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

The Matt Gilroy Project

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
03-07-2011, 11:03 PM
  #101
ltrangerfan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 943
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by robruckus View Post
He's an RFA. We have to offer him a QO for more than his current salary. Why on earth would we?

And if we didn't, why on earth would he come back here?

I'm going to assume you don't follow the A or any other teams around the league, but finding a #6 dman that's cheaper and plays better than Gilroy will not be hard to do.

And that in and of itself is an upgrade.
Thank you for clearing the RFA up.

He would only come back if the Rangers offer was competitive with other teams and felt he had a chance to start (if I understand the RFA rules?).

If cheaper/ better D men are avail then it's a no brainer. The question all comes down to probabilities.

ltrangerfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-07-2011, 11:11 PM
  #102
Draft Guru
Registered User
 
Draft Guru's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Long Island
Country: United States
Posts: 6,668
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ltrangerfan View Post
1)Gilroy getting a raw deal? Never said he was. Based on his current play he isn't worth bringing back at 2 mil.
2)The key is how much will it cost to have him back? For a price I play. Not sure about the rules of getting him back ? I assumed he was a free agent and could be brought back for a lower price if he and the management was willing.
3) I said I believe he is on the improve. I said my gut tells me he might be a late bloomer and on the verge of breaking out. If another team thinks he has the potential he isn't coming back. That's what my bet is.
Once the Rangers choose not to qualify him, he becomes a UFA and can sign with anyone...including the Rangers. It is not entirely out of the question that if he does not receive any offers from other teams he re-signs with us for $1 million or less, but I doubt it. I don't think Torts has much faith in him. He can be replaced with kids in our system who would be no worse.

Draft Guru is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-07-2011, 11:14 PM
  #103
ruckus*
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 3,554
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ltrangerfan View Post
Thank you for clearing the RFA up.

He would only come back if the Rangers offer was competitive with other teams and felt he had a chance to start (if I understand the RFA rules?).

If cheaper/ better D men are avail then it's a no brainer. The question all comes down to probabilities.
Yeah read Draft Guru's post above and that explains it.

For analogy purposes it'd be like working at your job and basically your boss has the chance to give you a raise and promotion or let you walk.

He chooses to let you walk.

Sure you can go back to him and ask for a job and take less money then you were making...but if you were going to take less money wouldn't you want to do it somewhere you felt like you could show something? And not stay with the guy who had the chance to keep you but didn't want you?

So while possible, it'd be surprising if he re-signed him if we didn't offer him his QO.

ruckus* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-07-2011, 11:23 PM
  #104
ltrangerfan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 943
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by robruckus View Post
Yeah read Draft Guru's post above and that explains it.

For analogy purposes it'd be like working at your job and basically your boss has the chance to give you a raise and promotion or let you walk.

He chooses to let you walk.

Sure you can go back to him and ask for a job and take less money then you were making...but if you were going to take less money wouldn't you want to do it somewhere you felt like you could show something? And not stay with the guy who had the chance to keep you but didn't want you?

So while possible, it'd be surprising if he re-signed him if we didn't offer him his QO.
Understood. Thank you.

ltrangerfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-08-2011, 01:07 AM
  #105
mike14
Registered User
 
mike14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Melbourne
Country: Australia
Posts: 4,315
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by robruckus View Post
Yeah read Draft Guru's post above and that explains it.

For analogy purposes it'd be like working at your job and basically your boss has the chance to give you a raise and promotion or let you walk.

He chooses to let you walk.

Sure you can go back to him and ask for a job and take less money then you were making...but if you were going to take less money wouldn't you want to do it somewhere you felt like you could show something? And not stay with the guy who had the chance to keep you but didn't want you?

So while possible, it'd be surprising if he re-signed him if we didn't offer him his QO.
Would it be that surprising though? If Gilroy gets the feeling that there is going to an open spot on the Rangers blueline he might feel he's better off signing a cheap one year deal with a club where he knows the system and is likely to play NHL hockey. That way he can show he belongs and look to sign a better deal next off-season

mike14 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-08-2011, 06:04 AM
  #106
SingnBluesOnBroadway
Retired
 
SingnBluesOnBroadway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 29,898
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boom Boom Geoffrion View Post
But experience wise, he's not.

How often do second-year dmen find their stride? Gilroy will continue improving. 27 isn't old, unless you're 15.

Gilroy can be a serviceable dmen in this league for the next decade. So what if he doesn't peak until he's 29. Or 30. Sather blows 2M like it's nothing. If Matt wasn't part of the future, he likely would have been moved during the deadline for some type of scraps.
At his age, he doesn't have the luxury of time to develop. The league is trending younger. Hell, he's one of the older defensemen on his own team. And saying he will continue to improve implies he's improved from this year to last year, which I don't see.

So Sather spends money foolishly is a reason to retain Gilroy? Interesting.

When did serviceable become OK. Just another example of how the bar has been lowered around here.

BTW, we've seen Ryan McDonagh move ahead of Gilroy in half a season — how much time does he need to develop?

__________________
SingnBluesOnBroadway is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-08-2011, 06:16 AM
  #107
SingnBluesOnBroadway
Retired
 
SingnBluesOnBroadway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 29,898
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boom Boom Geoffrion View Post
Not that it matters much, but I'd rather have Gilroy @2M than Boogey @1.6M. If we want to penny-pinch, there are ways to free up room.
I don't see how it's an either/or thing. They already have Boogey for 1.6. So you want to add an addition 2M. That's 3.6M for two bottom pairing/6th defenseman guys.

SingnBluesOnBroadway is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-08-2011, 06:36 AM
  #108
RangerBoy
#freejtmiller
 
RangerBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 31,865
vCash: 500
Gilroy is NOT eligible for an automatic 1 way QO.

Article 10

Quote:
(iii) A Club's Qualifying Offer must be a One-Way Qualifying Offer if
the applicable Player has: (A) actually played (excluding games
missed for injury, illness or disability) 180 or more NHL Games in
the previous three (3) NHL Seasons, (B) played at least sixty (60)
NHL Games in the previous NHL Season, and (C) not cleared
Waivers in the period between the 12th day prior to the
commencement of the previous Regular Season and the end of a
Club's previous Playing Season. For purposes hereof only, a
goaltender is deemed to have played an NHL Game when he was
dressed and on the bench as a backup. In all other cases, a
Qualifying Offer may be a Two-Way Qualifying Offer
.
Quote:
(A) if the Player's prior year's Paragraph 1 NHL Salary is less
than or equal to $660,000 for that League Year, 110% of
the prior year's Paragraph 1 NHL Salary.

(B) if the Player's prior year's Paragraph 1 NHL Salary is
greater than $660,000, but less than $1,000,000 for that
League Year, 105% of his prior year's Paragraph 1 NHL
Salary, but in no event to exceed $1,000,000.

(C) if the Player's prior year's Paragraph 1 NHL Salary is equal
to or greater than $1,000,000 for that League year, 100% of
the prior year's Paragraph 1 NHL Salary.

(D) if a Player is eligible to receive a Two-Way Qualifying
Offer, the Paragraph 1 Minor League Salary component
shall not be less than the higher of the Player's prior year's
Paragraph 1 Minor League Salary, if any, or the minimum
Minor League salary.
$2.1M QO but it's a 2 way.

Leaves room for the Rangers to negotiate a smaller number. Gilroy is eligible for salary arbitration. Even if he was owed an automatic 1 way,the Rangers would not qualify him so he can file for arbitration. The Rangers already have 4 arbitration eligible players. The QO's are due by June 27 this year. The Rangers don't qualify Gilroy and attempt to negotiate a smaller number than $2.1M. Before or after July 1.

RangerBoy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-08-2011, 08:17 AM
  #109
haohmaru
#bdwyblueshirts
 
haohmaru's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Fleming Island, Fl
Country: United States
Posts: 5,389
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by robruckus View Post

And hoahmaru....you make two points that I really just don't understand.

First, to keep bringing up Redden and Eminger....Now I'm not one to defend Redden, but to blame Gilroy's play last year on being paired with Wade is laughable. It was just as unfortunate for Redden that he had to be paired with Gilroy. I hope you understand that. To honestly believe that Redden wasn't more serviceable than Gilroy is just being blind. Cap hit aside, Wade still made veteran plays and quick passes to get the puck out of the zone. I understand Gilroy was a rookie but he wasn't even capable of those things. He was Wade Redden but worse. And that's not Wade Redden's fault. And to bring Eminger into it? Eminger has been solid this season.
Where did I "blame" Gilroy's play on Redden last year? Or Emminger? All I've said was that those expecting some explosive defenseman getting tons of points should remember his minutes played and who his partners were. You don't think that he would've fared better with Girardi or Staal or someone else "dependable" on the back end? And, I don't think you're remembering clearly how awful Redden was last year. He was FAR worse than Gilroy is this year. Slow. Awful coverage. Poor choices. That's one reason why he isn't here anymore. I'd take Gilroy on the back end, right now, over Redden any day of the week even if they were making the same money. Redden, like Souray, doesn't have the legs for the NHL anymore. Particularly Torts' NHL. Perhaps you are the blind one.

Quote:
Originally Posted by robruckus View Post
Also, you make a comment referring to the fact that we'll need a 5th or 6th defenseman next year so why not?

Why not? Because it's going to cost us his QO or at the very least more money than it would to put a rookie back there.
I distinctly said if we can get him "cheap" for the sake of signing other players (AA, Dubi, Callahan, BB, etc...). He's certainly a workable 6th guy. And, from most accounts, Valentenko isn't ready for next year and we need SOMEONE to play on the back end. Emminger and McCabe are both UFA's, which leaves us with 5 starters (Staal, Girardi, Sauer, McDonagh, & Gilroy) and we're still going to have room for a UFA and or AHL/rookie.

Do I sign him for $1.75 million again? Not a chance in hell. If he's willing to sign an EC type contract (750K-900K), then hell yes. Emminger, for example, is playing for 1.125 million.

haohmaru is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-08-2011, 08:18 AM
  #110
ruckus*
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 3,554
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mike14 View Post
Would it be that surprising though? If Gilroy gets the feeling that there is going to an open spot on the Rangers blueline he might feel he's better off signing a cheap one year deal with a club where he knows the system and is likely to play NHL hockey. That way he can show he belongs and look to sign a better deal next off-season
I think it would be surprising because I don't see him as their first choice. They're going to look to upgrade. Whether it be internally or not.

If they want to keep him they can. It's doubtful they'll want to do it at that price, and in almost all situations what happens is you look elsewhere.

The odds of them not retaining him initially and then going back to him (with the expectations of him being a top 6 d-man for them) are slim to none in my opinion.

ruckus* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-08-2011, 08:32 AM
  #111
SingnBluesOnBroadway
Retired
 
SingnBluesOnBroadway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 29,898
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by mike14 View Post
Would it be that surprising though? If Gilroy gets the feeling that there is going to an open spot on the Rangers blueline he might feel he's better off signing a cheap one year deal with a club where he knows the system and is likely to play NHL hockey. That way he can show he belongs and look to sign a better deal next off-season
I think the better question is why the Rangers would want him back when Gilroy really doesn't excel at any aspect of the game. Use that money on a vet.

SingnBluesOnBroadway is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-08-2011, 09:03 AM
  #112
Chalfdiggity3
Registered User
 
Chalfdiggity3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 1,596
vCash: 500
haohmaru i get what your saying, but youve made one major flaw in your discussion.

Valentenko and Kundratek are BOTH ready for the NHL. Valentenko showed why he was ready in the preseason and was a very rock steady defenseman. Idk what you think you saw but both are ready to be 5/6th dmen in the NHL. They are excelling in all aspects in the AHL and with their time up in the NHL have out played MDZ and Gilroy.

Let them come up and play and youll see we never needed Gilroy. Gilroy is a fringe nhl dman and isnt worth 2m a year. Why waste the capspace on him, when we have players who are ready to play now.

Why have they not gotten a shot yet? Maybe because they see Del Zotto as a mainstay and wanted to give him alot of chances because we need him to continue to produce like his rookie season. And why did gilroy stay up and not have Vtank or Kundratek up? well bc of gilroys salary and 1way contract plus since he is in his final year of his contract we wanted to see if hes worth holding onto or having value in the trade market. We found out he isnt worth anything either way.

Chalfdiggity3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-08-2011, 09:13 AM
  #113
Fitzy
All Is Well
 
Fitzy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 19,925
vCash: 500
Valentenko has not been given a shot because management does not believe his footspeed is enough to keep up at the NHL level.

Kundratek is a pro rookie, and so I imagine they don't feel a need to rush him when he is having a nice AHL season.

Fitzy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-08-2011, 09:15 AM
  #114
haohmaru
#bdwyblueshirts
 
haohmaru's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Fleming Island, Fl
Country: United States
Posts: 5,389
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chalfdiggity3 View Post
haohmaru i get what your saying, but youve made one major flaw in your discussion.

Valentenko and Kundratek are BOTH ready for the NHL. Valentenko showed why he was ready in the preseason and was a very rock steady defenseman. Idk what you think you saw but both are ready to be 5/6th dmen in the NHL. They are excelling in all aspects in the AHL and with their time up in the NHL have out played MDZ and Gilroy.

Let them come up and play and youll see we never needed Gilroy. Gilroy is a fringe nhl dman and isnt worth 2m a year. Why waste the capspace on him, when we have players who are ready to play now.

Why have they not gotten a shot yet? Maybe because they see Del Zotto as a mainstay and wanted to give him alot of chances because we need him to continue to produce like his rookie season. And why did gilroy stay up and not have Vtank or Kundratek up? well bc of gilroys salary and 1way contract plus since he is in his final year of his contract we wanted to see if hes worth holding onto or having value in the trade market. We found out he isnt worth anything either way.
Sorry, bud, but the people that really cover the Whale have pretty much all universally said that neither Valentenko or Kundratek are ready yet for the NHL. I'll take the word(s) of people that religiously watch and report on the Whale over your assessment.

Which isn't a knock on them, they're both young guys with a bunch of potential. Maybe they'll be ready for a shot at training camp next year, but if we get rid of Gilroy we'll need to fill TWO slots, not one. Maybe you can pencil MDZ in one of those slots if he regains his game, but I think we'll still need a 7th in the rotation in case of injuries etc...

As I've said, Gilroy isn't worth what he's being paid. But, if he signs for a lot less, I don't see that he's any worse than other 6th/7th options.

haohmaru is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-08-2011, 09:18 AM
  #115
NYR Viper
Moderator
 
NYR Viper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: PA
Country: United States
Posts: 28,592
vCash: 500
For me, Kundratek/Valentanko > Gilroy next season.

I would rather live with the growing pains than watch a 27 year old Gilroy.

NYR Viper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-08-2011, 09:39 AM
  #116
Revelation
Reanimated
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Country: United States
Posts: 1,970
vCash: 500
As has been said before numerous times, it really all comes down to the dollars and cents of the situation.

I think few would deny that Gilroy has shown improvement this season. However, he is still not worth his $2M salary, much less the raise he would be looking at with a Qualifying Offer. I don't think anyone expects Gilroy to be qualified. That means he will become a UFA, free to sign with anyone.

The big question is: Is there a team willing to give him more than the Rangers would that he would actually want to go?

Gilroy grew up on Long Island. I'm sure his first choice is to stay in the area. I know it would be mine, as the hassle of moving and being in a new place is stressful. So the next question becomes: Is he willing to take a pay cut to stay with the Rangers?

I would be fine with the Rangers offering him a 1 or 2 year contract worth $1-1.25M/year to give him a chance to prove he deserves a raise. Anything more than that and he can walk. For a 6th defenseman, he is adequate at that salary IMO.

I think Gilroy is a decent 6/7 option, with possibly 4 upside if he improves on the defensive side of his game. The problem is that we have alot of RFAs that deserve raises. Factor in that we could sign a solid vet for his spot with the $1-1.25M I mentioned earlier, and that's all he's looking at. That price is even overpaying Gilroy, but we are essentially paying for his upside.

Revelation is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-08-2011, 10:09 AM
  #117
Brooklyn Ranger
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn, of course
Posts: 7,896
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Draft Guru View Post
Once the Rangers choose not to qualify him, he becomes a UFA and can sign with anyone...including the Rangers. It is not entirely out of the question that if he does not receive any offers from other teams he re-signs with us for $1 million or less, but I doubt it. I don't think Torts has much faith in him. He can be replaced with kids in our system who would be no worse.
I'm not really sure I agree with your assessment that Torts doesn't have much faith in him. I've read several times that Torts was one of the people in the organization who spent a lot of time recuiting him and he's continued to play Gilroy through thick and thin ever since he got back into the lineup when Del Zotto stumbled. Torts is on record saying that it takes around 200 NHL games to properly assess young defensemen. It seems to me that he's been giving Gilroy every chance to develop. Whether Torts is willing to continue the experiment next year is another thing--and the wild card of course is what Sather thinks about all of this--but right now, he's shown a willingness to let Gilroy play.

Brooklyn Ranger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-08-2011, 10:25 AM
  #118
BlueshirtBlitz
Rich Nash
 
BlueshirtBlitz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: New York
Posts: 18,905
vCash: 500
I do not want Gilroy on this team. His 11~ or whatever points as a supposed offensive defenseman is just a joke. He can't muscle anybody off a puck to save his life and his positioning isn't great either- just adequate enough to not get booed out of the Garden (even though i've tried.)

Why pay him the money to be on our bottom 6 when our bottom 6 is already great?

The experiment failed. It's time to move on.

BlueshirtBlitz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-08-2011, 11:01 AM
  #119
Boom Boom Geoffrion*
CarciLOL
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: NYC
Country: Greece
Posts: 7,553
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SingnBluesOnBroadway View Post
At his age, he doesn't have the luxury of time to develop. The league is trending younger.
According to who? I don't see anyone suggesting he doesn't have the luxury of time to develop other than you.

The league is trending younger, but that doesn't mean a 26 year old, 2nd year dmen is out of a job because he has yet to peak.

What's the rush???

Quote:
Hell, he's one of the older defensemen on his own team. And saying he will continue to improve implies he's improved from this year to last year, which I don't see.
That's cause most of the team is under 25. Just cause he's one of the older players on our team doesn't actually make him 'old'.

I think most people here, including the Gilroy-haters, will point out that he has improved his play from last season. I certainly see it. Others here do as well.

Quote:
So Sather spends money foolishly is a reason to retain Gilroy? Interesting.
That's not what I was implying. You're better than that.

Quote:
When did serviceable become OK. Just another example of how the bar has been lowered around here.
For a bottom-pairing dmen, I think serviceable w/ upside is ok.

Quote:
BTW, we've seen Ryan McDonagh move ahead of Gilroy in half a season how much time does he need to develop?
McDonagh is a freak of nature. You know this. Matt Gilroy, isn't. I'm not suggesting he has to be. There is a demand for blue-liners in this league. Gilroy is an NHL dmen. He's 26. He has upside.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SingnBluesOnBroadway View Post
I think the better question is why the Rangers would want him back when Gilroy really doesn't excel at any aspect of the game. Use that money on a vet.
How much $$$ is that vet going to cost? How old will that vet be? We don't have the luxury of time to develop a dmen like Gilroy, but we're willing to invest his potential $$$ on a player who might very well be equal to Gilroy's defensive, or offensive play?

I just can't agree with that.

Boom Boom Geoffrion* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-08-2011, 11:29 AM
  #120
Boom Boom Geoffrion*
CarciLOL
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: NYC
Country: Greece
Posts: 7,553
vCash: 500
Sather-
Quote:
“Our goal has always been to try and develop our own players to build a core group of players that are going to grow up together,” said team President and General Manager Glen Sather. “It takes time to develop players, and it takes time for them to develop into National Hockey League players"
Doesn't sound to me like Gilroy doesn't have the luxury of time to develop.

Boom Boom Geoffrion* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-08-2011, 11:33 AM
  #121
SingnBluesOnBroadway
Retired
 
SingnBluesOnBroadway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 29,898
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boom Boom Geoffrion View Post
According to who? I don't see anyone suggesting he doesn't have the luxury of time to develop other than you.

The league is trending younger, but that doesn't mean a 26 year old, 2nd year dmen is out of a job because he has yet to peak.

What's the rush???
He'll be 27. That is when people at the their height offensively. How young do you want to give this guy to have his hockey intellect to catch up. You seem to think he hasn't peaked. I do. I don't see the upside. He's not exceptional at any aspect of the game.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Boom Boom Geoffrion View Post
That's cause most of the team is under 25. Just cause he's one of the older players on our team doesn't actually make him 'old'.
But it does illustrate the point that he's one of the older defensemen, yet the least accomplished.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boom Boom Geoffrion View Post
I think most people here, including the Gilroy-haters, will point out that he has improved his play from last season. I certainly see it. Others here do as well.
I'm not a "hater". I just don't see the upside. He doesn't excel at one particular aspect of the game. I don't see an improvement from last year.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Boom Boom Geoffrion View Post
That's not what I was implying. You're better than that.
Then I don't know what you're implying.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boom Boom Geoffrion View Post
For a bottom-pairing dmen, I think serviceable w/ upside is ok.
And I don't. I want steady.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boom Boom Geoffrion View Post
McDonagh is a freak of nature. You know this. Matt Gilroy, isn't. I'm not suggesting he has to be. There is a demand for blue-liners in this league. Gilroy is an NHL dmen. He's 26. He has upside.
McDonagh is a freak is a very easy answer and doesn't say a lot. What it does show is there's another, younger defenseman who came from a similar hockey background as Gilroy who has already shown more at this level than Gilroy has.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Boom Boom Geoffrion View Post
How much $$$ is that vet going to cost? How old will that vet be? We don't have the luxury of time to develop a dmen like Gilroy, but we're willing to invest his potential $$$ on a player who might very well be equal to Gilroy's defensive, or offensive play?

I just can't agree with that.
I don't know who is available. I do think you could get a known commodity for less than 1.5M. And one who is equal to or better than Gilroy defensively. Offensively too, for that matter.

Bottom line: He's a nice kid. A kid you want to root for. But I don't see the upside.

SingnBluesOnBroadway is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-08-2011, 11:34 AM
  #122
SingnBluesOnBroadway
Retired
 
SingnBluesOnBroadway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 29,898
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boom Boom Geoffrion View Post
Sather-


Doesn't sound to me like Gilroy doesn't have the luxury of time to develop.
Yeah. That really doesn't say much of anything. Ask Sather if he'll take the defenseman who's devloped at 25 or 31.

SingnBluesOnBroadway is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-08-2011, 11:40 AM
  #123
satrabyk
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,869
vCash: 500
I just dont think he is physical or explosive enough to play forward, not in this league anyway.

satrabyk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-08-2011, 11:50 AM
  #124
Mikos87
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,920
vCash: 500
I think that there is no way he comes back at his QO, the fact that he was hyped as an offensive dman, and his unique UFA situation out of college and the money he made because of it has put a monkey on his back as far as fan opinion. He can take that off by resigning for a cheaper deal making a little less than eminger to show the commitment to the organization that the org has shown to him.

I think his play is a lot better than last year and while the stats aren't there, he is comparable to a slightly Brett Lebda at this stage, signing for 980k to 1.15 million on a 2 year deal is something that I believe would be fair. He's a nice guy out there playing defense, and historically speaking, any dman that's not a bruiser who doesn't put up the stats is always vilified by the ranger fan base, look back at the threads with MDZ being worshipped as the second coming of Leetch and read what this board is saying about him now.

Torts and the team seem to like Gilroy's character, and the work he puts in, if they didnt he wouldn't be playing plain and simple. It's stupid to say just get rid of him for nothing, if he's back and guys pass him on the depth chart, he can go down to conn and help the team there. That's the worst case scenario, it isn't like ur dealing with a ufa signing that Torts doesn't want on the team like kotalik or frolov. He has a respect of his teammates and the coaching staff so I don't see him just going away for nothing

Mikos87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-08-2011, 11:50 AM
  #125
offdacrossbar
with the 10th pick..
 
offdacrossbar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: da cuse
Country: Tuvalu
Posts: 8,268
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fitzy Duke of NY View Post
Valentenko has not been given a shot because management does not believe his footspeed is enough to keep up at the NHL level.

Kundratek is a pro rookie, and so I imagine they don't feel a need to rush him when he is having a nice AHL season.


while i dont disagree that his skating may not be up to par with our top guys right now- were fortunate to have staal, girardi, sauer and mcd all of which can skate, but if mike del zotto and his slow as sand skating style and mccabe who skates like hes 80 years old, can play for us now, why not vtank.

and im not one of these guys who is clamoring for vtank to play the pp point and use his shot either- thats not the point. im looking for a dman who will make life miserable for opposing forwards who want to stand in hanks crease.

we need someone like vtank. we're still [always] too easy to play against in our own zone.

offdacrossbar 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 07:41 PM.

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.