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

Kaspar's comments in the Post today

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
07-24-2005, 05:18 AM
  #26
BwayBshirt
Registered User
 
BwayBshirt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: My NY State of Mind
Country: United States
Posts: 3,371
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by n8
as far as buyouts go, if these guys REALLY want to be rangers, why don't they just negotiate a buy-out resign deal? Buy out Kaspar at $6.5M and resign him for three years at $1.2M per. We are saved some cap space and he gets the same contract length and same money of three years. Same with Holik. Is there some rule against this I don't know?
in fact there is...

under the new CBA and this window of buyouts around the league for this week, teams can buy out players but cannot resign or re-acquire them for at least 1 year or season. something like that.

so for all intents and purposes, when they are bought out they are as good as gone...even if either of them wanted to come back.

BwayBshirt is offline  
Old
07-24-2005, 03:52 PM
  #27
Brooklyn Ranger
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn, of course
Posts: 7,881
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by n8
as far as buyouts go, if these guys REALLY want to be rangers, why don't they just negotiate a buy-out resign deal? Buy out Kaspar at $6.5M and resign him for three years at $1.2M per. We are saved some cap space and he gets the same contract length and same money of three years. Same with Holik. Is there some rule against this I don't know?
In addition to the fact (as was pointed out by mycaptain11 and others) that players can't be bought out, I also saw that teams cannot renegotiate a players contract except in the last year of the deal.

Remember, this CBA was negotiated to put all teams on a level playing field. They wanted to prevent teams from playing games with contracts and exploiting holes that they found. GMs have to play by the rules now.

Brooklyn Ranger is offline  
Old
07-24-2005, 05:20 PM
  #28
Kovy274Hart
Registered User
 
Kovy274Hart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Shaolin
Country: United States
Posts: 1,498
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Kovy274Hart
I have always liked Kaspar. But his salary is too much to justify retaining.

Kovy274Hart is offline  
Old
07-24-2005, 05:41 PM
  #29
BwayBshirt
Registered User
 
BwayBshirt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: My NY State of Mind
Country: United States
Posts: 3,371
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brooklyn Ranger
In addition to the fact (as was pointed out by mycaptain11 and others) that players can't be bought out, I also saw that teams cannot renegotiate a players contract except in the last year of the deal.

Remember, this CBA was negotiated to put all teams on a level playing field. They wanted to prevent teams from playing games with contracts and exploiting holes that they found. GMs have to play by the rules now.
thanks. i forgot that other part of the buyouts aspect.

then again, it was a 600-page constitution they drafted

as for kaspar, i have always liked the guy as well but the salary's just a tad too high.

BwayBshirt is offline  
Old
07-24-2005, 05:51 PM
  #30
otto1219
Registered User
 
otto1219's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 998
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by xnyker
You may be right, but with the sucess sather had in trading quality players to teams looking to advance in the playoffs for young prospects and picks, he may want to keep kasper rather than just throw the money away, if indeed as you say there was a chance other teams would accept his contract. Holik on the other hand is certainly too much for anyone.
There is going to be a lot of free agents, a new economic reality, and only so much money. I like the trades sather made last year and we obviously have to sign some free agents this year.
New York will have to take advantage of having money, a need to put a product on the ice, and the confusion free agents will have in finding what the going rate will be for their services. I can see New york offering contracts to players with the understanding that they will be traded for assets later. That may be appealing to anyone who wants to be on a contender at the end of the season and still get paid. Remember that there is a lot of flexibility with the cap for the end of the year and the payroll through the playoffs doesn't count. New York then would be a good place to sign and prove yourself worthy of a playoff team and future investment.
good point he is definitely worth a first round pick if they wanted to trade him during the season

otto1219 is offline  
Old
07-24-2005, 09:05 PM
  #31
dedalus
Registered User
 
dedalus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 7,215
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by otto1219
good point he is definitely worth a first round pick if they wanted to trade him during the season
This will sound more brutal than it should but ... you're dreaming. Kasperaitus couldn't bring a 1st round pick under the OLD system. (If he could, Sather most certainly would have dealt him at the deadline.) In the new system, it's just not happening:

1. Kasperaitus as a player doesn't merit that much. He's a 33 year, second pairing defenseman.

2. He makes $3M dollars. Some of you guys don't seem to grasp the magnitude of this. Maybe when UFAs begin being signed it will become clear just what $3M can buy now.

3. The value of first round picks has just risen. In a hard-capped world, the youngest players give the best value under the cap. They're cheap and they will be cheap in their 3rd and 4th years when they're at their peak.

dedalus is offline  
Old
07-24-2005, 09:14 PM
  #32
boredmale
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 23,586
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Son of Steinbrenner
I wish the Rangers could buy out nylander holik and kasper but you can only buy out two of them so it should be holik and kasper.
where does it say you can only buy out 2 players?

boredmale is offline  
Old
07-24-2005, 09:27 PM
  #33
modestfwd
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 109
vCash: 500
Why is it necessary to free up that cap room? We're REBUILDING. We don't need room for our cap to trade/sign a high-profile guy. We don't even need to sign that many players. It's going to be mostly kids next season (60/70% of the roster) so why are we freeing up money in order to get players?

I would sign one vet for the 2nd line maybe the 3rd line too, and try to team up each young d-man with a vet too. That means:
1 or 2 FA forwards
and 2-3 FA Defensemen. (Depending on Karel's status)

Keep Kaspar. I would rather we didn't have cap room, this way we are insured against Sather's stupidity (signing Amonte, Leclair, ect...)

modestfwd is offline  
Old
07-24-2005, 10:49 PM
  #34
dedalus
Registered User
 
dedalus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 7,215
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by modestfwd
Keep Kaspar. I would rather we didn't have cap room, this way we are insured against Sather's stupidity (signing Amonte, Leclair, ect...)
You are also insured of:

1. Being limited in the contracts you can offer to young FAs you want to keep.

2. Not having the ability to sign a young UFA you might really want and can build a team around (say, Joe Thornton, Jarome Iginla, or Vince Lecavalier all of whom are currently scheduled to be UFAs at the end of this year). You really want Darius Kasperaitus's contract keeping you from signing Lecavalier or Iginla?

dedalus is offline  
Old
07-24-2005, 11:48 PM
  #35
modestfwd
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 109
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dedalus
You are also insured of:

1. Being limited in the contracts you can offer to young FAs you want to keep.

2. Not having the ability to sign a young UFA you might really want and can build a team around (say, Joe Thornton, Jarome Iginla, or Vince Lecavalier all of whom are currently scheduled to be UFAs at the end of this year). You really want Darius Kasperaitus's contract keeping you from signing Lecavalier or Iginla?
#1 Brings up a valid point. It is highly debatable though.
Kaspars contract is up after 3 more seasons. Let's think about which young FA's we would want to keep but we wouldn't be able to because of Kaspars contract. Possibly Lundqvist, Tyutin, and Balej because those are the only young players I can see warrenting a big payday. But you also have to think, are their contracts going to expire while Kaspar is here? I am don't think so. As long as we sign them all to three year or more deals at entry level(I don't know what the standard deal is, is it three?) we wouldn't have to worry about this.

#2 is complete BS. First of all, WHY WOULD THORNTON, IGINLA, OR LECAVALIER COME HERE??? Just curious. Why would any young franchise player wake up and say "I would love to play on a rebuilding team, which won't make the playoffs with or without me." Kaspars contract won't keep the Rangers from signing these players, these players don't want to come here to rebuild.


Keep Kaspar and you also have a great mentor for our two "stud" (Using that term loosely) Russians, as well as all of our other prospects. His work ethic is incredible, just ask Jessiman.

Keep Kaspar and we have a vet the coaching staff and youth are familiar with. Bringing in a bunch of new players is unnecessary, it will hinder development. Having to teach another player the system, develop chemistry, ect... Just keep Kaspar, it's conveinant. The devil you know is better than the devil you don't know.

And finally... Keep Kaspar because Kaspar played well after his trainwreck first half, and last season he played great. Not to even mention his fantastic play at the world championships. Had some great open ice hits, which reminds me that his value increases. With the "new no clutch'n'grab" NHL, there will be more of a premium of players who can hit on open ice. No longer will defensemen be able to grab a player, they will have to hit them/tie them up.

modestfwd is offline  
Old
07-24-2005, 11:57 PM
  #36
ragfan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 523
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dedalus
You are also insured of:

1. Being limited in the contracts you can offer to young FAs you want to keep.

2. Not having the ability to sign a young UFA you might really want and can build a team around (say, Joe Thornton, Jarome Iginla, or Vince Lecavalier all of whom are currently scheduled to be UFAs at the end of this year). You really want Darius Kasperaitus's contract keeping you from signing Lecavalier or Iginla?

If Thorton or Lecavalier are going to be interested in this god forsaken team (which they're not, btw), then Sather can always buy out Kasparitis. For now, I say keep him, as he adds a veteran presence, and would be a friendly face for the young Russian defenseman, Kondratiev and Tyutin.
OT: Who would be averse to the idea of bringing back Mironov?

ragfan is offline  
Old
07-25-2005, 11:55 AM
  #37
GraveyTrain09
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Country: United States
Posts: 190
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ragfan
OT: Who would be averse to the idea of bringing back Mironov?
Our farm is filled with defenceman who are not going to be amazing, but able to make a stabalized d-man corps. Bringing in Mironov would just be adding to that list.

GraveyTrain09 is offline  
Old
07-25-2005, 11:52 PM
  #38
dedalus
Registered User
 
dedalus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 7,215
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by modestfwd
Let's think about which young FA's we would want to keep but we wouldn't be able to because of Kaspars contract. Possibly Lundqvist, Tyutin, and Balej because those are the only young players I can see warrenting a big payday. But you also have to think, are their contracts going to expire while Kaspar is here? I am don't think so.
I'd want to know the details of their contracts and of course Kasper's contract would be one of many. Kasper's contract looks harmless now to a kid's because there are few other big contracts on the roster (especially when Holik is bought out). That will no longer be the case if the team signs a player like Iginla to the cap max $7M (or even two very good younger players for 3M each.)

Quote:
WHY WOULD THORNTON, IGINLA, OR LECAVALIER COME HERE??? Just curious. Why would any young franchise player wake up and say "I would love to play on a rebuilding team, which won't make the playoffs with or without me."
Well I don't know why they'd come to the Rangers. Why did Jeremiah Trotter, a 25 year old Pro Bowler on a division championship Eagles team, go to a .500 Washington Redskins team?

Why did Joe Andruzzi leave a Super Bowl champion Patriots team to join a 4-12 Cleveland team?

Why did Plaxico Burress leave a 15-1 Pittsburgh team to join a 6-10 Giants team?

Need I go on?

In a league where all contracts are paying less, the players will go to who is offering the most, and that means the team that has the cap space to pay the player the max. This is especially true in the case of young players. They are least frightened by the idea of a rebuilding because the end of their career is not in sight. It is older, not younger players who are most reluctant to be part of a rebuilding, but even older players will put that fear aside for the right payday.

Quote:
Keep Kaspar and you also have a great mentor for our two "stud" (Using that term loosely) Russians, as well as all of our other prospects. His work ethic is incredible, just ask Jessiman.
Guys with good work ethics really aren't that tough to find, and you don't need to pay them $3M.

Quote:
Keep Kaspar and we have a vet the coaching staff and youth are familiar with.
1. Since the coaching staff now has two new faces on it, just what makes you think they're familiar with Kasperaitus? To put it differently, why not seek out a UFA with whom they are familiar? Or more to the point: why are we worried about coaches being familiar with a role player? Is the Ranger coaching staff so inept that they must keep an overpaid 2nd pairing defenseman on their squad in order to make their system work?

2. This is even more the case with the young players you mention. Is it your claim that Tyutin is terribly familiar with Kasper? Kondratiev doesn't know the guy at all, and guys like Poti, Purinton, and Strudwick aren't young guys who are going to be mentored by Kasperaitus.

No. The familiarity argument doesn't hold water.

Quote:
The devil you know is better than the devil you don't know.
... is a cute piece of rhetoric but immensely poor logic. It amounts to "don't change anything, even when your situation sucks."

Quote:
Keep Kaspar because Kaspar played well after his trainwreck first half, and last season he played great. Not to even mention his fantastic play at the world championships. Had some great open ice hits, which reminds me that his value increases.
Well that's great if the team is playing a 40 game season or a tournament. It's not. Kasparaitis is old and getting older. We can also debate whether he played "great" or not last season.

Quote:
With the "new no clutch'n'grab" NHL, there will be more of a premium of players who can hit on open ice.
No there will be more of a premium on defenseman who play excellent positional hockey because the guys who can't do that are the ones who clutch (and that includes the hitters who can't play positional hockey).

Quote:
Originally Posted by ragfan
If Thorton or Lecavalier are going to be interested in this god forsaken team (which they're not, btw), then Sather can always buy out Kasparitis.
No he cannot. Buyouts after this 6 day period will be charged against the cap.


Last edited by dedalus: 07-25-2005 at 11:58 PM.
dedalus is offline  
Old
07-26-2005, 01:47 PM
  #39
eco's bones
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Elmira NY
Country: United States
Posts: 12,564
vCash: 500
My pro Kaspar sentiments tells me that we're going to need 3 vets on defense and I'm not talking about Purinton or Strudwick and I'd rather not be talking about Poti although I believe he will wind up being one of them. To me the most significant rule change is going to be the elimination of the red line. Mobility from your defense is going to become very very important and I think Kaspar and his hitting game might thrive in this situation. And he seems to have a decent attitude and would like to stay. Which is something.

My anti Kaspar sentiments tells me here is a big contract for a player who's been
disappointing. Has not proved he's worth what he's paid. His average of 16:22 of
ice time in 2003-2004 is about the ice time you give to a 3rd pairing defenseman.
He hasn't been nearly the agitating presence he was with the Islanders or Penguins.

I would probably tend to give him another shot. You could always trade him at the
deadline for a prospect but no you're not going to get a first for him.

eco's bones is offline  
Old
07-26-2005, 02:30 PM
  #40
modestfwd
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 109
vCash: 500
dedalus, what is your infatuation with signing a young franchise forward? That is not what we need right now. Do you remember how well bringing in big names has worked for us? If anything, we should sign one once we have all the peices in place, and we are just missing that one top line player. But right now we aren't at that level. And we won't be at that level for another 3 years, when KASPARS CONTRACT IS UP ANYWAY. Pure speculation, but look at the other teams in the league and take the Rangers goggles off. There is no way we can compete with Philadelphia, Jersey, Detroit, Ottawa, Vancover, ect... The list goes on and on. Next season we (knock on wood) get a good draft pick. The season after that we might do slightly better, while our prospects develop (By this time Montoya and Jessiman will have graduated if they don't leave early). The season after that is Kaspar's last season here, and if luck falls our way we could squeek into the last seed. The season after that we can evaluate and see if we're ready to sign your big name star.

Oh yeah, and Iginla is definately just going to come right over to New York. From a team that has missed the playoffs about as long as us, and is looking to be a contender for the next few seasons, he is just going to come right back to where he started, to a rebuilding team. Why would he want to waste another 3 years or so when we could be in the playoffs?? And money doesn't mean shet. With a cap, every team can offer pretty much the same, depending on how much cap room they have.

And a Kaspar type player will be at a premium along with the positional players. Doesn't it make sense that in a mobile NHL, you would want mobile players? Kaspar doesn't clutch and grab, he is a mobile open ice hitter, which is a skill that will be valuable in the new NHL.

I don't even know how you can debate Kaspar's play last season. Up until his injury he was very solid, at times great. I think anyone who watched the Rangers subjectively can attest to that.

The familiarity argument does hold water. Think about it: Kaspar already knows the system. Whenever you bring in new players, you have to teach them the system. Sometimes players flourish under it, sometimes they just don't fit in. We could buyout Kaspar and the player we get could suck in the new system. Or he could be great. But why take that chance?

modestfwd is offline  
Old
07-26-2005, 09:45 PM
  #41
dedalus
Registered User
 
dedalus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 7,215
vCash: 500
dedalus, what is your infatuation with signing a young franchise forward?
Errr ... two words: "young" and "franchise." These are, generally speaking, considered two very good words. Moreso when they come together.

Do you remember how well bringing in big names has worked for us?
I remember very well what bringing in players at 31+ years of age and past their best years has done for us. Neither of us remembers what it is to bring in an elite player while he's playing elite hockey because of course the team has never had the opportunity to do so.

Let me ask you the reverse. What is your great objection to bringing in an elite player at the height of his career?

If anything, we should sign one once we have all the peices in place, and we are just missing that one top line player.
Pshaw! That logic worked well under the old system when you were acquiring old UFAs who complemented a core because they were capable of little more. Thornton, Lecavalier, Iginla and their kind are young enough and good enough to build around. Unlike the old UFAs of the past, these kids will be 30 or younger when this team is ready to start its legit playoff runs.

look at the other teams in the league and take the Rangers goggles off. There is no way we can compete with Philadelphia, Jersey, Detroit, Ottawa, Vancover, ect...
Please don't waste my time with this type of nonsense. If you take 15 minutes to read the history of my posts you'll see that few people here are LESS likely to see the world through red-white-and-blue glasses. There are at least two posters who would argue that I'm a Ranger hater.

Next season we (knock on wood) get a good draft pick. The season after that we might do slightly better, while our prospects develop ... The season after that is Kaspar's last season here, and if luck falls our way we could squeek into the last seed. The season after that we can evaluate and see if we're ready to sign your big name star.
You're doing the worst thing possible in a hard cap world: you're playing the game of "we'll see." Seeing how things fall out year to year doesn't work. (I'd argue that it never really did.) If you're not planning cap maneuverability now for three years down the road, you're screwed.

Beyond that you're not thinking about the logic of what you're writing. You say you don't want to add a great player like Lecavalier because the team doesn't need him right now, but then you offer that Kasparaitis should be kept because he plays great. Surely if your position is that the team doesn't need one great-playing forward because it's not going anywhere, it stands to reason that the team must not need a great-playing defenseman for the same reason.

That being the case, let us rid ourselves of the defenseman's contract.

And money doesn't mean shet. With a cap, every team can offer pretty much the same, depending on how much cap room they have.
This is rather a contradiction. Money means exactly what it always meant: everything. Now, however, the money a team can spend on a player no longer depends on its cable deals and merchandise sales. It depends entirely on how much cap room it has. Do you know which teams will have the cap room to chase players like Iginla? The ones who don't spend $3M dollars on role players. Thus every team CAN'T offer "pretty much the same" any more than they can in the NFL.

And a Kaspar type player will be at a premium along with the positional players. Doesn't it make sense that in a mobile NHL, you would want mobile players?
1: He's not that mobile anymore and he STILL chases the big hit at times. He's just not as good as you make him out to be, and your ongoing portrayal of him as such makes me thing that you're the one failing to be objective about this.
2: They will be at a premium if they are coming at the right price. Tampa is exactly the type of team that will be buying at the trade deadline. They are also a team that, in the next two years, must sign Lecavalier and St. Louis to contracts in addition to whatever other players on their roster they want to keep. Do you honestly expect them to want Kasparaitis's contract? Ain't happening.

The very teams to which you want to trade him are the teams least likely to want him. These are the teams loaded with talent that are going to struggle to keep that talent. They're certainly not going to be looking to add a bloated contract and add to their cap headaches.

I don't even know how you can debate Kaspar's play last season. Up until his injury he was very solid, at times great. I think anyone who watched the Rangers subjectively can attest to that.
"Solid" is just fine as a descriptor and one on which I can agree (rather than the "great" you offered in your last post), but defenseman who play "solid" hockey are not that difficult to find. They're certainly not so difficult that you overpay to keep them when you're faced with a hard cap.

And of course refer back to my point above re: Lecavalier/Kaspar.

We could buyout Kaspar and the player we get could suck in the new system ... why take that chance?
Well I don't know ... seems to me this attitude contradicts the one you strike earlier.

What WOULD happen if he sucked? The team might lose more? You wrote earlier that the team had no chance anyway and that we shouldn't be worried about this year. Now you're offering that a replacement (presumably a veteran who knows a little bit about adapting to different systems) might not play as well and that the team would be hurt by it?

Come on. Be consistent. Here's what happens if you bring in a guy at half the price and he can't adapt to the system:
1. You save 1.5M this year and whatever the rest of the contract is.
2. You may lose an additional 4-5 games because of his utter incompetence. (I think I'm being generous here, but it doesn't matter because losing more games isn't a bad thing if you're hoping that "next season we (knock on wood) get a good draft pick." In fact getting a defenseman who would cost the team a few points would help that if it's your goal.)
3. Because he's cheaper and still reliable, you have an asset which is easier to move and more desirable at the trade deadline.

dedalus is offline  
Old
07-27-2005, 01:54 PM
  #42
Molson Golden
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Horseheads, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 18
vCash: 500
I like Kaspar too, but the Rangers must stop paying for first line talent when all they are getting are 2 and third liners.

Holik and Kaspar have to be bought out - it is only money and the Rangers don't care about that and it will allow us to either bring up the prospects and play them or sign lower priced and younger free agents.

We have to go for a young, home grown core of players that are 'true blue' to get some Good Chemistry on this team once and for all.

Molson Golden 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 08:46 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.