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

Eight Steps To Fix Flunking Rangers

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
04-13-2010, 04:05 PM
  #101
mullichicken25
Registered User
 
mullichicken25's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: NJ
Posts: 2,603
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hpNYR View Post
Stay the course? Really? Stay the course? That's fine if you like mediocrity.

Those of you who WANT TO "STAY THE COURSE" are only setting yourself up for dissapointment. You shouldn't fear change w/ the squad we have in place. We want changes. You have Henrik Lundqvist who isn't getting any younger and is playing the best hockey of his career. We should attempt to make a run soon while keeping our core in tact.

Erik Christensen, while being very good for us should not be anywhere near the "core" based on 1 season's performance. P.A. Parenteau is another. He has no business being labeled as the core of this team b/c of a handful of games. Matt Gilroy has no business playing in the NHL, nevermind being included in the core group of players on this team.

When you truely think about it, the core of this team really isn't many players. If I had to include the core of this team it would include: LUNDQVIST, STAAL, DEL ZOTTO, GABORIK, CALLAHAN, AVERY AND MAYBE...I REPEAT..MAYBE DUBINSKY & ANISIMOV. Prust may be working his way up there, but I'm no so sure you can tag him as a core player. He's more fitting as a periphery, as is shelley, as is rozsival etc. Every other name that Larry has listed are periphery players & no where near core players. These are those in the NHL, and not prospects who have yet made the big club.

With that said, This team lacks depth(especially scoring) big time and it needs to be adressed over the summer, but in a smart way. Sure excessive change season after season isn't good, but it wouldn't be necessary if what you have iced is actually functioning. Unfortunately for this Ranger team, it has not been functioning. We don't have a squad like detroit, chicago, pitsburgh, or new jersey to actually endorse a "stay the course policy". So Larry saying "There can be neither stability nor structure without continuity" cannot be any more wrong for this particular club & circumstances in play. Henrik Lundqvist will not allow it, and rightfully so. He wants an improved team and you know it. He wants the cup, and soon. You cannot keep frustrating this guy season in and out.

"There can be neither stability nor structure without continuity".... Do any of you remember the extreme make over the Flyers went through after that very poor season in 2006-2007? They were dead last in the east. Well in the off-season they rebuild that team, and yes in 1 summer. They aquired Kimmo Timmonen, Scott Hartnell, Jason Smith, Joffrey Lupul, Kukkonen, Coburn, Parent and the signing of Briere.

After the make over...what happened in the 2007-2008 season? The flyers amde the playoffs as the 6th seed with 95 points and made it ALL THE WAY TO THE EASTERN CONFERENCE FINALS, only losing to the penguins.

It's possible to be contenders if you make a smart makeover over the summer. We cannot stay the course w/ this roster. I for one want us to somehow try for a couple if not more of the following: Aasen, Plekanec, Jagr, Volchenkov. I would say Kovalchuk, However that would be giving 7.5+ mill to 1 player when you can spread the money and add depth by aquiring more than 1 legit offesnive threat, neither of whom are bad players at all.
this type of attitude, the complete makeover of the team in one offseason, is exactly what has casued the continued mediocrity

those of us advocating to "stay the course" are acknowledging that a few smart additions and subtractions will go a lot farther then trying a complete makeover. Also, we are acknowledging that properlly ridding ourselves of the cap problems we have now is going to take more than one offseason

we were a young team, that made a lot of changes going into the season...commit to these changes and see what developes next season

mullichicken25 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-13-2010, 04:46 PM
  #102
Chief
Registered User
 
Chief's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: NY, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 1,845
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jas View Post
This team needs to stay away from the UFA market for anything other than an elite player - Kovalchuk this year, or Semin next year - or for short term stopgap - someone like a Koivu for one year. The problem is not spending money on someone like Gaborik. It's committing a lot of money to players who don't warrant it. If you know you have McDonagh on the way, who can provide what a Volchenkov does for a lot less, why not sign a a placeholder if you're not sure how soon McDonagh will be ready? If you pick up your 1st line center in the draft, and feel confident in someone like Stepan, why sign Plekanec, when you can get a placeholder like Koivu for a year, until players are ready? It's what started this whole fiasco by not grabbing someone like Lang, and instead committing awful money to Gomez/Drury.

Hopefully someone in this organization understands this concept.
Agreed 100%. As bad as it's been to have cap-killer contracts like Redden's on the books, the situation just gets worse with lousy investments like Kotalik and Brashear. I have little faith that Sather will do the right thing.

Chief is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-13-2010, 06:57 PM
  #103
DM23BK30
HFB Partner
 
DM23BK30's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Country: United States
Posts: 17,467
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerBoy View Post
Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/sports/range...#ixzz0kyTTjEDp

#7

Agree with everything.
I agree with everything except he has no solution or recomendation for Redden.

He cannot, I repeat, CANNOT be on this roster next season. He's a detriment to everything that is sound and holy and fundamental in the game of hockey.

Drury and Roszival come off the books in just two seasons, possibly earlier if they waive their clauses.

That's 12 million in cap room to restructure existing contracts.

Redden's 6.5 million should be wiped off every slate and not exist to anybody but Dolan and Redden.

Kovalchuk is one of the last, if not the last elite scoring winger available via UFA who is under 28 for a long time. His presence will not only make the Rangers a bigger scoring threat and alleviate pressure of Henrik, it will give our kids plenty of time to develop.

By the time Kreider and Stepan and Grachev Macdonagh and whomever our top-10 pick is this year will be full time NHL contributors, Dubi, Cally, DZ and AA will be in their prime, and Gabby and Kovalchuk will barely be over 30 years old.

Finding a way to get Kovalchuk isnt a short-term band aid. It will help this organization ten-fold for a while

DM23BK30 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-13-2010, 08:19 PM
  #104
bobbop
Henrik & Pop
 
bobbop's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Suburban Phoenix
Country: United States
Posts: 5,247
vCash: 500
Most of these points are correct and astute but I don't agree with no pursuit of free agents. I think Larry was spot on in the 7th point when he talks about trading for fallen stars and throwing funny money around but if you "weed out" (not my term) 2-3 players andadmit that 1-2 others are really not long term NHL players, there's a need for a few signings. The real key in my opinion is not throwing money at one player but instead signing 2-3 moderately priced free agents to fill gaps (especially on defense where some of the weeding is gong to take place), strengthen the locker room and take some pressure off younger players. Guys like Lombardi and Corvo could really help this team.

bobbop is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-13-2010, 10:18 PM
  #105
hpNYR
HF Forecaster
 
hpNYR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Burbank, CA
Country: Armenia
Posts: 7,100
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mullichicken25 View Post
this type of attitude, the complete makeover of the team in one offseason, is exactly what has casued the continued mediocrity

those of us advocating to "stay the course" are acknowledging that a few smart additions and subtractions will go a lot farther then trying a complete makeover. Also, we are acknowledging that properlly ridding ourselves of the cap problems we have now is going to take more than one offseason

we were a young team, that made a lot of changes going into the season...commit to these changes and see what developes next season
Nobody is asking for a complete makeover, try rereading the post.

hpNYR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-13-2010, 10:30 PM
  #106
The Thomas J.*
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Staten Island, NY
Posts: 18,847
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SingnBluesOnBroadway View Post
I think we could use a legit #2 center. Christensen seems to have some chemistry with Gaborik. If they can find a #2 center and save some money that way, they might be bettered served that way.
I think we have our number 2 center in Dubi & maybe Aminsiov.

The Thomas J.* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-13-2010, 11:59 PM
  #107
darko
Registered User
 
darko's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Country: Australia
Posts: 39,071
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by True Blue View Post
The guy already turned down $100m, BRF. If he does not get what he wants, he'll take his ball and head back to Russia. Either way, he will not be cheap.

He wont be cheap but I wouldnt look too much into him turning down 100 mill. Afterall Thrashers offered it. If you've made as much money as Kovachuk has and played for a losing team all your career would you take 100 mill from Atlanta or 80 mill from a playoff team. I'll take the playoff team thanks.

darko is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-14-2010, 12:09 AM
  #108
darko
Registered User
 
darko's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Country: Australia
Posts: 39,071
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleed Ranger Blue View Post
People really need to stop looking at the Redden situation as a fan and take more of a business viewpoint. Its not about "growing some balls" and dumping Redden into the minors. Its about flushing away 25 million dollars...thats real money, by the way, in case you were wondering.

Botoom line is whether Rangers are a better team without Redden. I believe they are and probably most posters on here will agree with me. You gonna have to pay the man 25 mill anyways, might as well do it and improve your team. We are not talking about a guy who is somewhat overpayed and playing slightly below his level of play. We are talking about a guy who is a complete waster of roster space.

darko is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-14-2010, 12:51 AM
  #109
Ribban
Registered User
 
Ribban's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: USA
Country: Sweden
Posts: 1,511
vCash: 500
Nice to see some sense and thought on the board.

Redden's come or go should prolly depend on who is availble to the team. I don't think he is playing up to his contract right now, but that could change, depending on what moves the Rangers make.

However, let's just say that Kovalchuk is ready to pen a contract with the Rangers, just for argument's sake. Should you get him? Who do you line him up with... and what happens to the rest of the team's lines? Kovalchuk wants the puck on his stick a whole lot,and inevitable, he produces a few highlights with his talent, but FREQUENTLY, when things don't go his way, and/or if someone ruffles his feathers, he either goes crazy and forgets all about his team, or he disappears completely from the game. Is he really a good man for the Rangers franchise contract?

Pick guys who fit the existing lines, not a guy with mad skills and an ego only over outdone by his contract demands.

On that note, I really like the Rangers to keep Anders Eriksson. The guy is cheap, experienced, and, according to Lundqvist, has has a very positive effect on the defense. He is also well liked in the locker room, so even though the guy isn't going to score a bunch, he seems to be a lot of hockey player for the little space he takes up under the cap.

Ribban is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-14-2010, 10:28 AM
  #110
ChrisModem
Registered User
 
ChrisModem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Country: South Africa
Posts: 82
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ribban View Post
Nice to see some sense and thought on the board.

Redden's come or go should prolly depend on who is availble to the team. I don't think he is playing up to his contract right now, but that could change, depending on what moves the Rangers make.

However, let's just say that Kovalchuk is ready to pen a contract with the Rangers, just for argument's sake. Should you get him? Who do you line him up with... and what happens to the rest of the team's lines? Kovalchuk wants the puck on his stick a whole lot,and inevitable, he produces a few highlights with his talent, but FREQUENTLY, when things don't go his way, and/or if someone ruffles his feathers, he either goes crazy and forgets all about his team, or he disappears completely from the game. Is he really a good man for the Rangers franchise contract?

Pick guys who fit the existing lines, not a guy with mad skills and an ego only over outdone by his contract demands.

On that note, I really like the Rangers to keep Anders Eriksson. The guy is cheap, experienced, and, according to Lundqvist, has has a very positive effect on the defense. He is also well liked in the locker room, so even though the guy isn't going to score a bunch, he seems to be a lot of hockey player for the little space he takes up under the cap.
You referring to Kovalchuk here, because if so I recently read an article with the Devils coach who spoke highly of his dedication to learning the new system and commended him for his team first attitude and drive. I could try find the link for you.

I maintain keeping Dubi up as first line LW and putting IK on the second, but I think Torts would try him on the same line as Gabs. Either way you could pair IK with anyone and he would score goals, thats kinda the point of having a player like him.

I agree on the Anders point regardless of the "going younger" comment by Torts.

ChrisModem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-14-2010, 11:27 AM
  #111
ibleedblueblood89
Registered User
 
ibleedblueblood89's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 57
vCash: 500
I have always been a fan with keeping a core on this team. 3 seasons ago, Boston was not very good, but after keeping the same team for 2-3 seasons, they were arguably one of the best teams last season, and this season, aside from timmy thomas and the loss of kessel, they were a competitive team with a few slumps due to injuries. Buffalo was one of the dominant teams for 2 seasons in a row... the loss of Drury and Briere hurt them but since they got rid of those two, they had pretty much the same line up for the past 3 seasons and now they are one of the better teams in the East. We need to let these guys gain some chemistry with one another... however, I do believe they need to add another goal scorer to their roster and keep most of them next season... but i would be fine with letting 2-3 players go

ibleedblueblood89 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-14-2010, 11:47 AM
  #112
mullichicken25
Registered User
 
mullichicken25's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: NJ
Posts: 2,603
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hpNYR View Post
Nobody is asking for a complete makeover, try rereading the post.
we want nearly the same thing, you just want to take on a lot more in one offseason

i dont think we should try to add as many players as you think, and i think your underestimating how much money some people will command

I'd love to add scoring AND defense this offseason but it depends on what contracts the rangers can move and how much those guys are going to need in order to sign

personally, i think they should take a run at Volchenkov this offseason because outside of Kolvochuk, there isn't many options that make sense for upgrading the offense based on performance vs. expected salary

i.e. they shouldn't throw 8mil at Marlaue because there's a lack of options

signing a bunch of players this offseason solely for the sake of addressing all our issues in this offseason is a mistake....one thats been repeated every year for quite sometime

mullichicken25 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-14-2010, 11:58 AM
  #113
SingnBluesOnBroadway
Retired
 
SingnBluesOnBroadway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 30,630
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Thomas J. View Post
I think we have our number 2 center in Dubi & maybe Aminsiov.
I don't think Anisimov is there yet. And I think they've settled on Dubinsky playing on the wing.

__________________
SingnBluesOnBroadway is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-14-2010, 12:08 PM
  #114
drewcon40
Registered User
 
drewcon40's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: born LI, live SI
Posts: 864
vCash: 500
As I was reading everyone's fine responses, something else puts a bit of a wrinkle in the cap match for the Rangers. Brashear, regardless of where he plays in the Ranger organization, will be a cap hit against the Rangers next year. If someone in the know can explain the over-35 clause, I would be grateful. So Brashear may be back up next year as a spare forward.

On edit:
Quote:
The Rangers, who have approximately $1.15 million in full-season salary-cap space available, would clear approximately $425,000 by immediately demoting Brashear. Unless Brashear is dealt to another organization, the Rangers will be on the hook for a $1.4 million cap hit next season regardless where (New York, AHL, Europe) or whether No. 87 plays.

http://www.nypost.com/p/blogs/slapsh...MMzFg8TckbBAiP

Mullichicken and Brooklyn Ranger had some concerns about what the ramifications were for sending Wade Redden to the AHL with regard to potential Free Agents. Although the numbers and length arent the same, we did send Brashear down this year. Chalfdiggity, maybe that will alleviate some concern about the Rangers willingness (balls) to send Redden down.

As far as reputation. Brashear, Ales Kotalik, and Ilkka Heikkinen have all expressed dissatisfaction on how they were treated by the Rangers. These aren't superstars, nor players that we should be overly concerned with, but it may affect a potential free agent's decision on whether to come here or not. Brooklyn, and Mulli's fears may be confirmed. That being said, there is even less of a reputation risk sending Wade down.


Last edited by drewcon40: 04-14-2010 at 12:19 PM.
drewcon40 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-14-2010, 12:51 PM
  #115
rvdnsx
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 489
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by True Blue View Post
The guy already turned down $100m, BRF. If he does not get what he wants, he'll take his ball and head back to Russia. Either way, he will not be cheap.
I think he turned down the $100M because it was Atlanta offering him this type of money. He would probably never say it publicly but he was done in Atlanta. Remember that Gaborik pulled something similar in Minnesota, although not as public, they offered him a better deal then what he got from the Rangers before he became a UFA last summer. Do you really think Minnesota could not match the 5 year deal that the Rangers offered him? He wanted a change of scenery, and sometimes that is enough for a player to take less money to play for another team. Is Kovalchuk holding out so that he can go to the team he really wants to be with on July 1st? We'll find out.

rvdnsx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-14-2010, 01:16 PM
  #116
pwoz
Registered User
 
pwoz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: NJ
Posts: 2,672
vCash: 500
Wow, this team is screwed thanks to Drury and Redden. I just went on cap geek to mess around and made the following by just removing Redden and adding in arbitrary numbers for potential cap hits:

Gaborik
Drury
Kovy (long term, 7m hit)
Cally
Avery
Dubi
Christensen (1.25m)
Anisimov
Prust (800k)
PAP (750k)
Shelley (725k)
Weise

Rozsival
Volchekov (5m)
Staal (4m)
Girardi (2.75m)
DZ
Gilroy

Hank
Auld (1m)

Again, just the first numbers to come to my head....

Cap hits are at $60.1m and the cap was 56.8m...

THANKS CAPTAIN CLUTCH!

pwoz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-14-2010, 04:13 PM
  #117
hpNYR
HF Forecaster
 
hpNYR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Burbank, CA
Country: Armenia
Posts: 7,100
vCash: 500
I would much rather spread the $ to all areas of interest to the Rangers. We lack depth. Our defense could use a little help(Volchenkov). We need help down the middle(Plekanec) along w/ an impact player to take pressure off Gaborik, yet still be able to produce(Jagr).

Jagr can still and will be an impact player in the NHL. His size alone warrants special coverage from other teams. He can play w/ Plekanec and I'm sure they will develop some chemistry; both being Czech and Plekanec being a player very similar to Nylander, but younger & much more of a shooter as much as a distributer.

Of the 3 names I mentioned above, you can probably get two of them for the price of 1 Kovy. None of which are bad players at all. All of whom will improve this club.

However, you make sure Jagr doesn't get much more then 2 years, if you can.

Again...Do any of you remember the extreme make over the Flyers went through after that very poor season in 2006-2007? They were dead last in the east. Well in the off-season they rebuild that team, and yes in 1 summer. They aquired Kimmo Timmonen, Scott Hartnell, Jason Smith, Joffrey Lupul, Kukkonen, Coburn, Parent and the signing of Briere.

After the make over...what happened in the 2007-2008 season? The flyers amde the playoffs as the 6th seed with 95 points and made it ALL THE WAY TO THE EASTERN CONFERENCE FINALS, only losing to the penguins.

Now i'm not saying we should do something to that extent b/c we have some real good core pieces. However, to stunt the idea of being able to watch exciting hockey. To stunt the idea of being able to watch a team that actually has depth & talent, and will put up a fight. I'm totally against that.

hpNYR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-14-2010, 04:35 PM
  #118
The Thomas J.*
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Staten Island, NY
Posts: 18,847
vCash: 500
Maybe we could get Jagr & Kovy!

Gabs-Prospal-Kovy
Jagr-Dubi-Avery (Get the band back together!)
Cally-Anmisnov-Drury
Prust-xxxxx-Shelly

That's a decent line up

100 goals from the top line

70 goals from the second

60+ from the 3rd

12 from the 4th

That would make us a top 5 goal scoring team in the NHL!

The Thomas J.* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-15-2010, 09:31 AM
  #119
Sens Rule
Registered User
 
Sens Rule's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 16,267
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by darko View Post
Botoom line is whether Rangers are a better team without Redden. I believe they are and probably most posters on here will agree with me. You gonna have to pay the man 25 mill anyways, might as well do it and improve your team. We are not talking about a guy who is somewhat overpayed and playing slightly below his level of play. We are talking about a guy who is a complete waster of roster space.
I still do not understand that signing. Redden was so done in Ottawa at the end. He was not even a good defenceman anymore. Ottawa would not have kept him for $2.5 million per over 2 years probably. I was wondering what Redden would end up signing for. I thought some weaker franchise might give him $12 million over 3 years and hope he can return to form. Redden was once great... only a couple of years before but he so clearly had lost it. Sather signing him at the SAME SALARY for very long term was mindboggling. It made no sense... less sense than any signing I can remember. Chris Campoli is a better NHL defenceman on offence and defence than Wade Redden is rigth now. That is incredible.

But that is redundant now. I think that the Rangers should buy him out. They have the $$$ unlike other teams to take the hit. It will hamper cap space for a long time but that is not that huge of a deal.

One strategy that works is taking a vet or two on a one year deal. Like Prospal. He works and you win. He fails and it is not the end of the world. If he is signed and the team is not competitive say Gaborik or Lundqvist are injured most of the year you can trade him at the deadline for a 2nd or 3rd or 4th rounder.

Sens Rule is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
04-15-2010, 09:38 AM
  #120
Sens Rule
Registered User
 
Sens Rule's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 16,267
vCash: 500
Signing Plekaneks or Volchenkov would be repeating the Drury, Gomez mistakes. They are UFAs and you overpay give huge term. But they are not primary stars... they are secondary stars.

Volchenkov at $5 million (or even $4.5) for 5 or 6 years is a recipe for a disaster. Volchenkov is great. Playing with Phillips on a team with a focused role for him. But he adds no offence at all and while he is still young he has some crazy miles on him. He is likely to be oft injured.

Plekaneks is liek Gomez... In a career year and a very good player but he might get $6-6.5 million a year. Is that the #1 centre you want for the next 5 or 6 seasons? Is that who you want to go up against Carter and Richards and Malkin and Crosby?

Those guys equal repeating the same mistakes. Kovalchuk if it happened wold be a hugely better gamble. He IS a top echlon superstar like Gaborik. He is worth the money.... and the risk. Signing 2nd tier players is what the Rangers have done for 15 years. 2nd tier star as a UFA... verpay him and offer him ridicuous term and await the inevitable failure. Jagr if he wanted to come back.. you take him too. Even old he is a top echlon player for a year or two.

Sens Rule is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
04-15-2010, 10:03 AM
  #121
hpNYR
HF Forecaster
 
hpNYR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Burbank, CA
Country: Armenia
Posts: 7,100
vCash: 500
Plekanec is NOTHING like Gomez. Plekanec doesn't rely on snipers along side him to be able to produce, unlike Gomez. Plekanec has a much, much better overall game than Gomez. He shoots as much as he distributes the puck. His hockey IQ is 100x what Gomez's is. He has a nice accurate shot, which Gomez doesn't even come close to. So that comparison is way off board. He won't be making Gomez's 7 mill so that's wrong too. Pleks will make arund 4.5 mill give or take. If you think that's overpayment than many of you don't know how the market works.

Overpayment is Drury @ 7.050
Overpayment is Redden @ 6.5

Pleks @ around 4.5-5 is not overpayment. He wont be making 6+ like some of you claim.

Pleks & Jagr. Make it happen if you can.


Last edited by hpNYR: 04-15-2010 at 10:12 AM.
hpNYR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-15-2010, 10:09 AM
  #122
Kind of Blue
Registered User
 
Kind of Blue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 983
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Thomas J. View Post
Gabs-Prospal-Kovy
Jagr-Dubi-Avery (Get the band back together!)
Cally-Anmisnov-Drury
Prust-xxxxx-Shelly

That's a decent line up
Well, I don't think bringing Jagr back is a good idea. But I'll admit that's a sexy top 9. (Although you'd have to swap all those wingers from right to left and left to right -- Gabs on the right, Kovy on the left, etc.. Plus I'd go with Christensen over Prospal)

Kind of Blue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-15-2010, 10:14 AM
  #123
hpNYR
HF Forecaster
 
hpNYR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Burbank, CA
Country: Armenia
Posts: 7,100
vCash: 500
Watch Pleks in the playoffs. His calm composure w/ the puck is going give him sucess in the post season.

hpNYR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-15-2010, 11:06 AM
  #124
GAGLine
HFBoards Sponsor
 
GAGLine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 10,092
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by drewcon40 View Post
As I was reading everyone's fine responses, something else puts a bit of a wrinkle in the cap match for the Rangers. Brashear, regardless of where he plays in the Ranger organization, will be a cap hit against the Rangers next year. If someone in the know can explain the over-35 clause, I would be grateful. So Brashear may be back up next year as a spare forward.
The over-35 clause is regarding any player that signs a multiyear contract at the age of 35 or older. Every year of the contract after the first counts against the cap, no matter if the player is sent to the AHL or retires.

I think they put it in the CBA to keep teams from signing an older player to, say, a 3 year 10 mil contract that pays the player 6, 3, 1. The cap hit is only 3.33 mil but the player gets 6 mil and then retires after one year, relieving the team of the cap hit. With this rule, teams can't do that with 35+ players. Of course, they can still do it with players younger than 35, which we have seen (Hossa). I expect there will be some modification around this in the next CBA.

I think it has been stated though that if we send Brashear down next year, we will save 100k. So his cap hit will be 1.3 mil instead of 1.4 mil. Not really sure why that is. Just part of the rule I guess, but seems arbitrary.

GAGLine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-15-2010, 06:53 PM
  #125
RangerBoy
#freejtmiller
 
RangerBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 32,975
vCash: 500
Brashear was one of the bad apples in the room Torts discussed on Tuesday. Bring him back?

RangerBoy 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 12:07 PM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.