Question, though- why don't you consider Richards a force? Kovalchuk relies much more on his speed and wrister to be effective, Jagr was a power forward who did the same thing- why won't one of the most unsung playmakers of this decade who's put up 90 points twice be able to play till 35? Not trying to attack you, just wondering/ playing devils advocate.
Is he one of the most unsung playmakers of the decade? I'm not sure I'd go that far. What skews opinions is the fact that he's the best playmaker that NYR will have access to this summer by a mile.
It's not that I think Richards is on a Chris Drury trajectory of decline. He'll be a good player at 35. What's he's not going to be is the missing link to this team's future success. You can't count on him to deliver the same 90+ point season he did with LeCav and St. Louis, or Neal and Ericksson. The Rangers simply don't have offensive talent like that, Gaborik included. On a line with players who can't put pucks in an open net, literally, he's Cris Drury circa 2008.
To use the Hossa analogy again, just look at his role on a Cup winning Hawks team. He was a piece that help put that team over the top, but he could hardly be crowned as the guy that delivered the goods. It was the calculated moves for the future, like the acquisition of Pat Sharp, that set the Hawks up for success. You've gotta have someone to do the heavy lifting before you start shopping for that "over the top" piece.
Last edited by Melrose_Jr.: 03-11-2011 at 12:40 PM.
Is he one of the most unsung playmakers of the decade? I'm not sure I'd go that far. What skews opinions is the fact that he's the best playmaker that NYR will have access to this summer by a mile.
It's not that I think Richards is on a Chris Drury trajectory of decline. He'll be a good player at 35. What's he's not going to be is the missing link to this team's future success. You can't count on him to deliver the same 90+ point season he did with LeCav and St. Louis, or Neal and Ericksson. The Rangers simply don't have offensive talent like that, Gaborik included. On a line with players who can't put pucks in an open net, literally, he's Cris Drury circa 2008.
To use the Hossa analogy again, just look at his role on a Cup winning Hawks team. He was a piece that help put that team over the top, but he could hardly be crowned as the guy that delivered the goods. It was the calculated moves for the future, like the acquisition of Pat Sharp, that set the Hawks up for success. You've gotta have someone to do the heavy lifting before you start shopping for that "over the top" piece.
The entire dynamic of the team changes if you add Richards to it. It may not be enough to make them the best team in the league, but it's enough to make them a team that is right in the mix with the rest of the top teams in the conference. It makes the players that play with Richards MUCH bigger threats, and it makes everyone else that gets shifted down a line to a more appropriate role more dangerous because they then face a lower level of opposition.
Richards alone is the difference between having a first line and not having a first line, and that's a huge deal. That makes your team so much more dangerous, and he makes your PP a threat, something that it is not without him.
I don't buy the Hossa comparison, because Hossa is not Richards. Goalscorers, even ones like Hossa that are also very solid away from the puck and good passers, just don't have the ability to completely a change a team the way an elite playmaker does. Richards is not th eover the top piece. He's the heavy lifting one.
Don't forget also that if Gaborik is on the ice with Richards, not only will Gaborik's offensive output increase, but he'll probably suffer a lot less physical punishment because now someone who actually should be carrying the puck will be the focus of the attention. You can't hit a guy when he doesn't have the puck and the only time the puck should be on Gaborik's stick is for the second or two before he shoots it.
The entire dynamic of the team changes if you add Richards to it. It may not be enough to make them the best team in the league, but it's enough to make them a team that is right in the mix with the rest of the top teams in the conference. It makes the players that play with Richards MUCH bigger threats, and it makes everyone else that gets shifted down a line to a more appropriate role more dangerous because they then face a lower level of opposition.
Richards alone is the difference between having a first line and not having a first line, and that's a huge deal. That makes your team so much more dangerous, and he makes your PP a threat, something that it is not without him.
I don't buy the Hossa comparison, because Hossa is not Richards. Goalscorers, even ones like Hossa that are also very solid away from the puck and good passers, just don't have the ability to completely a change a team the way an elite playmaker does. Richards is not th eover the top piece. He's the heavy lifting one.
Don't forget also that if Gaborik is on the ice with Richards, not only will Gaborik's offensive output increase, but he'll probably suffer a lot less physical punishment because now someone who actually should be carrying the puck will be the focus of the attention. You can't hit a guy when he doesn't have the puck and the only time the puck should be on Gaborik's stick is for the second or two before he shoots it.
couldnt of said it better myself...richards changes the whole look of this team
I don't buy the Hossa comparison, because Hossa is not Richards. Goalscorers, even ones like Hossa that are also very solid away from the puck and good passers, just don't have the ability to completely a change a team the way an elite playmaker does. Richards is not th eover the top piece. He's the heavy lifting one..
Oh, I'm not denying that Richards will doing the heavy lifting if he comes to the Rangers. I'd say that's a foregone conclusion among this group. The debate is whether or not you structure your young team's future around a 31 year old under the assumption that he will match his historic career high outputs for years to come. At best, it's optimistic.
I'm only using Hossa as an example of a "slightly past his prime" player that was identified as someone of interest to the Rangers at one time. You can at look at where he did go, what he did contribute and measure that against your preseason expectations.
If he hadnt friggin gotten hurt I'd be very gung ho. I'm really not sure I want this signing now. I'll be very excited and hardcore about it if we do because of the promise but I just am warded off by our history I think more than anything
Oh, I'm not denying that Richards will doing the heavy lifting if he comes to the Rangers. I'd say that's a foregone conclusion among this group. The debate is whether or not you structure your young team's future around a 31 year old under the assumption that he will match his historic career high outputs for years to come. At best, it's optimistic.
With the way of the current NHL, I would never sink a longterm, big-cash contract into a 31 year-old coming off a concussion. It has gotten so bad, that I'd hesitate getting Crosby, although I'm sure I'd take a shot on him.
I know I'm in the minority (I usually am), but I think that all of these concussions are going to go a long way to changing the rules of the game. Players are way faster and stronger than they used to be and the equipment has become lethal.
The best solution to me is to go to bigger sized rinks, so players have more room to escape and maneuver. I know it won't happen because of the cash involved in changing the rinks and because of the North American mindset of "our" game is the way it should be.
The problem that many of you have here is threefold:
Problem 1: You are afraid of a player who has had one concussion in his entire NHL career, because apparently having a concussion means he is damaged goods....
Many athletes have had concussions (myself included), that does not mean it is a given that they're performance will decline at any age, or that they necessarily are at risk for worse future concussions. Richards has had a relatively healthy career with only two major injuries (two broken hands in the same year; the definition of freak accidents). Excluding the 08-09 season, and the year he was traded, he's played 80 or more games each season. Richards also shows no signs of being at risk for future concussions unlike a player such as Lindros, who it was pretty obvious that he was an injury risk with the way he skated (head down).
Problem 2: You are afraid of revisiting the past in which the Rangers gave out only a couple large contracts.
Post-lockout, the only significant ones were Drury, Redden and Gomez, I guess you could count Kotalik and Voros. Kotalik and Voros were terrible contracts, as was Redden who was obviously declining. Gomez and Drury though were not bad players, they were just very overpaid. Richards is unlike any of those players mentioned, he's a lot better. Giving out long-huge contracts is fine, but it has to be the right player, and that player is Richards.
Problem 3: He has always played with better line mates than the ones he'd be playing with on the Rangers.
The reality is, he hasn't. James Neal is no better than Dubinsky. He may have a bit more skill, but point-wise, he doesn't contribute much more than Dubinsky does. Dubinsky has 45 points in 64 games this season. Neal has 42 points in 66 games. Last year Dubinsky had 44 points in 69 games, while Neal had 55 in 78. Of course Neal is a year younger, but doesn't matter. Dubinsky is more comparable to Neal's linemate Eriksson, however. That leaves Gaborik who is the best out of the three of them. While St. Louis is one of the leagues better RWs now, Gaborik is no slouch at scoring either, both are good for at least 80 points.
I'm sure I could think of more problems you guys have with signing Richards, but your reasoning is irrational.
Is he one of the most unsung playmakers of the decade? I'm not sure I'd go that far. What skews opinions is the fact that he's the best playmaker that NYR will have access to this summer by a mile.
It's not that I think Richards is on a Chris Drury trajectory of decline. He'll be a good player at 35. What's he's not going to be is the missing link to this team's future success. You can't count on him to deliver the same 90+ point season he did with LeCav and St. Louis, or Neal and Ericksson. The Rangers simply don't have offensive talent like that, Gaborik included. On a line with players who can't put pucks in an open net, literally, he's Cris Drury circa 2008.
To use the Hossa analogy again, just look at his role on a Cup winning Hawks team. He was a piece that help put that team over the top, but he could hardly be crowned as the guy that delivered the goods. It was the calculated moves for the future, like the acquisition of Pat Sharp, that set the Hawks up for success. You've gotta have someone to do the heavy lifting before you start shopping for that "over the top" piece.
You can't overlook what he brings. It absolutely could be the missing piece to future success.
Stanley Cup & Conn Smythe.
Makes his teammates better both on and off the ice.
You need to read interviews and articles on the effect he has had on younger players he's played with.
He brings a mentality with him that would be infectious on the young team we have here. He could even effect Gaborik in that way, as he is older and has had more success in his career.
He wants to win. He will bring that winning mentality and effect the culture around the team.
Unlike Gomez and Drury, Richards is a leader that can back it up on the ice.
It would put guys like Stepan and Anisimov in more comfortable roles.
We have an elite goaltender.
We have Dubinsky, Callahan, Stepan, Boyle, Anisimov who all will score 20 goals this year.
Gaborik who is capable of 40.
A solid young defense corp.
More serious talent on the way up.
I believe Richards could do all of this for this young team and help develop them in a winning environment.
Its not just about that he can put up 70+ points. He's an elite player in every sense. As a leader, in his skill level, in his mentality, in his production, in the effect he has on his teammates.
They have to make it work, and find a way to get rid of Drury, Boogaard, and Christensen.
Kovalchuk was that guy too but once he became a Devil he was a "choker" a "locker room cancer" and also don't forget "rather have Gabby than Kovy".
Kovy is looking pretty freaking good right now ............. It's a no brainer to sign Richards guys. Yea he will cost alot of money and yrs but the team needs a true #1 C and PP QB........2 things this team needs bad..........he has won with Torts so you know he fits in there. Also gives Gaborik no exuses next yr as he'll have a top C.
Richards coupled to the current roster plus prospects coming will result in the playoffs for sure and maybe a cup during the Richards contract
The coffee shop talk out of the Brad Richard home town of Murray Harbour PEI is that he is all but a Ranger...read into that what you want...but remember it is still coffee shop talk and unofficial...just posting the gossip I am hearing from here on lil ol' PEI where everybody knows your name ...and your business .
With so many young, solid players in our system, the time will eventually come when we have to pay them. The bunch of RFA's that we'll re-sign this summer, will ultimately be destined for free-agency in a few years. Lundqvist+Gabby's contracts run out the same time as well.
We'll save some money here and there by promoting from within, but looking down the road some (3 years, 4 years, and 5 years) we're going to need $$$ to basically re-sign the entire team.
Richards will be in his mid-30's. With a few years remaining on his contract, a NMC, and he'll definitely be on the decline.
Replacing a bad contract with a good one (Drury/Richards) will certainly improve us, but I don't think it makes us a legitimate contender.
Pass on Richards. If you're going to make a move, anti-up some and target a player who can grow with the team. As much as I'd hate to see assets moved for a player, I'd rather go that route than Richards.
I have no problem at all passing on Richards, and just building from within either. I think Stepan+Anisimov+Boyle down the middle in a few years can be solid enough with the right wingers, and in the right system. Assuming they all continue to improve their overall game.
Having a good amount of cap space available can have some serious advantages too, if a team around the league finds themselves in a bind. A GM like Sather should be able to flip a couple of nickels and dimes for a quarter+salary dump. He's taken advantage of some opportunity's, but having cap space+quality assets will ultimately open up more potential scenario's. For players that aren't 31 years old, and will command a long-term contracts.
Kovalchuk was that guy too but once he became a Devil he was a "choker" a "locker room cancer" and also don't forget "rather have Gabby than Kovy".
Neither I or many other astute posters here ever saw Kovalchuk as that guy. He's a very good player. He's also a relatively one dimensional player. Richards is much more rounded. As great an offensive threat? No. A team guy who would fit right in here? Yes.
The Devils and Kovalchuk deserve a lot of credit for turning their season around. But putting him on this Ranger team would have been a square peg in a round hole.
The bunch of RFA's that we'll re-sign this summer, will ultimately be destined for free-agency in a few years.
I think this very fact is one of the big reasons that we should be making a legitimate attempt to compete in the next two to three years. Lundqvist and Gaborik are in their primes, and our own players (Staal, Dubinsky, Callahan, etc.) are still on reasonable contracts.
Fast forward a few years and Lundqvist and Gaborik are suddenly reaching their decline and the great values we're getting for our own "core" right now is no longer so great.
I'm not sure that I necessarily agree, but a plausible argument could be made that our own window to compete could pass without us ever even being competitors, if Sather plays it too cautiously and sticks with our own development rather than looking elsewhere via UFA or a trade.
I just don't see a legitimate fix for our first line in our system or realistically being available where we'll be drafting. Maybe Richards isn't the answer, but I don't see a better option on the horizon.
I think this very fact is one of the big reasons that we should be making a legitimate attempt to compete in the next two to three years. Lundqvist and Gaborik are in their primes, and our own players (Staal, Dubinsky, Callahan, etc.) are still on reasonable contracts.
Fast forward a few years and Lundqvist and Gaborik are suddenly reaching their decline and the great values we're getting for our own "core" right now is no longer so great.
I'm not sure that I necessarily agree, but a plausible argument could be made that our own window to compete could pass without us ever even being competitors, if Sather plays it too cautiously and sticks with our own development rather than looking elsewhere via UFA or a trade.
I just don't see a legitimate fix for our first line in our system or realistically being available where we'll be drafting. Maybe Richards isn't the answer, but I don't see a better option on the horizon.
I agree with everything you are saying however, unless Drury retires, I cant see us finding enough $$$$ to sign Richards and sign our RFAs.
Neither I or many other astute posters here ever saw Kovalchuk as that guy. He's a very good player. He's also a relatively one dimensional player. Richards is much more rounded. As great an offensive threat? No. A team guy who would fit right in here? Yes.
The Devils and Kovalchuk deserve a lot of credit for turning their season around. But putting him on this Ranger team would have been a square peg in a round hole.
Wasn't the same said about Kovalchuk and the Devils? How he would never fit their system and never be sold. I humbly disagree, Kovalchuk on this team makes the Rangers a lot harder to play against.
I agree with everything you are saying however, unless Drury retires, I cant see us finding enough $$$$ to sign Richards and sign our RFAs.
Resigning our RFAs should be the first priority.
If we buy out Drury, we save about 3.3 mil. If the cap goes up 3 mil as has been projected, that gives us a total of 6.3 mil to work with. We can make it work and still get all of our RFAs signed.
Problem 1: You are afraid of a player who has had one concussion in his entire NHL career, because apparently having a concussion means he is damaged goods....
No one's saying he's damaged goods in the sense that he won't produce at all after his return. I think some people are concerned about investing a lot of $$ in someone who was recently concussed. I don't think that's "irrational".
Quote:
Originally Posted by DatsyukSOGoal
Many athletes have had concussions (myself included), that does not mean it is a given that they're performance will decline at any age, or that they necessarily are at risk for worse future concussions.
That last part is false. There's an established body of medical research stating that athletes who have suffered a concussion have elevated risk of suffering another one. A quick Google search yield these examples:
"Those who have had a prior concussion are at increased risk. It is important to note that each subsequent concussion lowers the threshold for further concussions."
--taken from: http://www.panoramaortho.com/orthope...on/concussions
How much more risk is tough to quantify, but the issue has to be taken into account. You can't brush the concussion aside like it has no potential bearing on the future.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DatsyukSOGoal
Problem 2: You are afraid of revisiting the past in which the Rangers gave out only a couple large contracts.
Post-lockout, the only significant ones were Drury, Redden and Gomez, I guess you could count Kotalik and Voros. Kotalik and Voros were terrible contracts, as was Redden who was obviously declining. Gomez and Drury though were not bad players, they were just very overpaid. Richards is unlike any of those players mentioned, he's a lot better. Giving out long-huge contracts is fine, but it has to be the right player, and that player is Richards.
Drury, Redden, and Gomez were the terrible contracts. That's 3 in the last 4 years. Then, you add in Kotalik, Voros, Brashear, Boogaard, and you can see why some NYR fans are gunshy about giving out a big contract: the team has a long history of bad free agent signings.
I understand that Richards is better than the ones you mentioned. He's been an excellent player for sure. What I wonder is this: he's going to be 31 at the start of next season. He's probably going to want a 5-6 deal at, what, about $6.5M a year. If you sign him, he'll probably live up to that deal the first year. What about the years after that? Are you still going to like the deal in years 3-6?
This team is going to have a lot of players becoming RFAs, & you really have to think twice about committing another large contract to someone who is probably approaching the time when he starts to decline. 31 isn't ancient by any means, but it's nearing that point where production starts to drop.
You seem convinced that he's worth it; I'm don't see it that way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DatsyukSOGoal
Problem 3: He has always played with better line mates than the ones he'd be playing with on the Rangers.
The reality is, he hasn't. James Neal is no better than Dubinsky.
I'm not as worried about his linemates drastically affecting his production. I agree with you that that probably wouldn't be an issue.
If Richards wanted a 2-3 year deal, I would be more receptive to the idea. But committing 6+ million for 5-6 years to a guy that's 31 and recovering from a concussion just doesn't like a solid long-term plan to me.
The free-agent market looks rather thin when it comes to elite centres, the position the Leafs need to fill the most. Brad Richards’s preference seems to be to stay with the Dallas Stars or head for the New York Rangers, with the Leafs not in the picture.
The ownership situation is status quo after the reports surfaced about a new bidder four weeks ago.
Dallas is on the verge of missing the playoffs.
Even if the team is sold,will the sale of the team close by late June?How much money will the new owner(s) spend?The Stars have $45M budget. The cap floor will increase to $46M if the cap increases by $3M.
For what price though? That concussion IS a big deal.
Is it possible to steal away Parise?
I have to be honest, I haven't seen much of Richards play. I just don't want to see another typical Rangers-albatross contract on the same length as Redden, Drury, or Gomez.
