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

Nylander a Ranger...

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
08-17-2004, 05:18 PM
  #201
Gainey23
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 38
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fish
32 at the beginning of October, which makes this deal seem a little long IMO. He'll be 35 in the last year of his contract...

He had 1 goal and 13 assists last year in 18 games 17-43-60 the year before in 80 games and 15-46-61 in 2001-02 in the full 82 games.


yes, getting a little long in the tooth...and injury plagued in recent seasons, but this is still one of the better playmakers in the game and at that price it's a pretty good signing...

'01-02 with the Blackhawks is a good barometer--15 goals isn't anything to get worked up over, but 46 assists and a +28 with a transitioning Chicago squad is fairly decent...

Gainey23 is offline  
Old
08-17-2004, 06:32 PM
  #202
Edge
Registered User
 
Edge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Sin City
Country: United States
Posts: 13,196
vCash: 500
I guess the only thing i can really in closing {because i am coming down with something and the energy and ability to stare at the screen is becoming a challange} is that the player isn't the problem again it's the contract.

You're 100% there isnt anyone right now we think will step up, but everyone knows that when you least expect it, something happens. And the big problem {which in 13 pages still hasn't really be addressed} is what we actually do if {gasp} things actually develop better than expected.

No one is arguing about next season and no one is penciling anyone in. But the question of flexibility hasnt been addressed and just like everyone isn't assuming a kid will come in, they ARE assuming that Nylander will be able to maintain career averages as he gets further and further in his 30's.

Other than that it's an agree to disagree scenario, but it's also a scenario that this team has tried before. Though I'm not gonna get all emotional about it like Marley.

If he exceeds expectations it is good for the team so there wont be any complaining there. I just dont feel confident in his ability to do much in afew years.

Edge is offline  
Old
08-17-2004, 07:10 PM
  #203
Fletch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 21,469
vCash: 500
True Edge...

but the problem is that that's the price these Rangers have to pay, unfortunately. Why else come here? Sather waited the UFAs out a fair amount of time, and that's what he's left with. Not a huge contract by $$$ standards, although it goes beyond the length you'd normally want in such a contract. But that's the give one has to give to get a player to come to New York. And this squad did need a player or two that's been around a while. Kids need to learn from somewhere.

Fletch is offline  
Old
08-17-2004, 08:38 PM
  #204
Edge
Registered User
 
Edge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Sin City
Country: United States
Posts: 13,196
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fletch
but the problem is that that's the price these Rangers have to pay, unfortunately. Why else come here? Sather waited the UFAs out a fair amount of time, and that's what he's left with. Not a huge contract by $$$ standards, although it goes beyond the length you'd normally want in such a contract. But that's the give one has to give to get a player to come to New York. And this squad did need a player or two that's been around a while. Kids need to learn from somewhere.
And I do understand that much. But when you come off 8 years of mistakes, getting desperate for anything is not the right foot to start off on. And make no mistake, they didn't sign him to lead the kids. They signed him to keep Jagr's mouth shut as long as possible because they couldn't move him. THAT is the point being forgotten here.

And make no mistake the Rangers choose this path. But like anything else with Sather's time in NY he has all the money to do whatever he wants.

The young squad could use you someone to LEARN from, but Nylander isnt a player to accomplish that goal {never has been, never will}. Doing the right thing doesn't mean doing the easy things, it means doing the best things. Rebuilding sounds nice in theory but this team doesn't convince me it is willing to accept that rebuilding sometimes means struggling and saying no and frankly watching some really crappy hockey out there.

This team didnt want someone to teach anyone anything. This team wanted to throw something out there for those who need to be entertained. Sorry but thats not the way any team rebuilds, and history shows the Rangers aren't like to be the one's to discover a new formula.

Edge is offline  
Old
08-17-2004, 08:58 PM
  #205
Fletch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 21,469
vCash: 500
Personally...

I thought this team did need to sign a centerman. Aside from Holik, I'm not sure there's one in the organization who can keep up with Jagr and didn't want to see Holik teamed with him again. That was my issue. Agreed that this is a failed model, but given the current status of the team, there should be a lot of kids playing.

Fletch is offline  
Old
08-17-2004, 09:01 PM
  #206
Son of Steinbrenner
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Country: Tromelin
Posts: 9,559
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edge
And I do understand that much. But when you come off 8 years of mistakes, getting desperate for anything is not the right foot to start off on. And make no mistake, they didn't sign him to lead the kids. They signed him to keep Jagr's mouth shut as long as possible because they couldn't move him. THAT is the point being forgotten here.

And make no mistake the Rangers choose this path. But like anything else with Sather's time in NY he has all the money to do whatever he wants.

The young squad could use you someone to LEARN from, but Nylander isnt a player to accomplish that goal {never has been, never will}. Doing the right thing doesn't mean doing the easy things, it means doing the best things. Rebuilding sounds nice in theory but this team doesn't convince me it is willing to accept that rebuilding sometimes means struggling and saying no and frankly watching some really crappy hockey out there.

This team didnt want someone to teach anyone anything. This team wanted to throw something out there for those who need to be entertained. Sorry but thats not the way any team rebuilds, and history shows the Rangers aren't like to be the one's to discover a new formula.
how is signing nylander going to make for entertaining hockey? i would bet "dollars to donuts" that the fringe hockey fan doesn't even know who nylander is.

we all know its a bad contract but the FACT is the rangers need to sign somebody who can be used as a top line center. nylander isn't here for the young players to learn from the coaches are. the team is going to struggle but with nylander here it means a young player doesn't have to be pressed and "ruined" by playing in a role they aren't ready for. every rebuilding team in the history of rebuilding has had veteran players.

Son of Steinbrenner is offline  
Old
08-17-2004, 09:49 PM
  #207
BobMarleyNYR
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Alphabet
Country: Iraq
Posts: 2,985
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to BobMarleyNYR
Quote:
Originally Posted by Son of Steinbrenner
how is signing nylander going to make for entertaining hockey? i would bet "dollars to donuts" that the fringe hockey fan doesn't even know who nylander is.

we all know its a bad contract but the FACT is the rangers need to sign somebody who can be used as a top line center. nylander isn't here for the young players to learn from the coaches are. the team is going to struggle but with nylander here it means a young player doesn't have to be pressed and "ruined" by playing in a role they aren't ready for. every rebuilding team in the history of rebuilding has had veteran players.
I think the only thing that makes it a bad CONTRACT, per se, is the money involved. WAAAY too much, and I agree with that argument, but not theage/health argument... I don't buy it. I think anyone who hates it THAT much might just be scared... and I don't blame them, but let's give it a try!

And you're right, it CAN'T be done without veterans... and a lot of people say, "well there were other options," but there really aren't.


Last edited by BobMarleyNYR: 08-17-2004 at 09:55 PM.
BobMarleyNYR is offline  
Old
08-17-2004, 10:00 PM
  #208
Edge
Registered User
 
Edge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Sin City
Country: United States
Posts: 13,196
vCash: 500
Quote:
how is signing nylander going to make for entertaining hockey? i would bet "dollars to donuts" that the fringe hockey fan doesn't even know who nylander is.
Dont' ask me, I'm not the one thinks entertainment is a priority.


Quote:
we all know its a bad contract but the FACT is the rangers need to sign somebody who can be used as a top line center. nylander isn't here for the young players to learn from the coaches are. the team is going to struggle but with nylander here it means a young player doesn't have to be pressed and "ruined" by playing in a role they aren't ready for. every rebuilding team in the history of rebuilding has had veteran players.
But you can't ignore the contract. That's the whole point. I need to tear up my backyard, but I'm not gonna set fire to my lawn to do it.

And you're right no kid should be ruined by being pushed into a role they arent ready, but the solution isn't blocking yourself in in the process. You don't save any kids by doing that, you just shift the problem to a whole new area.

You're right every rebuilding team has veteran players, but not locked up for multi-year hard to move contracts which brings us right back to the original point that you CAN'T ignore the contract. We can't pretend it isn't there if we don't see it.

Which AGAIN brings us back to the point that no one is saying no to veterans. They are saying no to veterans who are under a contract that cant be moved and is for a longer term than it should be. No one is fighting anyone on the issue of bringing some vets in, they are fighting about the issue of "how long are we gonna be stuck with them".

It's very much like food when you're fridge is empty and your budget is tight. Eating top Ramen fits the need for food and you DO need to eat, but you wouldn't go out and buy three years worth it.

Edge is offline  
Old
08-17-2004, 10:59 PM
  #209
Kodiak
Registered User
 
Kodiak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Ranger fan in Philly
Posts: 2,185
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Kodiak Send a message via AIM to Kodiak Send a message via Yahoo to Kodiak
Edge, I see your points (though I don't agree with them), but the one thing you have not done is offer a viable alternative. If signing Nylander for that amount and that length was the wrong move, what was the right one? The answer cannot be just to sign him for less money and a shorter contract, because then he would likely just stick in Boston because he's had success there and they are more likely to put together a good team. So what would you do in Sather's place?

Kodiak is offline  
Old
08-18-2004, 12:09 AM
  #210
Edge
Registered User
 
Edge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Sin City
Country: United States
Posts: 13,196
vCash: 500
Well for starter's I don't think we can look at the situation and say there is a right and wrong answer. We live in a world of gray and often moves need to be judged in the sense of the lesser of two bad situations.

If Nylander didn't want to sign here for what he is worth, than I certainly wouldn't offer him more to come. We just got done unloading a bunch of players who chose this team for the paycheck. I dont think i'd jump right back into there.

Secondly I am signing vets to fill the gaps and to possibly serve as charachter guys while brining kids along. I don't go in signing guys to make Jagr and Holik feel better.

Ideally I'd love to get the most out of Holik and Jagr but this ideally I also wouldn't be rebuilding with those two guys on my roster. BUT there is nothing i can do to change that. I accept that they are here and I work on building tomorrow's team. I accept that I won't likely get their top end out of them and that even if i did it isn't enough to make a tremendous difference. So right there I stop trying to go down that path because frankly it doesn't solve anything. Sometimes it isnt fun but you accept things wont be the ideal. You don't shoot yourselves in the foot trying to make it ideal {you are afterall still paying the price for that mindsight in the first place}.

So now finally comes the time to look at free agents.

I look at a guy like Fitzgerald, maybe a Lowry type. I look at guys like Arvedson maybe Pellerin or Silliner. I look at a guy like Perrault maybe Young, possibly a McAmmond.

What I don't do is overpay for a guy whoplayed 20 games last season and what i don't do is looking for ideal situations. When you're in the shape you are in, you gotta accept that there is no such thing as an ideal. You gotta realize that crawling comes before walking and that you can't get jittery when you first choices fall through.

The labor situation is an uncertainty and you have to think worst case scenario at the moment. Even if it never comes to be, you simply cannot assume everything will work out okay.

You give yourself flexibility to understand that you might be suprised and you also take into consideration where you want to go.

Would it be nice to get maximum value out of Holik and Jagr? No question it would. But you can't lose sight of what the team is trying to accomplish.

Everyone would love to roll out three lines where everyone can do their job, but that just doesn't happen on a rebuilding team. That's the exact reason it's called rebuilding.

There are just too many other holes to sit there and say "oh well we plugged this hole". All it comes down to is kidding yourselves into maybe another 3 or 4 victories, that's really it.

There are no gurantees that ANY of these kids make it, but you have to wait and see. Signing an ideal second line center, who is aging, coming off a lost year to a RAISE in salary with a rebuilding mode going, and an uncertain labor situation just doesnt make sense. It especially doesn't make sense to sign him up potentially till the NEXT election year to boot.

Yes without that offer, maybe he signs with Boston. But Boston isn't rebuilding now are they? If a team that has an ideal spot for him and who's already lost talented members to free agency isn't willing to pay a little more to keep him, what sense doesit make for a team that has no ideal situation and is rebuilding to sign him to a 3 or 4 year deal.

There was NO other team even in the ballpark for what this team offered. It's not like through in the extra year to win him over. I've checked with at least 13 people and NO ONE was bidding on Nylander. There were some people kicking the tire,but that's it. They signed him because they thought for sure they were getting Conroy and they thought they could sign Lindros for less. Neither plan worked out so once again they got froggy and lept.

NO ONE else was even in the ballpark when the Rangers made this move. NO ONE.

Edge is offline  
Old
08-18-2004, 11:28 AM
  #211
Chief
Registered User
 
Chief's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: NY, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 1,840
vCash: 500
Here's a few bits from the latest Hockey News that are relevant:

There's an article on the Coyotes and their GM says he was talking to a GM of one of the bigger market teams, who had made a trade with Phoenix months earlier. "He told me if I tried to trade the same (high salaried veteran) player now, he would be the one asking for prospects and picks instead of giving them, just to take on the salary," Barnett said. "I don't think we would have been able to do what we did at the deadline during the offseason. The climate has changed that much."

And BTW - I don't have the years handy but here's some of the free agents the Desert Dogs signed this summer. Hull at $2.25 mill next season, Ricci at $1.75 mill and O'Donnell at $2 mill. Those are the kind of pricetags a young team looking to add vets pays out.

Also of note was a piece regarding the Thrashers signing Mellanby. "Waddell (Atl's GM) originally was looking for a center, but liked Mellanby's grit, character, size and price better than the centers in free agent pool." That Waddell's a smart man Mellanby was signed to a 2 year $2.4 mill contract. Mellanby is one of the UFA's I wished we'd signed. That kind of vet with grit and character would be a good guy to have around for our kids - and for only two years at $1 million and change per year.

Chief is offline  
Old
08-18-2004, 01:00 PM
  #212
RangerBoy
#freejtmiller
 
RangerBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 31,896
vCash: 500
This thread is still going strong after eight days

Since everyone is quoting the Hockey News around here today,THN had a blurb two months about how teams would get their payrolls in order under a cap or luxury tax system.The portion of the traded contract that teams agreed to eat doesn't count against cap and the acquiring team would count only the amount of the contract it is picking up

Another possiblity mentioned this weekend was teams would be able to buyout players and the money being paid for the buyouts would be an out of the cap expense.If the Rangers wanted to buyout Bobby Holik for 2/3 of $27 million,the $18 million buyout spread out over twice the term of the term would not count against the cap

As Fish pointed in another thread,the Capitals are responsible for paying 2/3 of the 66% buyout of Jaromir Jagr after the 2005-06 season.The Rangers would pay the other 1/3.Figure Jagr has $20 million remaining after 05-06.$13.2 million to buy him out-the Capitals pay $8.8 and the Rangers pay $4.4 million which in line with what the Caps are reportedly picking up per year of the Jagr contract.Larry Brooks had that in January

RangerBoy is offline  
Old
08-18-2004, 01:12 PM
  #213
Chief
Registered User
 
Chief's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: NY, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 1,840
vCash: 500
Of course, unless any of the above options makes it into a new CBA, these are just ideas on what "could" happen. I recently saw another possibility that was that teams would have to set a roster at a given salary cap. Any players who couldn't fit within that cap would be dispersed in a draft with the original team having to pay the entire salary, even though the player was now on another team. Now, I don't think this is likely but it's been floated out there.

Chief is offline  
Old
08-18-2004, 01:15 PM
  #214
RangerBoy
#freejtmiller
 
RangerBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 31,896
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chief
Here's a few bits from the latest Hockey News that are relevant:

There's an article on the Coyotes and their GM says he was talking to a GM of one of the bigger market teams, who had made a trade with Phoenix months earlier. "He told me if I tried to trade the same (high salaried veteran) player now, he would be the one asking for prospects and picks instead of giving them, just to take on the salary," Barnett said. "I don't think we would have been able to do what we did at the deadline during the offseason. The climate has changed that much."

And BTW - I don't have the years handy but here's some of the free agents the Desert Dogs signed this summer. Hull at $2.25 mill next season, Ricci at $1.75 mill and O'Donnell at $2 mill. Those are the kind of pricetags a young team looking to add vets pays out.

Also of note was a piece regarding the Thrashers signing Mellanby. "Waddell (Atl's GM) originally was looking for a center, but liked Mellanby's grit, character, size and price better than the centers in free agent pool." That Waddell's a smart man Mellanby was signed to a 2 year $2.4 mill contract. Mellanby is one of the UFA's I wished we'd signed. That kind of vet with grit and character would be a good guy to have around for our kids - and for only two years at $1 million and change per year.
Mike Barnett?Brian Savage-$14 million over 4 years

Phoenix gave Sean O'Donnell a three year deal-$1.7/$2/2.3-$6 million

Phoenix gave Mike Ricci a two year deal plus an option-$1.5/$2-$3.5 million.Ricci can guarantee the option worth $2 million if he plays 60 games and is among the top 9 forwards in icetime for Phoenix forwards in the second year of the deal.Ricci has never played less than 60 games in any full season in his career and he will be among the top 9 forwards in icetime.So it's a three year deal worth $5.5 million

Phoenix gave Brett Hull a two year worth $4.5 million PLUS individual and team bonuses

They gave out two three year deals and signed a 40 year old to a two year deal when Dallas was the only team involved and offering a one year deal

RangerBoy is offline  
Old
08-18-2004, 01:58 PM
  #215
Chief
Registered User
 
Chief's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: NY, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 1,840
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chief
And BTW - I don't have the years handy but here's some of the free agents the Desert Dogs signed this summer. Hull at $2.25 mill next season, Ricci at $1.75 mill and O'Donnell at $2 mill. Those are the kind of pricetags a young team looking to add vets pays out.
RangerBoy: I think this is the first time I've ever quoted myself but I thought I should point out that my comment was that those were the types of "pricetags" that a young team should be adding - meaning that's the kind of money I think should be offered (although I'm not crazy about some of the final year salaries). I wasn't commenting on the length of any deals. Although, I will point out that none of the players Phoenix signed has an option for a 4th year.

Also, you're damn straight about the Savage deal. A deal which they couldn't even get rid of. They traded Savage but had to take him back this summer. That's the kind of situation I don't want the Rangers to be in, in the future.


Last edited by Chief: 08-18-2004 at 02:01 PM.
Chief is offline  
Old
08-18-2004, 05:54 PM
  #216
Kodiak
Registered User
 
Kodiak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Ranger fan in Philly
Posts: 2,185
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Kodiak Send a message via AIM to Kodiak Send a message via Yahoo to Kodiak
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chief
And BTW - I don't have the years handy but here's some of the free agents the Desert Dogs signed this summer. Hull at $2.25 mill next season, Ricci at $1.75 mill and O'Donnell at $2 mill. Those are the kind of pricetags a young team looking to add vets pays out.
The Coyotes are in a position to sign lesser talents because they already have top 6 forwards. They have Langkow, Comrie, Doan, and Nagy. We had Jagr, Holik (who is better suited for a 3rd line role), and Lundmark and Balej (who have a total of 11 career goals between the 2 of them). What makes you think a top 6 forward would sign here for under $2.5 mil?

Kodiak is offline  
Old
08-18-2004, 07:08 PM
  #217
hockey rules
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Hamburg
Posts: 11
vCash: 500
It's sheer lunacy - gain!

hockey rules is offline  
Old
08-18-2004, 08:40 PM
  #218
Melrose_Jr.
Registered User
 
Melrose_Jr.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Providence, RI
Country: United States
Posts: 10,692
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerBoy
This thread is still going strong after eight days
Who would have thought that Nylander would have polarized a community?

Melrose_Jr. is offline  
Closed Thread

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 05:24 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.