In this Hypothetical, our draft pick is outside the top 10.
Would you be interested in moving one of Redden/Rosi/Drury at the expense of a first round pick?
The way I see it is that these contracts are holding us back from being a contender. Obviously the void needs to be filled after they are gone or we might as well have kept them but lets say at the deadline or even on draft day we were to move one of these three and pick up someone else in the free agency (1-2yr deal) we would immediately be a better team and have the flexibility to be a buyer at the deadline the following year if things were clicking in New York.
Yes, I know we would NEED to take some salary back but with the first thrown in the player should be earning his salary or close to it.
Honestly, I don't even think I really need an explanation as to why we should do this. We all know why. The question is, would it be worth a first round pick to do it or a prospect.
Just to put things on context, Redden + Rosival make up for 20% our salary cap. I believe this is more focused on Redden as he has 5 more years left and will get progressively worse as he gets older and older.
If your interested in my logic behind all this, see post #11
Last edited by Garfinkel1: 12-12-2009 at 02:20 PM.
Nope. Let's keep our first rounder and wait out Drury and Rozsival's contracts.
Maybe those two, but Redden will be with us for many years. He will get worse. His contract will be more embarrassing. He is taking up a lot of cap space.
We could have Cammalleri on this team and a decent D-man for the same price as Redden.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ih8theislanders
Na, were getting Taylor Hall if we keep up this pace
I don't expect us to stay on this pace. Goocd point non-the-less though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Failure By Design
If the draft was tomorrow we'd have a top 10 pick so no... besides why would we want more garbage?
We would be outside the top 10 in my hypothetical world .
And why more garbage? Because Garbage is worth more than Redden eating up so much cap space for half a decade. I understand he is helping this team on the ice. But, the money could be spent MUCH better elsewhere. Like I said above for his price we could have Cammalleri and a decent D-man for the same price. Don't forget he's gonna get a lot worse as the years progress.
I'd rather hold onto the pick since it may end up a lottery pick at this rate. However, if the Rangers get hot in late January/February like they usually do, I'd definitely consider it.
All moving one of these contracts will do is give Sather the ability to go out and acquire another. So no, I would not move a 1st to give him that flexibility.
__________________
"Here we can see the agression of american people. They love fighting and guns. when they wont win they try to kill us all." -HalfOfFame
Drury and Rozy have 2 years left after this year. After that, we have 2 more years of Gaborik, Lundqvist and Redden to try to compete.
Giving up what could be a great pick for a temporary fix would be an impatient and irresponsible management move.
Well, I was more focused on getting rid of Redden. I know he's actually doing well this year but not Amazing which is what a player getting paid 6.5m should be doing. 5 years. 5 seasons.
By the time he's in his last year of his contract, the 39 year old will be making 6.5m yet will probably playing as the 3rd defensive pair getting minimal minutes a night.
Staal-Girardi, MDZ-McDonagh(I know that's no where close to what it is)Sanguetti-Gilroy 6 young D-men that all have potential to be outstanding. Which player/prospect is Redden gonna take and ruin their development 2-3 years down the road. Redden is making over 10% of the cap. We just can't let it 'fix' itself but it wont and will get worse as time goes on.
I see this as a necessity. It's no wonder we have no secondary scoring. We can't expect 1-2m players to step it up big. If we knew they could they would be paid more. We need that 3.5m man net a bunch on the second line. The fact of the matter is if we did this trade we would be in a better position for future.
Just think. Replace Redden with Mara and 5m in cap space.
Hopefully, Sather has learned from his mistake with Gomez, Drury, Redden and Rosi.
He did well with Gaborik.
The way I see it.
Next season
Mara + 5mill >> Redden + 1st
Mara is not that good. A little below average but not a huge downgrade on a night to night basis. The 5mill would buy us a solid player at the free agency. Zherdev was only 3.25 so we could have a player better than Zherdev which would easily be a Huge improvement over a rookie 1st rounder who would more likely than not be playing in the AHL for a year or two 3 years from now
Mara + 5mill >> Redden + Top prospect (let's say = to Amsinov)
It doesn't have to be Mara but in that mold. Inexpensive, physical. Makes a few mistakes a night but you get what you pay for. The 5mill lets say gets us Cammalleri. Now, I would say that inexspensive D-man is equal to Redden as he is now much older (coming up to 36?). Cammalleri will be MUCH better than the 1st round pick. I mean it's his rookie/sophmore season. Probably play on the 3rd line. The draft pick needs time to develope
5 years from now
Mara + 5mill >>> Redden + maybe 1st line player, maybe 2nd line player
The 5mill could buy us that 1st line player no problem. A sure thing 1st line player. A solid 60-75 point player. Hello secondary scoring if we chose to split up him and Gaborik. The 1st round pick could be anything. A MUCH BIGGER GAMBLE than letting Sather spend the money. Who knows what the 1st round player turns out to be.
An inexspensive average-physical Dman will be better than a 38 year oldz Redden. Not by much as they both will make you but at the end of the day Redden's body will not hold up. Especially after long playoff series.
The reason this works is only because the NYR and MSG is extremely appealing to Free agents. This would NEVER work for teams like Florida
So, I would say its a forward movement now and the future so in mind it is a must. Of course, it's not that easy to just trade him and 1st for a pending over-paid free agent
Last edited by Garfinkel1: 12-12-2009 at 02:20 PM.
If it ever got to that point, the Rangers are one of the teams in the league that can EASILY and I mean EASILY absorb the financial burden by sending a player to Hartford.
No need to beg someone to take the player by offering up our 1st rounder regardless of where that selection is be it a top 10 pick or 30th overall.
It would be an absolute waste of assets to do that.
And if you are enticing someone with a 1st to take the player, then they don't have much value to begin with thus the demotion to the monors is more than worth it.
There's no reason whatsoever that we should do this. NONE
Would you give away Michael Del Zotto just to get rid of Wade Redden?
Would you give away Marc Staal, just to get rid of Chris Drury?
If the answer to this is no, then the answer to this has to be no. Our first rounders since Gordie Clark took over have, more often than not, been stellar picks.
Would you give away Michael Del Zotto just to get rid of Wade Redden?
Would you give away Marc Staal, just to get rid of Chris Drury?
If the answer to this is no, then the answer to this has to be no. Our first rounders since Gordie Clark took over have, more often than not, been stellar picks.
Would you give away Michael Del Zotto just to get rid of Wade Redden?
Would you give away Marc Staal, just to get rid of Chris Drury?
If the answer to this is no, then the answer to this has to be no. Our first rounders since Gordie Clark took over have, more often than not, been stellar picks.
Would you give away Michael Del Zotto just to get rid of Wade Redden?
Would you give away Marc Staal, just to get rid of Chris Drury?
If the answer to this is no, then the answer to this has to be no. Our first rounders since Gordie Clark took over have, more often than not, been stellar picks.
It works both ways.
Would you give up Jessiman just to get rid of Redden?
Would you give up Montoya just to get rid of Drury?
draft picks are not SURE things.
edit:Yeah, our drafting has improved. And in my argument (post 11) I mentioned our 1st round would probally end up a player around the caliber of AA (which is good). BUT, we still don't know if AA will be that 1st line guy or a fringe 1st liner, 2nd line guy. And even then... We could still buy a top line guy+replace Redden and still be in a better situation than having Redden+1st rounder.
Last edited by Garfinkel1: 12-12-2009 at 02:47 PM.
I would much rather let them rot in Hartford than give up our #1
I understand that. Really, if it was my choice I would tell Redden... "We are shipping you off to Hartford. Retire, come back next season and sign with another team"
I didn't use it as an option because it seems they are not considering sending them down as an option. (Even though a player like Redden working with our prospects would be HUGE for their development.)
Right, so because he messed up 3 times he will always mess up.
I flip a coin 3 times and it's tails all 3 times. Should I assume it will always be tails.
You should with him. He gave out these awful contracts so lets get rid of them and give him another chance to give out bad contracts. And have we forgotten Gomez's contract?
So far, he's been very lucky with Gaborik.
And are we supposed to forget what he did pre-lockout? Bad contracts are the norm, not the exception with this guy.
.
but at the end of the day Redden's body will not hold up. Especially after long playoff series.
