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

$59 million in 2010-11?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
04-18-2010, 03:35 PM
  #26
CheeseDogs
Registered User
 
CheeseDogs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Fort McMurray, AB
Country: Canada
Posts: 321
vCash: 987
gogogogo Canadian dollar!!!!!!

CheeseDogs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-18-2010, 07:40 PM
  #27
funky
Registered User
 
funky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Saskatoon, Sask
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,056
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Panfork View Post
The extra $2M will give Sather more reason to load Kovalchuk with a high salary. What a bad idea.

I'd much rather sign two $4M-$5M players to make a really solid 1st and 2nd line, and guarantee all our good prospects can get paid when it's due than to give Kovalchuk a $9M salary for the next 10 years.
this!!!! the team needs a lot more then 1 player to be a contender

funky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-18-2010, 07:50 PM
  #28
azrok22
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 9,437
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by funky View Post
this!!!! the team needs a lot more then 1 player to be a contender
You aren't making a solid 1st and second line with two $4-5 million dollar players. In addition, because they're UFAs, and all UFAs are overpaid, you're going to be spending $3-4 million more than their value.

You know who are "$4-5 million dollar players?" Gomez and Drury. Unfortunately, they were signed as UFAs, and thus were overpaid and received $7+ million each. Marleau's going to be the same thing this offseason.

The only way to fix our offense is to undergo several years of incremental steps or to add a player who can carry his own line, so that we have.

I'm fine with taking the incremental steps, but obviously others aren't if they're advocating another multi-play UFA shopping spree.

Thus, the superstar who can carry his own line is the only viable short-term/long-term solution. Unfortunately, Kovalchuk is the only player of that ilk that is available... so you go after him, and you go after him hard.

Summary version:

azrok22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-18-2010, 09:05 PM
  #29
darko
Registered User
 
darko's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Country: Australia
Posts: 30,631
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jas View Post
More for Kovalchuk.

or Plekanec.

darko is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-18-2010, 09:57 PM
  #30
arunnair87
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 217
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by funky View Post
this!!!! the team needs a lot more then 1 player to be a contender
We scored 222 goals this season. If we had 41 goals more, we would've been 2nd in the east in scoring. Even if Kovulchuk offered us 30 more goals, we would be 3rd in east.

arunnair87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-19-2010, 12:20 AM
  #31
GregNYR19
agitator
 
GregNYR19's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Fair Lawn, NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 1,059
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to GregNYR19
Quote:
Originally Posted by kyko1827 View Post
Just did this real quick I'd like to see a team that looks like something along these lines next year...
(Note: this is if salary cap were 59 mill.) Also, with this line-up we are 1.4 over the cap and yes 1.4 mill is what donald brashear makes

FORWARDS
* kovalchuk $9,000,000
Marian Gaborik $7,500,000
Chris Drury $7,050,000
Ryan Callahan $2,300,000
Sean Avery $1,937,500
Brandon Dubinsky $1,850,000
Donald Brashear $1,400,000
Artem Anisimov $821,666
* Erik Christensen $750,000
* Jody Shelley $725,000
* Brandon Prust $700,000
Brian Boyle $525,000
* Dane Byers $500,000
DEFENSEMEN
Michal Rozsival $5,000,000
* volchenkov $4,500,000
* Marc Staal $3,500,000
* Daniel Girardi $2,550,000
Michael Del Zotto ($212,500) $1,087,500
Bobby Sanguinetti $855,000
GOALTENDERS
Henrik Lundqvist $6,875,000
* Alex Auld $1,000,000
BUYOUTS
NONE
LOST VIA REENTRY WAIVERS
NONE
CAPGEEK.COM TOTALS
ROSTER SIZE 21
SALARY CAP $56,800,000
PAYROLL $60,426,666
BONUSES $212,500
CAP SPACE $-3,414,166




thats IF kovy is willing to take $9mil...i see him taking $10mil. as for volchenkov, im not sold on him wanting to come here just yet

GregNYR19 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-19-2010, 06:02 AM
  #32
jas
Unsatisfied
 
jas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NJ
Posts: 13,051
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by arunnair87 View Post
We scored 222 goals this season. If we had 41 goals more, we would've been 2nd in the east in scoring. Even if Kovulchuk offered us 30 more goals, we would be 3rd in east.

It's even simpler than that...replace Prospal's 20 goals with Kovalchuk's 41, and the Rangers go from 16th in the league in scoring to 6th. The teams ahead of them would be WAS, VAN, CHI, PIT and SJ...each of which had more than 100 points.

jas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-19-2010, 10:29 AM
  #33
94now
Registered User
 
94now's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Snow Belt, USA
Country: United Nations
Posts: 6,445
vCash: 500
The higher the cup, the better it for big markets, like Rangers. It helps to fight KHL as well.
We don't need Kovalchuk to be competitive. All we need are the 1st line C and a secondary scorer to compliment Gaborik.

94now is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-19-2010, 10:37 AM
  #34
azrok22
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 9,437
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by 94now View Post
The higher the cup, the better it for big markets, like Rangers. It helps to fight KHL as well.
We don't need Kovalchuk to be competitive. All we need are the 1st line C and a secondary scorer to compliment Gaborik.
Gaborik had 42 goals this year... what do you expect a #1 center to do for him?

Much more important than the elusive #1 center is simply having more than 1 scoring threat.

azrok22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-19-2010, 10:42 AM
  #35
94now
Registered User
 
94now's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Snow Belt, USA
Country: United Nations
Posts: 6,445
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by azrok22 View Post
Gaborik had 42 goals this year... what do you expect a #1 center to do for him?

Much more important than the elusive #1 center is simply having more than 1 scoring threat.
Compliment to Gaborik is expected from a 2nd line winger I was talking about. Someone with Zherdev talent level or close. #1 center is needed because there's hole at that position and it may cost a lot to properly fill it..

94now is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-19-2010, 10:51 AM
  #36
azrok22
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 9,437
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by 94now View Post
Compliment to Gaborik is expected from a 2nd line winger I was talking about. Someone with Zherdev talent level or close. #1 center is needed because there's hole at that position and it may cost a lot to properly fill it..
I just think you (and many others) are too pigeonholed in the traditional #1c - #1 winger dichotomy. Gaborik showed he can perform phenomenally with Christensen, Prospal, or Dubinsky centering him. Why invest $7+ million in a #1 center when you can get just as good performance by having another elite winger? And, there just happens to be an elite winger available.

Joe Thornton, Brad Richards, etc. might turn Gaborik into a 50 goal scorer and add ~20 goals of their own (while benefiting whoever plays LW on that line - let's say Dubinsky for purposes of this argument). An elite winger on a different line won't increase Gaborik's production, but will take pressure off of him and add ~40 goals of their own.

Alternatively, you can sign Kovalchuk, leave Dubinsky and Christensen with Gaborik, and now have another line that is just as dangerous, instead of one line that is marginally better.

So under the #1C scenario you've got:
Dubinsky - First-Line Center - Gaborik
Second-Line Winger - Anisimov/Drury/Christensen - Callahan

You need to fill two holes, and if you're doing it from UFA, that means you're overpaying two more players. I just don't see Gaborik's production increasing that much... maybe he becomes a 50 goal scorer, but I seriously doubt he becomes a 55, let along 60 goal scorer.

Alternatively, you can get equal, or arguably better production by signing Kovalchuk (or acquiring a different elite winger: ie: Nash, etc. - Kovalchuk's available, so I'll go with him), and end up with:
Dubinsky - Christensen - Gaborik
Kovalchuk - Anisimov/Drury - Callahan

You've now only brought in 1 UFA, meaning another spot for a player to develop (and having 4 players playing with Gaborik or Kovalchuk at any given time will certainly help their development). Now, instead of shutting down 1 line, you've got two elite scoring threats who make their entire lines better.

Summary: I think people are too focused on the "ideal" hockey lineup (ie: we need a #1 center no matter what) instead of the possibility that we can build a legitimate offense in a different way.

azrok22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-19-2010, 11:00 AM
  #37
mullichicken25
Registered User
 
mullichicken25's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: NJ
Posts: 2,559
vCash: 500
nice, a cap increase would pretty much cancle out Brashear

but until it crosses the 60mill boundry kolvochuk is pretty much a pipe dream

mullichicken25 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-19-2010, 11:02 AM
  #38
94now
Registered User
 
94now's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Snow Belt, USA
Country: United Nations
Posts: 6,445
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by azrok22 View Post
I just think you (and many others) are too pigeonholed in the traditional #1c - #1 winger dichotomy. Gaborik showed he can perform phenomenally with Christensen, Prospal, or Dubinsky centering him. Why invest $7+ million in a #1 center when you can get just as good performance by having another elite winger? And, there just happens to be an elite winger available.

Joe Thornton, Brad Richards, etc. might turn Gaborik into a 50 goal scorer and add ~20 goals of their own (while benefiting whoever plays LW on that line - let's say Dubinsky for purposes of this argument).

Alternatively, you can sign Kovalchuk, leave Dubinsky and Christensen with Gaborik, and now have another line that is just as dangerous, instead of one line that is marginally better.

So under the #1C scenario you've got:
Dubinsky - First-Line Center - Gaborik
Second-Line Winger - Anisimov/Drury/Christensen - Callahan

You need to fill two holes, and if you're doing it from UFA, that means you're overpaying two more players. I just don't see Gaborik's production increasing that much... maybe he becomes a 50 goal scorer, but I seriously doubt he becomes a 55, let along 60 goal scorer.

Alternatively, you can get equal, or arguably better production by signing Kovalchuk (or acquiring a different elite winger: ie: Nash, etc. - Kovalchuk's available, so I'll go with him)

Dubinsky - Christensen - Gaborik
Kovalchuk - Anisimov/Drury - Callahan

You've now only brought in 1 UFA, meaning another spot for a player to develop (and having 4 players playing with Gaborik or Kovalchuk at any given time will certainly help their development). Now, instead of shutting down 1 line, you've got two elite scoring threats who make their entire lines better.

Summary: I think people are too focused on the "ideal" hockey lineup (ie: we need a #1 center no matter what) instead of the possibility that we can build a legitimate offense in a different way.
Nah, I disagree. It is clear Kovalchuk needs his own C to perform. See NJD for reference. Callahan is not top 6 player, BTW. He is great guy and excellent role player, but he is playing over his head. Also, name the players that were made better by Kovalchuk.

People are focus on "ideal" line-up for the reason. It works.

94now is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-19-2010, 11:13 AM
  #39
azrok22
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 9,437
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by 94now View Post
Nah, I disagree. It is clear Kovalchuk needs his own C to perform. See NJD for reference. Callahan is not top 6 player, BTW. He is great guy and excellent role player, but he is playing over his head. Also, name the players that were made better by Kovalchuk.

People are focus on "ideal" line-up for the reason. It works.
Outside of Savard, years ago (who didn't play exclusively with Kovalchuk, other than on the PP), Kovalchuk has never had a #1 center, yet he's still scored 40-50g each season. As far as his time with NJD, he's had 10 goals and 17 assists in 27 games after being thrown into the lineup right before the Olympics. In the playoffs he's got 1 goal (EN), and 4 assists for 5 points in 3 games.


You should be looking at Kovalchuk's time in Atlanta, not NJ, because of the small sample size.

In Atlanta, Antropov (this season), Afinogenov (this season), Kozlov, Peverly, etc. all have benefited from playing with Kovalchuk to an extent.

azrok22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-19-2010, 11:13 AM
  #40
nyr2k2
Can't Beat Him
 
nyr2k2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Washington, DC
Country: United States
Posts: 23,117
vCash: 500
Awards:
Rich Peverley finished with 55 points. He had only 13 in 27 games after Kovalchuk left. I'd say Kovalchuk made Peverley.

__________________

It's just pain.
nyr2k2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-19-2010, 11:23 AM
  #41
HockeyBasedNYC
Registered User
 
HockeyBasedNYC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Here
Country: United States
Posts: 12,891
vCash: 500
Please, no Kovalchuk. He isnt a winner.

HockeyBasedNYC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-19-2010, 11:30 AM
  #42
free0717
Registered User
 
free0717's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Old Bridge, NJ
Posts: 2,112
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by darko View Post
or Plekanec.
I think Plekanec would be a real good fit for this team. I think he would mesh well with Gaborik however, I and hopefully Sather have learned our lesson. "Do not overspend" We cant afford anymore bad contracts.

free0717 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-19-2010, 12:22 PM
  #43
pete3589
Registered User
 
pete3589's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 115
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by azrok22 View Post
I just think you (and many others) are too pigeonholed in the traditional #1c - #1 winger dichotomy. Gaborik showed he can perform phenomenally with Christensen, Prospal, or Dubinsky centering him. Why invest $7+ million in a #1 center when you can get just as good performance by having another elite winger? And, there just happens to be an elite winger available.

Joe Thornton, Brad Richards, etc. might turn Gaborik into a 50 goal scorer and add ~20 goals of their own (while benefiting whoever plays LW on that line - let's say Dubinsky for purposes of this argument). An elite winger on a different line won't increase Gaborik's production, but will take pressure off of him and add ~40 goals of their own.

Alternatively, you can sign Kovalchuk, leave Dubinsky and Christensen with Gaborik, and now have another line that is just as dangerous, instead of one line that is marginally better.

So under the #1C scenario you've got:
Dubinsky - First-Line Center - Gaborik
Second-Line Winger - Anisimov/Drury/Christensen - Callahan

You need to fill two holes, and if you're doing it from UFA, that means you're overpaying two more players. I just don't see Gaborik's production increasing that much... maybe he becomes a 50 goal scorer, but I seriously doubt he becomes a 55, let along 60 goal scorer.

Alternatively, you can get equal, or arguably better production by signing Kovalchuk (or acquiring a different elite winger: ie: Nash, etc. - Kovalchuk's available, so I'll go with him), and end up with:
Dubinsky - Christensen - Gaborik
Kovalchuk - Anisimov/Drury - Callahan

You've now only brought in 1 UFA, meaning another spot for a player to develop (and having 4 players playing with Gaborik or Kovalchuk at any given time will certainly help their development). Now, instead of shutting down 1 line, you've got two elite scoring threats who make their entire lines better.

Summary: I think people are too focused on the "ideal" hockey lineup (ie: we need a #1 center no matter what) instead of the possibility that we can build a legitimate offense in a different way.
Agreed on all points.

Everyone seems to be on the #1 center kick, and while it is important, there are many successful teams without #1 centers. In today's NHL, teams have been finding different ways to build great teams.

The point was brought up earlier by Azrok, what does a #1 center do for Gabby?

A good distrubutor could get him above 50, which is an improment of 10 goals. Kovalchuk is a threat for 50 each year, which is far and away better than our existing wing and center combined...

pete3589 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-19-2010, 12:30 PM
  #44
GAGLine
Registered User
 
GAGLine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 9,175
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by azrok22 View Post
I just think you (and many others) are too pigeonholed in the traditional #1c - #1 winger dichotomy. Gaborik showed he can perform phenomenally with Christensen, Prospal, or Dubinsky centering him. Why invest $7+ million in a #1 center when you can get just as good performance by having another elite winger? And, there just happens to be an elite winger available.
Because a #1 center, in addition to putting up points himself, makes those he plays with better. It's not just about getting a #1 center to help Gabby score a few extra goals. A #1 center should put up 70+ points himself. And whoever is on the other wing should see a boost in production.

We've seen it this year with Gabby. Yes, he is a good passer and made some really nice plays this year, but he's a shooter first. His play didn't magically elevate the game of those around him. A #1 center can do that.

Look at Kovy in NJ. They have been worse since they got him. They're down 2-1 to a team with no goaltending. A team that had to be US in a shootout to make the playoffs. Kovy has never been part of winning team in the NHL. Atlanta did just as well without him as they did with him this year. Why is that, if he's so good?

GAGLine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-19-2010, 12:38 PM
  #45
azrok22
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 9,437
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by GAGLine View Post
Because a #1 center, in addition to putting up points himself, makes those he plays with better. It's not just about getting a #1 center to help Gabby score a few extra goals. A #1 center should put up 70+ points himself. And whoever is on the other wing should see a boost in production.

We've seen it this year with Gabby. Yes, he is a good passer and made some really nice plays this year, but he's a shooter first. His play didn't magically elevate the game of those around him. A #1 center can do that.
You don't think Gaborik elevated the game of Christensen, Prospal, and Dubinsky?

A #1c might elevate their game more, but it's not because they're a #1c, it's because they're a playmaker. You don't have to be a center to be a playmaker... a good example of a playmaking winger is Ales Hemsky.

Kovalchuk absolutely elevated the game of Peverly, Kozlov, Antropov, etc. in Atlanta.

Gaborik absolutely elevated the game of Christensen, Prospal, and Dubinsky... partially because of his playmaking ability (which is being severely underated) and also by creating room on the ice.

EDIT: Summary: You're confusing a #1C and a pure "playmaker." Thornton is a #1c who is purely a playmaker. Lecavalier is a #1c who is less of a playmaker. Kovalchuk, Gaborik, etc. are primarily goal scorers, but they bring a significant degree of playmaking, and elevate the play of those around them simply by creating room on the ice.

azrok22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-19-2010, 12:41 PM
  #46
azrok22
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 9,437
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by GAGLine View Post
Because a #1 center, in addition to putting up points himself, makes those he plays with better. It's not just about getting a #1 center to help Gabby score a few extra goals. A #1 center should put up 70+ points himself. And whoever is on the other wing should see a boost in production.

We've seen it this year with Gabby. Yes, he is a good passer and made some really nice plays this year, but he's a shooter first. His play didn't magically elevate the game of those around him. A #1 center can do that.

Look at Kovy in NJ. They have been worse since they got him. They're down 2-1 to a team with no goaltending. A team that had to be US in a shootout to make the playoffs. Kovy has never been part of winning team in the NHL. Atlanta did just as well without him as they did with him this year. Why is that, if he's so good?
NJ's problems were evident long before Kovalchuk arrived. Look at their record since December. Just because Kovalchuk didn't magically fix their problems, which are primarily defensive, and they're losing to the Flyers isn't a knock solely on Kovalchuk.

Regarding Atlanta, a sample size of 25 games isn't enough to close the book. Kovalchuk more than did his share in Atlanta since the lockout... the problem there was with what they surrounded him with.

azrok22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-19-2010, 12:59 PM
  #47
94now
Registered User
 
94now's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Snow Belt, USA
Country: United Nations
Posts: 6,445
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyBasedNYC View Post
Please, no Kovalchuk. He isnt a winner.
We don't need winners, we've got Drury for it.

94now is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-19-2010, 01:04 PM
  #48
azrok22
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 9,437
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by 94now View Post
We don't need winners, we've got Drury for it.
Excellent post.

Clearly we don't need Kovalchuk, we need more winners like Drury. ... ... ...

That has got to be the strongest, most concise argument against the "he's not a winner!" crowd possible.

I applaud you.

azrok22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-19-2010, 01:09 PM
  #49
94now
Registered User
 
94now's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Snow Belt, USA
Country: United Nations
Posts: 6,445
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by azrok22 View Post

In Atlanta, Antropov (this season), Afinogenov (this season), Kozlov, Peverly, etc. all have benefited from playing with Kovalchuk to an extent.
Kozlov, Antropov and Afinogenov are all accomplished NHLers (to an extent). They did and will do well with or without Kovalchuk (to an extent). Peverly is an undeniable talent (to an extent).Therefore Kovalchuk is a star of his own and he would be simply redundant to Gaborik (to an extent).

94now is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-19-2010, 01:15 PM
  #50
azrok22
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 9,437
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by 94now View Post
Kozlov, Antropov and Afinogenov are all accomplished NHLers (to an extent). They did and will do well with or without Kovalchuk (to an extent). Peverly is an undeniable talent (to an extent).Therefore Kovalchuk is a star of his own and he would be simply redundant to Gaborik (to an extent).


I think you're misunderstanding or didn't read my posts. Gaborik and Kovalchuk would be playing on separate lines (except on the PP). They'd be carrying their own lines, not redundant pieces on the same line.

Something like:
Quote:
Dubinsky - Christensen - Gaborik
Kovalchuk - Anisimov/Drury - Callahan
Assuming no trades.

azrok22 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 02:12 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.