't mean they are guaranteed to count against our cap for the duration of the contract.

GAGLine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-30-2008, 12:54 PM
  #34
BrooklynRangersFan
Change is good.
 
BrooklynRangersFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brooklyn of course
Country: United States
Posts: 10,303
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PukkuMikku View Post
No, no it really doesn't guarantee anything.

How does Zherdev becoming a Ristricted Free Agent next summer make him Rangers property for 3 more years?

Where is your logic?

If ANYTHING, he is only guaranteed to be Rangers property ONE more year. He would either get resigned long term, or go to arbitration. If he goes to arbitration he then becomes an UNRESTRICTED free agent the following summer.

That means he is only guaranteed to be Rangers property this up coming season and the following season. NOT 3 years.

And you have to have the cap space to give him and others their raises in order to keep them.

Age has NOTHING to do with this.

Explain how Lundqvist was eligible for UNRESTRICTED free agency this summer if we wasn't resigned. He is only 26.
As I mentioned, this stuff is really complicated and, while I've read what appear to be the appropriate sections in the CBA, I can't claim to have read the whole thing so there may be clauses that I've missed. With that caveat, however, I can't find anywhere in the document where it says that simply because you went to arbitration the year before, you are then an UFA the year after.

Age (and professional seasons played) have EVERYTHING to do with this. Your age/service time determine when you're an RFA, when you're eligible for arbitration and when you finally hit UFA status.

(There are exceptions for players that get up there in years before logging significant NHL time, but the rules I described apply to anyone who's played 80 NHL games by the time he's 25.)

Now, there ARE of course risks with arbitration: 1) the arbitrator may award more than you're willing to pay, in which case the team's only recourse is to walk away - and if you do that, the player DOES become an UFA; and 2) it can get nasty and motivate the player to leave at the first opportunity (see Avery, Sean). However the mere fact that a player goes to arbitration does not appear to make him an UFA the next year. If I'm wrong about that, please let me know (and I'd appreciate a reference to the appropriate language in the CBA).

As to your example, Hank was drafted in 2000 and played 7 "Professional Seasons" between Frolunda and the Rangers - that is why he was eligible to be an UFA before 27.

Next question?

BrooklynRangersFan is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-30-2008, 01:06 PM
  #35
BrooklynRangersFan
Change is good.
 
BrooklynRangersFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brooklyn of course
Country: United States
Posts: 10,303
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrooklynRangersFan View Post
Now, if I look at the definitions of the various UFA Groups in the CBA, unless I'm very much mistaken, the only thing we have to worry about with any prospect that gets meaningful playing time on the big club is Group 3 UFA status. In other words, unless you're talking about Hugh Jessiman, it's a fairly safe bet that anyone we want to retain will get at least 80 games under his belt at the big club before turning 25 - which in turn means he can't become a UFA until either a)he turns 27 or b)he logs 7 seasons in an NHL organization (i.e. on the roster of an NHL team or one of its minor league affiliates).
Sorry if this line in my original post caused some confusion - it's 7 professional seasons, which includes seasons played in the European elite leagues, such as the SEL.

BrooklynRangersFan is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-31-2008, 02:53 PM
  #36
BrooklynRangersFan
Change is good.
 
BrooklynRangersFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brooklyn of course
Country: United States
Posts: 10,303
vCash: 500
Sorry to keep bumping my own thread, but I thought I should point out that the Vermette deal adds further support to my argument. Here's a supremely talented player (whom many here were hoping to acquire) that averaged over 20 goals for 3 years, who jumped to 50 points last year at the age of 26... and no one gave him an offer sheet. So, a month after the FA period opened, he signed a two year deal averaging about $2.6MM. And to get THAT number he had to give up a year of UFA status.

Hell, Mike Green led all defensemen in scoring and still got only $5.25MM per year (just over the 4 pick compensation threshold).

Unless our young guys bust out to top 5 in the league at their respective positions, we'll be able to sign them for somewhat reasonable numbers over the next couple of years. And if they do happen to lead the league in scoring at their position, well, I for one will be happy to have that problem (and oh yeah, see ya Rozsie).

So the only real problem with being this close to the salary cap is that it prevents any new FA signings or trades for high priced players. It does NOT prevent us from retaining Dubi, Staal, etc. As for FAs - I think Slats has the guys he wanted. Trades? Well, Rozsie has an eminently movable contract should you need to send dollars the other way (and indeed, the more I think about it, the more I think he'll be gone long before the end of his contract).

BrooklynRangersFan is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-31-2008, 05:33 PM
  #37
Son of Steinbrenner
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Country: Tromelin
Posts: 9,481
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrooklynRangersFan View Post
Sorry to keep bumping my own thread, but I thought I should point out that the Vermette deal adds further support to my argument. Here's a supremely talented player (whom many here were hoping to acquire) that averaged over 20 goals for 3 years, who jumped to 50 points last year at the age of 26... and no one gave him an offer sheet. So, a month after the FA period opened, he signed a two year deal averaging about $2.6MM. And to get THAT number he had to give up a year of UFA status.

Hell, Mike Green led all defensemen in scoring and still got only $5.25MM per year (just over the 4 pick compensation threshold).

Unless our young guys bust out to top 5 in the league at their respective positions, we'll be able to sign them for somewhat reasonable numbers over the next couple of years. And if they do happen to lead the league in scoring at their position, well, I for one will be happy to have that problem (and oh yeah, see ya Rozsie).

So the only real problem with being this close to the salary cap is that it prevents any new FA signings or trades for high priced players. It does NOT prevent us from retaining Dubi, Staal, etc. As for FAs - I think Slats has the guys he wanted. Trades? Well, Rozsie has an eminently movable contract should you need to send dollars the other way (and indeed, the more I think about it, the more I think he'll be gone long before the end of his contract).
Although I agree with nothing what you said above (because you don't take inflation into account as i proved to you earlier in the thread) under your best case scenario the Ranger wouldn't be able to add to any of the needs that are sure to arise over the next few years...

That's awesome!

great salary cap planning....I'm just glad we have a complete team right now..


I appreciate the hard work you did in this thread, i'm sure it took you some time to do but i think you have it all wrong...

Son of Steinbrenner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-01-2008, 10:02 AM
  #38
BrooklynRangersFan
Change is good.
 
BrooklynRangersFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brooklyn of course
Country: United States
Posts: 10,303
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Son of Steinbrenner View Post
Although I agree with nothing what you said above (because you don't take inflation into account as i proved to you earlier in the thread) under your best case scenario the Ranger wouldn't be able to add to any of the needs that are sure to arise over the next few years...

That's awesome!

great salary cap planning....I'm just glad we have a complete team right now..


I appreciate the hard work you did in this thread, i'm sure it took you some time to do but i think you have it all wrong...
If you argue inflation, I counter with salary cap increase. You can't have it both ways - player salaries only inflate if the total payroll per team inflates. Have I sufficiently addressed the point you "proved"?

As to salary cap planning - as I said, if the Rangers want to go out and sign other UFAs next year, THAT'S the place where they've screwed themselves. I admit it, no question - unless there is a trade, I don't believe the Rangers will be able to sign any more big name free agents next year. That's not the point of this thread.

My guess is that Slats already HAS the free agents he wants for the next two years in the fold now. He's signed four big names in the past two years. Most likely this means that he'll be quiet over the next year or so - and GMs who have been relatively quiet this year and last will be the ones who pick up the guys who hit the market in the '09 offseason.

At the end of the day, Slats believes in using the full cap to field the best team he can. You seem to feel that if he could have kept the space he would somehow be able to make the team better than it is by "addressing future needs". Fine, but then bear in mind that if you don't sign Drury or Redden those future needs would include another top 6 forward and a top pairing Dman...

You and others don't like the particular UFAs Slats has signed. I believe that's the real issue here. And that's fine! But my point is whether you like those guys or not, their signings will NOT jeapordize our ability to hang on to our good young prospects.

BrooklynRangersFan is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-01-2008, 12:41 PM
  #39
Tender Rip
No cap on coaching!
 
Tender Rip's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Shanghai, China
Posts: 12,313
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrooklynRangersFan View Post
I admit it, no question - unless there is a trade, I don't believe the Rangers will be able to sign any more big name free agents next year. That's not the point of this thread.
Eh? How can it not be the point? What does it matter that you can keep every single one of your future RFA's if you cannot add the superior quality needed to be a contender? You're the Rangers, right? You're planning on incremental growth to take you ALL the way? Naaaah!

I mean, sorry, but whereas you have decent prospect depth, they're hardly THAT good, and I believe that is what S.O Steinbrenner is also saying here.
If it means you're excluding yourself from doing anything else, signing all your RFA's is winning a battle and losing the war if you are not already there roster-wise.

Tender Rip is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-01-2008, 01:07 PM
  #40
eco's bones
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Elmira NY
Country: United States
Posts: 12,501
vCash: 500
Redden is going to be an extremely hard player to move in the next 3 or 4 years and if he declines in the meanwhile forget it--movement clause or not. Again I agree with 66--the Rangers not only have to bring along and bring in quality young players--something that seems to be working but they also have to spend their money astutely and on the right free agents. They overspent last year for both Gomez and Drury neither of whom are elite players. It's more forgiveable in light of what they believed about their chances last year and in Gomez's case that it covers what should be his prime years.

As for this years signings--a lot depends on how you see the team. I do not see them as a legit contender. We've lost our best and only elite forward--losing Avery as well will effect the competitive nature of the team. Zherdev looks to be a great addition if we can keep him. Not seeing us as the legit team I think it was a big mistake to give huge long term contracts to two 30+ defenders niether of whom is an elite player and one of whom may be on the decline and the other is a stretch at best as a top pairing d-man.

eco's bones is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-01-2008, 01:25 PM
  #41
BrooklynRangersFan
Change is good.
 
BrooklynRangersFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brooklyn of course
Country: United States
Posts: 10,303
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by There's only one 66 View Post
Eh? How can it not be the point? What does it matter that you can keep every single one of your future RFA's if you cannot add the superior quality needed to be a contender? You're the Rangers, right? You're planning on incremental growth to take you ALL the way? Naaaah!

I mean, sorry, but whereas you have decent prospect depth, they're hardly THAT good, and I believe that is what S.O Steinbrenner is also saying here.
If it means you're excluding yourself from doing anything else, signing all your RFA's is winning a battle and losing the war if you are not already there roster-wise.
Because it's not the point. As I said in the first post, one of the big laments that I heard on the boards after the Rangers' most recent signings was that they would make it impossible to retain the good young players they've amassed - the point of this thread is therefore to counter that specific concern. I believe I've done a good job of it.

As to the FAs they did sign - they signed 4 premier guys in two years. Under the current cap, that's about all you can do until one of them comes off the books. Now, if you don't like the players they signed, that is certainly a legitimate topic worth debating - and there are literally dozens of other threads on this forum where that very argument has been played out. But it's totally unrelated to the specific topic I was addressing, which was the impact those contracts would have on the Rangers' ability to retain their youth.

BrooklynRangersFan is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-01-2008, 01:45 PM
  #42
Synergy27
Registered User
 
Synergy27's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Portland, OR
Country: United States
Posts: 4,564
vCash: 500
The bottom line is that Sather is not completely disregarding the cap like some people think he might be. He's probably not doing it himself, as I am fairly sure the team has a couple of guys whose JOB it is to manage the cap. With literally no knowledge of the teams' future plans, it is completely, 100% impossible to judge whether or not the cap is being managed properly (this discounts the ideas of essentially everyone posting in this thread). There are so many variables, so many options at Sather's disposal, so many possibe unforeseen events that it's just a waste of time to opine about this for days on end.

To positively assert either point of view (i.e., we're cap-screwed or we're OK for the future) is fallacious because none of us know what the team, or even the league, is going to look like in a few years.

Synergy27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-01-2008, 11:10 PM
  #43
Son of Steinbrenner
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Country: Tromelin
Posts: 9,481
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrooklynRangersFan View Post
If you argue inflation, I counter with salary cap increase. You can't have it both ways - player salaries only inflate if the total payroll per team inflates. Have I sufficiently addressed the point you "proved"?
What if the cap doesn't go up?

The US economy is in shambles and the league is headed for another CBA showdown...Why is it a "given" that the cap is going to go up after this season?

Quote:
As to salary cap planning - as I said, if the Rangers want to go out and sign other UFAs next year, THAT'S the place where they've screwed themselves. I admit it, no question - unless there is a trade, I don't believe the Rangers will be able to sign any more big name free agents next year. That's not the point of this thread.
No kidding....That's a problem.....That isn't something that should just be ignored as "that wasn't my point of the thread" it goes hand and hand with improving the roster...Doesn't it?

Quote:
My guess is that Slats already HAS the free agents he wants for the next two years in the fold now. He's signed four big names in the past two years. Most likely this means that he'll be quiet over the next year or so - and GMs who have been relatively quiet this year and last will be the ones who pick up the guys who hit the market in the '09 offseason.
Sather doesn't have a choice in the matter...

Quote:
At the end of the day, Slats believes in using the full cap to field the best team he can. You seem to feel that if he could have kept the space he would somehow be able to make the team better than it is by "addressing future needs". Fine, but then bear in mind that if you don't sign Drury or Redden those future needs would include another top 6 forward and a top pairing Dman...
You are a little off on how I "feel"

I feel that if the 3rd youngest team in hockey is up against the cap they should have a complete roster...The Rangers cap right now is an oxymoron...A million 3rd liners and some 2nd liners....Why is a roster like THAT up against the cap?

Quote:
You and others don't like the particular UFAs Slats has signed. I believe that's the real issue here. And that's fine! But my point is whether you like those guys or not, their signings will NOT jeapordize our ability to hang on to our good young prospects.
I don't like the contracts that were given out but I am going to root for the players when the season starts...I'm cynical about the moves but it's not like i'm going to root against the team..

I don't think resiging the RFA is as cut and dry as you think....A team isn't just going to do nothing to improve the team from outside the organization....What are the odds that next August we are looking at the same exact roster? Something is going to have to give at some point....

I don't think it's fair to say people are "freaking out unnecessarily" about resiging our young guys when you are looking at half the argument about the cap situation..

Son of Steinbrenner 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 08:05 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.