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

Just say no to the buyouts this year

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
05-03-2011, 06:43 PM
  #76
haveandare
Registered User
 
haveandare's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 6,162
vCash: 500
Yeah, lets take next year off. Hank will love that. He said this year was the first year that he really realized that he's getting older and not getting closer to a cup. Lets replay this year again. Then, when Hank doesn't want to be here anymore we'll have saved a few million dollars in cap hit at the cost of arguably the best goalie alive.

Drury needs to be bought out. Nobody else. Wolski is a solid player - people are blowing his struggles way out of proportion.

haveandare is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-03-2011, 06:46 PM
  #77
CHGoalie27
GWAAARRRRRRR
 
CHGoalie27's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: SoFLA
Country: United States
Posts: 6,619
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by haveandare View Post
Yeah, lets take next year off. Hank will love that. He said this year was the first year that he really realized that he's getting older and not getting closer to a cup. Lets replay this year again. Then, when Hank doesn't want to be here anymore we'll have saved a few million dollars in cap hit at the cost of arguably the best goalie alive.

Drury needs to be bought out. Nobody else. Wolski is a solid player - people are blowing his struggles way out of proportion.
I couldn't have put it better. Especially about Wolski.

CHGoalie27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-03-2011, 06:51 PM
  #78
vipernsx
Flatus Expeller
 
vipernsx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Country: United States
Posts: 6,521
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerEsq View Post
So many people are calling for buyouts. But why?
The simple answer is because we know how to do math.

Wolski at 3.8 who will see most of his time on the bench or as a healthy scratch next year or a 466k cap hit and spend the remaining 3.334m on something of value is a no brainer. The 666k for the following year may not even make it to be the league minimum salary once the cap goes up again and isn't even worth considering.

As I've stated several times. Avery you don't buyout, you play him and waive him. If you need to recall him, you do it after the trade deadline like Florida did with Kennedy, no concern of a claim there.

Also as I've stated before, you don't buyout Drury, you deal him for someone else that another team wants to buyout with a lower cap hit and a higher cost and you buyout/waive that player.

The Rangers are to do this because it's in their best interests to build through two ways. One is through the draft and the other is through free agency. We didn't get Pavel Valentenko and Ryan McDonaugh by trading an asset we drafted, did we? Nor will this team succeed with top end talent by drafting it alone, it will need to acquire it and one way it will do so, is through buying it through free agency and there is a cap involved. You need to clear cap space in order to spend cap space. It's fairly simple. Draft and acquire the best players available EVERY year that you can.

Quote:
Originally Posted by haveandare View Post
Yeah, lets take next year off. Hank will love that. He said this year was the first year that he really realized that he's getting older and not getting closer to a cup. Lets replay this year again. Then, when Hank doesn't want to be here anymore we'll have saved a few million dollars in cap hit at the cost of arguably the best goalie alive.

Drury needs to be bought out. Nobody else. Wolski is a solid player - people are blowing his struggles way out of proportion.
NO

vipernsx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-03-2011, 06:51 PM
  #79
wolfgaze
Interesting Cat
 
wolfgaze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 12,098
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerEsq View Post
But his next contract will not be pre-lockout. It will be the same monstrocity as all the other players who were the top UFAs in their offseason: Brian Campbell, Chris Drury, etc.
You mean like Kovalchuk's monster cap hit? Or Hossa's? How about Marleau's? Heatley's? St. Louis'? All manageable, especially considering the cap keeps going up.

Quote:
Nobody ever learns from anything. Every single summer, fans expect UFAs to get RFA contracts.
I've never seen a single person suggest that. RFA contracts are limited by the CBA, how can anyone possibly compare them to UFA contracts?

Quote:
More than his (successful) rookie season. Again, if I thought that a #1 center brings us the Cup, I'm all for it. But it's not as if we are waiting when we could be winning. The difference between Brad and no Brad will be losing in the first round vs. losing in the second round (or maybe not even). It will not be enough to get us into the Finals, much less to win the Cup.
This is flawed logic. So since no single piece of the puzzle guarantees a cup, then those pieces are not important? A #1 goaltender doesn't guarantee a cup either, so why don't we deal Henke for some assets then?

Quote:
And precisely because Richards won't cost anything but cap space, teams all around the league will be trying to get him. Do you think you are the only one smart enough to recognize that it's better to lose cap space than assets?
So what though? You mentioned the Jagr/Heatley/Thornton trades. So if a player like that becomes available, "teams all around the league" won't be vying to trade for those players, driving up the asking price, and forcing us to have to give up KEY young players to acquire them? It's the same exact situation. Only during Free Agency, you only lose cap space, for your trade scenario, we lose value in the process.

Quote:
As for other players who might be available: 1) we may or may not need them; 2) they may become available; 3) what if Brad is not our need? Please try to focus here because everyone ignores it. What if we don't need a center?
What if we do? Have you even acknowledged the crappy UFA options available in the coming summers? Elite level plays do not fall out of the sky. If you'll notice the trend post-lockout, is that all key young players are getting locked up to long contracts that will prevent them from hitting FA any time soon.

Quote:
Ok, but at least I will be acquiring someone I know I need. Whether it's a center or a winger or a defenseman, a skilled player or a tough guy, a penalty killer or a quarterback.

Right now we are acquiring a player based on our present need... except even by filling this need, we are going nowhere. And we don't know what our future needs will be.
I still don't see the problem. Your original argument was that we couldn't afford the dead cap space created by the buyouts, no? Well others have demonstrated that they are minimal and insignificant. Then you argued that Richards would be old and overpaid, that's guesswork, and doesn't account for players like St. Louis and Selanne being extremely productive in their later years. Now your argument is that while we need a No. 1 Center now, that our team isn't ready to compete, and therefore, we should not address this pressing/current need now, and wait. Well what happens if 3 years from now, Lundqvist is tired of this team going no where, and all of a sudden we have no #1 goaltender? What is your solution to that? Make a trade?

wolfgaze is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-03-2011, 06:53 PM
  #80
Beacon
Sent to HF Minors
 
Beacon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 8,512
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfgaze View Post
What is your Plan A anyway? You keep criticizing what others are suggesting, but what is your plan?
The plan is to let the kids develop to figure out what the needs are. You stick to the plan that has led this team to build its core of young players. You do not revert to the thinking of the past when the team would plug every hole with overpaid free agents.

You can't anticipate who will be available in a trade, but someone will be. There are always players who are disgruntled or teams that can't afford their salaries for various reasons (other cap problems, ownership issues), etc.

I don't want Brad. He will turn into another Drury, but worse because his contract will be significantly bigger and longer.

Beacon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-03-2011, 07:01 PM
  #81
darko
Registered User
 
darko's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Country: Australia
Posts: 31,217
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Orr Nightmare View Post
I would embrass Drury into retiring or walking away from his contract.

Guy has no pride...he is a shell of a player but still wants to collect that check.

Strip him of C, sit him every game and don't let him practice with his teammates.

I am not saying I would walk away from 7.5 million but I would have some pride.

Even Redden who was the worst signing in NHL history is thinking about forfeiting his $18 million.

Can you blame him? Sather gave him that contract. Drury is entitled to that money.

darko is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-03-2011, 07:05 PM
  #82
wolfgaze
Interesting Cat
 
wolfgaze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 12,098
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerEsq View Post
The plan is to let the kids develop to figure out what the needs are. You stick to the plan that has led this team to build its core of young players. You do not revert to the thinking of the past when the team would plug every hole with overpaid free agents.
They have developed. Staal and Girardi have developed into one of the better 1st pairings in the conference. Callahan and Dubinsky have matured into top 6 forwards. Henke has developed into a Top 5 goaltender in the league. You keep drafting well and keep infusing young talent into the team to keep your salary cap manageable. Which players are you waiting around for? There's always going to be young players in the line-up that have room for development, it's a continuous process. That doesn't mean you stop utilizing experienced veteran forwards with proven track records of success.

Quote:
You can't anticipate who will be available in a trade, but someone will be. There are always players who are disgruntled or teams that can't afford their salaries for various reasons (other cap problems, ownership issues), etc.
Exactly, you're running a big risk... How many key players have been traded that haven't had serious baggage or been slumping? Now that you have a list, how many of those trades were the Rangers in a position to make? You know, the trades where the other team doesn't ask for Marc Staal coming the other way.

Quote:
I don't want Brad. He will turn into another Drury, but worse because his contract will be significantly bigger and longer.
Says who? Chris Drury has nothing to do with Brad Richards, they aren't on the same level and never have been. I guess by that logic, Chris Kreider will be the next Pavel Brendl, Christian Thomas is the next Nigel Dawes, and Carl Hagelin is the next Marcel Hossa, right? If you want to make comparisons between 2 players who have absolutely nothing to do with each other, we can do that all day. It's ill-advised and illogical.


Last edited by wolfgaze: 05-03-2011 at 07:12 PM.
wolfgaze is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-03-2011, 07:07 PM
  #83
Beacon
Sent to HF Minors
 
Beacon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 8,512
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfgaze View Post
I've never seen a single person suggest that. RFA contracts are limited by the CBA, how can anyone possibly compare them to UFA contracts?
They don't put it that way, but when people talk about Brad getting $6 million for 3-4 years, they fully expect him to get RFA numbers. He's a UFA. Worse, he's a UFA moving from team to team. Some UFAs will take a discount to stay where they are if they like the team. But Brad would be moving. Moving UFAs get paid the most (unless they give a discount to a team they think will win the Cup, which is not the case for us).

Brad will get a minimum of $40 over 5 years, and probably close to $50 over 6 years.



Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfgaze View Post
This is flawed logic. So since no single piece of the puzzle guarantees a cup, then those pieces are not important? A #1 goaltender doesn't guarantee a cup either, so why don't we deal Henke for some assets then?
That's not what I said. I said that given this team, Brad guarantees nothing. Take Philly. If they get Lundqvist, they are a real Cup contender. Thus, if I'm a Philly GM, I overpay to sign Lundqvist. It's worth overpaying him.

But Brad won't help us win next year. Nobody will. Short of getting Crosby and Green, we are not contending next year.



Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfgaze View Post
So what though? You mentioned the Jagr/Heatley/Thornton trades. So if a player like that becomes available, "teams all around the league" won't be vying to trade for those players, driving up the asking price, and forcing us to have to give up KEY young players to acquire them?
Once again, please focus. By then, we'll be bidding for an asset that we actually need. We will have easily identifiable long-term needs. Not so much now. We are acquiring a center because that's what we need today, but who says that's what we'll need when the kids mature and we are ready to contend for the Cup?



Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfgaze View Post
What if we do? Have you even acknowledged the crappy UFA options available in the coming summers? Elite level plays do not fall out of the sky.
Which is more reason why Brad will be ridiculously, absolutely ridiculously overpaid if you are right and he's the last star that will be available in the foreseeable future.


Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfgaze View Post
I still don't see the problem. Your original argument was that we couldn't afford the dead cap space created by the buyouts, no? Well others have demonstrated that they are minimal and insignificant.
I would rather have an extra $3 million in 2012-13 than all the money in the world today. We are just not winning today. No way.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfgaze View Post
Then you argued that Richards would be old and overpaid, that's guesswork, and doesn't account for players like St. Louis and Selanne being extremely productive in their later years.
I didn't say he was guaranteed to be old and useless, I just said that it's not a risk I want to take. I do not want to sign a 31-year-old to a 6-year contract. And as far as him being overpaid, yes, he will be overpaid, just as all UFAs who switch teams are.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfgaze View Post
Now your argument is that while we need a No. 1 Center now, that our team isn't ready to compete, and therefore, we should not address this pressing/current need now, and wait. Well what happens if 3 years from now, Lundqvist is tired of this team going no where, and all of a sudden we have no #1 goaltender? What is your solution to that? Make a trade?

My arguments never changed. They were the same all throughout. I made all of these arguments repeatedly in many prior posts over the course of several months, pretty much from the start of the Brad debate.

As for Lundqvist in 3 years... consider this:

If he more likely to leave because the team is stuck in a cap hell due to an overpaid UFA who will then be 34 years old? Or is he more likely to leave a team that is doing better every season and was able to use its cap space in the summer of 2012, 2013 or 2014 on a player who actually plugged a whole of a team that has already matured?

Certainly, jumping the gun today in a way that may be harmful to the team when he's a free agent will not help us keep him.

Beacon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-03-2011, 07:16 PM
  #84
mcsauer2738
Registered User
 
mcsauer2738's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,057
vCash: 500
Rangeresque just give it up man. It's pretty damn obvious that buying out Wolski and Drury are going to nothing but help out team. In my personal opinion Brad Richards does allow us to contend for a cup he's that type of player and exactly the type of player we need. It's funny that you say short of green(ppqb) and crosby(playmaking center) (two things brad brings to the table) we're not a contender. Believe me if we get Brad Richards we are a serious cup contender. With a lineup like this +the grit we play with we are going to be an absolute nightmare for all teams.

Kreider?-b richards-gaborik
dubi-ani-cally
feds-stepan-grachev/hagelin/zuccarello
avery-boyle-prust

staal-girardi
mcd-sauer
mdz-gilroy/eminger

king
biron

this is a cup contender

btw im 100000% fine with 5 years 35 mill for b rich

mcsauer2738 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-03-2011, 07:20 PM
  #85
Beacon
Sent to HF Minors
 
Beacon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 8,512
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfgaze View Post
They have developed. Staal and Girardi have developed into one of the better 1st pairings in the conference. Callahan and Dubinsky have matured into top 6 forwards. Henke has developed into a Top 5 goaltender in the league. You keep drafting well and keep infusing young talent into the team to keep your salary cap manageable. Which players are you waiting around for?
The offensive ones: Stepan, Kreider, Thomas, Fasth, Zuccarello as well as MDZ on defense. When we know which of them fails and which of them succeeds, we can start signing players to 5-7 year contracts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfgaze View Post
There's always going to be young players in the line-up that have room for development, it's a continuous process. That doesn't mean you stop utilizing experienced veteran forwards with proven track records of success.
I am not opposed to UFAs. What I am opposed to is jumping the gun. What if we sign a center and we need a winger or a defenseman? What if we sign Brad and by the time the rest of the team is ready to compete, he's old and Drury-like?

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfgaze View Post
Exactly, you're running a big risk... How many key players have been traded that haven't had serious baggage or been slumping? Now that you have a list, how many of those trades were the Rangers in a position to make? You know, the trades where the other team doesn't ask for Marc Staal coming the other way.
The Rangers could've easily acquired Heatley for Dubinsky and minor throw-ins.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfgaze View Post
Says who? Chris Drury has nothing to do with Brad Richards, they aren't on the same level and never have been.
Try to focus on what I am saying. I really hate explaining every thought in little detail to people who can't draw conclusions.

It's not that Drury has anything to do with Brad. It's that the more desirable a free agent, the more bidding there will be for him, the more overpaid he becomes. It's a basic law of supply and demand.

If teams are willing to pay a dollar for a so-so player, they will pay more for a better player. But it's not just pay more, it's overpay more because you realize just how valuable the player is... and so does the rest of the league, as a bunch of other GMs are trying to outbid you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfgaze View Post
I guess by that logic, Chris Kreider will be the next Pavel Brendl, Christian Thomas is the next Petr Prucha, and Carl Hagelin is the next Marcel Hossa, right?
Really bad reading comprehension skills there. I never said that if one UFA fails, all of them fail. I said that as the demand for a player increases, the law of supply and demand dictates that he will be that much more overpaid. It's easier to outbid 3 teams who are lukewarm towards getting Drury than it is to outbid 10 teams who are salivating over the prospect of getting a real first line winger.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfgaze View Post
If you want to make comparisons between 2 players who have absolutely nothing to do with each other, we can do that all day. It's ill-advised and illogical.
No doubt it is. Just not what I did.

Beacon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-03-2011, 07:31 PM
  #86
wolfgaze
Interesting Cat
 
wolfgaze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 12,098
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerEsq View Post
The offensive ones: Stepan, Kreider, Thomas, Fasth, Zuccarello as well as MDZ on defense. When we know which of them fails and which of them succeeds, we can start signing players to 5-7 year contracts.
Sigh, how did you identify these specific players are being keys to the Rangers future success? You do realize you're always going to have players in this position in the system, right? While you wait around for these players to develop, you run the risk of losing the Staal's, Girardi's, Dubinsky's, Callahan's to free agency.

Quote:
I am not opposed to UFAs. What I am opposed to is jumping the gun. What if we sign a center and we need a winger or a defenseman? What if we sign Brad and by the time the rest of the team is ready to compete, he's old and Drury-like?
Again, why are you comparing players to Drury? Players that get old and worthless, you don't give them No Movement Clauses to begin with, and you either buy them out or waive them to the AHL and get rid of their cap hits. It's not that difficult. Just don't give out any NMC's.

Quote:
The Rangers could've easily acquired Heatley for Dubinsky and minor throw-ins.
Well that's great. Heatley scored just 26 goals this year and 62 points. I'm sure he logged plenty of time with Thornton too. Dubinsky scored 24 goals and 54 points. So you'd have lost Dubinsky's production and his inexpensive cap hit, for Heatley's few extra goals and 8 extra points while incurring his $7.5 mil cap hit. See how the trade off doesn't work? Even if Heatley could give you 15 more goals and 20 more points than Dubinsky on any given season, you're incurring about twice the cap hit, or an extra $3-$3.5 mil in cap hit for 15 goals and 20 points. See how that doesn't seem as appealing when you look at the numbers? Are those the types of trades that you're arguing are going to take us to the next level later down the road? I hope not.


Quote:
Try to focus on what I am saying. I really hate explaining every thought in little detail to people who can't draw conclusions.

It's not that Drury has anything to do with Brad. It's that the more desirable a free agent, the more bidding there will be for him, the more overpaid he becomes. It's a basic law of supply and demand.
Can't draw conclusions? You compared Brad Richards to Chris Drury numerous times.... I hate seeing comparisons between players who have nothing to do with one another. If you want to play that game, you can keep bringing up Drury, and I'll keep bringing up Marty St. Louis and Teemu Selanne who have been extremely productive in their later years. Works both ways right, or does it only work your way? You don't appear to have a firm grasp of the salary cap, and understand how it keeps going up, yet the number of players on an NHL roster stays constant.

Quote:
If teams are willing to pay a dollar for a so-so player, they will pay more for a better player. But it's not just pay more, it's overpay more because you realize just how valuable the player is... and so does the rest of the league, as a bunch of other GMs are trying to outbid you.
Thanks, I understand how an auction/bidding process works. I'm on Ebay and have watched the NHL since 1990.


Quote:
Really bad reading comprehension skills there. I never said that if one UFA fails, all of them fail. I said that as the demand for a player increases, the law of supply and demand dictates that he will be that much more overpaid. It's easier to outbid 3 teams who are lukewarm towards getting Drury than it is to outbid 10 teams who are salivating over the prospect of getting a real first line winger.
You keep bringing up Drury again. Why do you keep mentioning his name? Guess what, if you land Richards for a $7.5 mil cap hit, and he gives you PPG production, no one is complaining about about his cap hit.


Last edited by wolfgaze: 05-03-2011 at 07:37 PM.
wolfgaze is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-03-2011, 07:32 PM
  #87
Beacon
Sent to HF Minors
 
Beacon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 8,512
vCash: 500
The following players are at the end of their contract in the summer of 2013:

Cindy Crosby
Ryan Getzlaf
Corey Perry
P-M Bouchard
Nathan Horton
Derek Roy
Ryan Whitney
Travis Zajac
Tobias Enstrom

Most of them will get re-signed, but some others will establish themselves as stars in the meanwhile (Jordan Staal?). You have to assume that someone good will be available.

You can't operate in a panic mode. We don't need Brad. We don't need to shift even part of the cap burden to the future. We need to stay the course. Our defense is looking great, as does our goalie. Our hard working forwards are also excellent.

Now all we need is to wait to see how our offense-minded kids work out.

The last thing we need right now is to give Brad a $50 million contract that will take him into his late 30s.

Beacon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-03-2011, 07:36 PM
  #88
darko
Registered User
 
darko's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Country: Australia
Posts: 31,217
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerEsq View Post
The following players are at the end of their contract in the summer of 2013:

Cindy Crosby
Ryan Getzlaf
Corey Perry
P-M Bouchard
Nathan Horton
Derek Roy
Ryan Whitney
Travis Zajac
Tobias Enstrom

Most of them will get re-signed, but some others will establish themselves as stars in the meanwhile (Jordan Staal?). You have to assume that someone good will be available.

You can't operate in a panic mode. We don't need Brad. We don't need to shift even part of the cap burden to the future. We need to stay the course. Our defense is looking great, as does our goalie. Our hard working forwards are also excellent.

Now all we need is to wait to see how our offense-minded kids work out.

The last thing we need right now is to give Brad a $50 million contract that will take him into his late 30s.

And if they dont?

If we can get Richards to sign say a 5 year/35 mill deal, you have to take that. Anything over 5 years becomes risky.

darko is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-03-2011, 07:36 PM
  #89
eco's bones
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Elmira NY
Country: United States
Posts: 12,577
vCash: 500
If Drury is not bought out--he can block any trade--he can block any move to the minors and we'll have his $7 mil cap hit besides--for a guy who at best is a 4th liner now. He'll have a position on the team whether he can earn it or not. The problem I have with the line of the OP's reasoning is the suggestion that his is the only recourse that can succeed which is extremely debateable. Any number of thing may happen between now and training camp which might help the team progress next year. To be honest even if the Rangers had no plans to sign a single UFA I would still want them to buy our Drury's contract because besides the minimal impact he might have he has 0 future with the team and other than stagnate I can't see any other role for him.

eco's bones is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-03-2011, 07:59 PM
  #90
Beacon
Sent to HF Minors
 
Beacon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 8,512
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfgaze View Post
how did you identify these specific players are being keys to the Rangers future success?
It's not hard, really. The team has been drafting/acquiring/signing defensemen (Staal, Sauer, Girardi, MDZ, etc) and hard-workers (Callahan, Dubinsky, etc) in the first few years of the rebuilding. What is missing now are offense-minded players like Stepan, Kreider, Thomas.

We've been drafting them, but only very recently (not counting Cherepanov). We gave the defense and the pluckers time to develop, so let's give these offense minded kids at least until they are legally able to buy beer.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfgaze View Post
You do realize you're always going to have players in this position in the system, right?
My point isn't that there are other players. It's that we really have not had a rebuilding movement for the offense-minded players until 2009. We kept drafting defensemen or pluckers with our early picks. The last couple of years, we selected several terrific offensively-gifted kids. We don't know who will and who will not pan out, but that's the whole reason why we should not lock ourselves into a massive long-term contract right now.


Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfgaze View Post
Again, why are you comparing players to Drury?
I am not, and I won't be explaining myself anymore. Either you get analogies or you don't. Either you can look at a different set facts in two different situations and understand the underlying rule, or you cannot.



Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfgaze View Post
Players that get old and worthless, you don't give them No Movement Clauses to beginw ith, and you either buy them out or waive them to the AHL and get rid of their cap hits. It's not that difficult. Just don't give out any NMC's.
If he's as good as you say, and if there is a shortage of future stars, as you say, then the Rangers will have to do something that truly hurts. That may be a NMC or it may be a ridiculous amount of money, but we will have to give something that no other team would give even to get a star for free, without surrendering any assets.

Like I said, the Rangers aren't the only team that can use a star center that comes for free.



Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfgaze View Post
Well that's great. Heatley scored just 26 goals this year and 62 points. I'm sure he logged plenty of time with Thornton too. Dubinsky scored 24 goals and 54 points
Notice that two years ago, Heatley was a mega-star who scored 100 points twice.

And honestly, are you denying that two years ago Heatley was a superstar? Or that you knew he'd have an off-year in 2009-10? This was the worst year of his career, but it doesn't change the fact that he's a superstar.

But if he's not, then that's more reason why we shouldn't get Brad now when we won't be ready to compete for another couple of years: you never know what will happen to his career in the meanwhile.

At least Heatley was still in his 20s at the time. Brad will be in his mid-30s by the time the Rangers are able to compete.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfgaze View Post
So you'd have lost Dubinsky's production and his inexpensive cap hit, for Heatley's few extra goals and 8 extra points while incurring his $7.5 mil cap hit.
Now do you see why it's bad to acquire players too early? Do you see how Brad's career can possibly bust the same way? It's not guaranteed that he'll go down, but I am not willing to take that chance until the rest of the team is mature enough that another player like Brad actually makes us a contender. Right now, he does not.


Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfgaze View Post
Can't draw conclusions? You compared Brad Richards to Chris Drury numerous times....
Honestly, what did you get on the SAT?


Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfgaze View Post
I hate seeing comparisons between players who have nothing to do with one another.
No really, can you tell us your SAT score? How about just the reading comprehension party?


Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfgaze View Post
Thanks, I understand how an auction/bidding process works. I'm on Ebay and have watched the NHL since 1990.
LOL. See, now you know. If nobody really cares about something, you don't have to overbid for it. But if there's a unique item that a lot of people want to bid on, you can't possibly acquire it without overpaying.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfgaze View Post
You keep bringing up Drury again. Why do you keep mentioning his name? Guess what, if you land Richards for a $7.5 mil cap hit, and he gives you PPG production, no one is complaining about about his cap hit.
This is what I wrote: "It's easier to outbid 3 teams who are lukewarm towards getting Drury than it is to outbid 10 teams who are salivating over the prospect of getting a real first line winger."

Now stay on this sentence and read it over and over again until you understand that it's not a direct comparison, it's more an analogy: It's easier to outbid 3 teams who are lukewarm towards a lesser player than it is to outbid 10 teams who are salivating over the prospect of getting a better player.

Whether the lesser player is Drury or your grandmother is irrelevant. The rule remains. The more desired a player, not only does his salary go up, but so does the "bonus" teams are willing to overpay him by to get him without surrendering assets.

Now, I will make a direct comparison: if you think that Brad will sign for the same money/years that Drury, Gomez, Vanek, Campbell signed for, you are in for a big, big surprise. He's a superior player and not only does he deserve more money, the overpayment on top of what he deserves will be greater too.

And all these players got over $7 million on long-term contracts.


Last edited by Beacon: 05-03-2011 at 08:12 PM.
Beacon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-03-2011, 08:03 PM
  #91
Beacon
Sent to HF Minors
 
Beacon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 8,512
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by darko View Post
And if they dont?

If we can get Richards to sign say a 5 year/35 mill deal, you have to take that. Anything over 5 years becomes risky.
If the kids don't work out, we'll sign someone in 2013.

As for Richards signing a 5 year, $7 per contract, LOL. Are you telling me that he won't get more than Gomez, Drury, Vanek, Campbell, etc.?

If he's willing to sign a 5 year, $35 contract, sign me up. Hell, Gaborik was coming off several injured years and he was still able to get $7.5 over 5 years. Why exactly does Brad get less money than Gabby?

The contract you are proposing is what Brad would get as an RFA, not a UFA. No way he gets this little money unless he chooses to take less to go to a likely Stanley Cup winner (which is not us).

If my team is close to contending, I would offer him $50 over 6 years just to make sure he comes over and delivers the Stanley Cup. There are teams that are much closer to winning than us for whom overpaying him makes a lot more sense, and they will offer him a hell of a lot more than $35 million.

Beacon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-03-2011, 08:10 PM
  #92
beastly115
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 10,424
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerEsq View Post
The following players are at the end of their contract in the summer of 2013:

Cindy Crosby
Ryan Getzlaf
Corey Perry

P-M Bouchard
Nathan Horton
Derek Roy
Ryan Whitney
Travis Zajac
Tobias Enstrom

Most of them will get re-signed, but some others will establish themselves as stars in the meanwhile (Jordan Staal?). You have to assume that someone good will be available.

You can't operate in a panic mode. We don't need Brad. We don't need to shift even part of the cap burden to the future. We need to stay the course. Our defense is looking great, as does our goalie. Our hard working forwards are also excellent.

Now all we need is to wait to see how our offense-minded kids work out.

The last thing we need right now is to give Brad a $50 million contract that will take him into his late 30s.
Only the bold are better than Richards. Coincidentally, they're also the three most likely to re-sign with their current teams. The rest of that list is 2nd tier guys that we have plenty of.

For probably the first time ever, I'm glad Sather is our GM and not you.

beastly115 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-03-2011, 08:18 PM
  #93
Beacon
Sent to HF Minors
 
Beacon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 8,512
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by alphaqup View Post
For probably the first time ever, I'm glad Sather is our GM and not you.

I will save this one in case Brad will sign with us. This whole board will be yelling, "but how could he pay so much"... as if he could've signed him for $7M/5 years, but chose to give him $8.5 over 6-7 years.

But that's our choice, boys and girls. It's not whether we can sign Brad to a reasonable contract. It's whether you want to pay more than $50 million to Brad when you don't even know if 1) he is what we'll need when kids will mature; 2) he'll be good enough by then.

Beacon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-03-2011, 08:32 PM
  #94
DutchShamrock
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 4,965
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerEsq View Post
Because unlike the short-minded thinking that allows people to only consider the next season, some of us are focused on the fact that part of that hit will be left over for 2012-13 when the team's youth will mature and the overall team will be in much better shape to contend by acquiring a player via trade or free agency then.
Well I guess I'm "short-minded" because I can't see the tremendous burden of paying Drury a whopping $1.3m for 1 whole season beyond my limited grasp of next year.

You are making the $1.3m out to be a bigger issue than finding a #1 center this year. I'll take that little problem in two seasons when it comes to fixing the bigger one right now.

DutchShamrock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-03-2011, 08:52 PM
  #95
darko
Registered User
 
darko's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Country: Australia
Posts: 31,217
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerEsq View Post
If the kids don't work out, we'll sign someone in 2013.

As for Richards signing a 5 year, $7 per contract, LOL. Are you telling me that he won't get more than Gomez, Drury, Vanek, Campbell, etc.?

If he's willing to sign a 5 year, $35 contract, sign me up. Hell, Gaborik was coming off several injured years and he was still able to get $7.5 over 5 years. Why exactly does Brad get less money than Gabby?


The contract you are proposing is what Brad would get as an RFA, not a UFA. No way he gets this little money unless he chooses to take less to go to a likely Stanley Cup winner (which is not us).

If my team is close to contending, I would offer him $50 over 6 years just to make sure he comes over and delivers the Stanley Cup. There are teams that are much closer to winning than us for whom overpaying him makes a lot more sense, and they will offer him a hell of a lot more than $35 million.

He's making 7.8 now I believe. If we can sign all our key RFAs and fit Richards under the cap while giving him 7.8 mill per, I'm down for it as long as we dont lose guys like Ani, Cally, Doobs, Sauer etc. I'm OK by sacrifising guys like Drury, Avery, Christensen, Wolski by either buying them out or trading them to make Richards a possibility. None of the 4 are part of the future.

7.8 per, or thereabouts IMO isnt an issue. Length of the contract could be though. I wouldnt feel too comfortable with Richards getting anything more than 5 years.

darko is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-03-2011, 08:54 PM
  #96
beastly115
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 10,424
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerEsq View Post
I will save this one in case Brad will sign with us. This whole board will be yelling, "but how could he pay so much"... as if he could've signed him for $7M/5 years, but chose to give him $8.5 over 6-7 years.

But that's our choice, boys and girls. It's not whether we can sign Brad to a reasonable contract. It's whether you want to pay more than $50 million to Brad when you don't even know if 1) he is what we'll need when kids will mature; 2) he'll be good enough by then.
Let me clarify what I said. I'm glad Sather is the GM over this other chump who wants to "stay the course." It's all relative

Edit: Its like choosing a blind man over a mute

beastly115 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-03-2011, 08:56 PM
  #97
NYR Viper
Moderator
 
NYR Viper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: PA
Country: United States
Posts: 28,592
vCash: 500
5 years @ 6 million/year is my guess. I dont think Richards wants all the pressure his contract will carry post-lockout. He has made a TON of money already.

NYR Viper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-03-2011, 08:58 PM
  #98
Beacon
Sent to HF Minors
 
Beacon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 8,512
vCash: 500
The point is that we are only going to waive all these guys to sign Brad. And that's a mistake in and of itself. If one guy is worth dumping to save money, it's Wolski because the savings would be big, but the cap dead space will be limited.

That will be enough space cleared to sign Brad. Keep Drury and Avery, this way there will be enough space to sign a secondary player in addition to Brad in the summer of 2012. If you are going for it, go for it. Go all out in the 2012-13 season.

But honestly, I think it would be better to wait another year when guys like Kreider, Thomas, etc are playing for us as full-on contributors.

Beacon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-03-2011, 09:01 PM
  #99
Beacon
Sent to HF Minors
 
Beacon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 8,512
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by alphaqup View Post
Let me clarify what I said. I'm glad Sather is the GM over this other chump who wants to "stay the course." It's all relative

Edit: Its like choosing a blind man over a mute

Like I said, the reason people want Brad is that they don't realize how much he wants. The person writing after you said that he expects Brad to get $6m for 5 years because he doesn't want pressure. Sure! (If that's the case, he'll sign with a contender, not with a crappy team like ours. The only way we get him is by outbidding others.)

The choice we have is to we skip this year as the kids mature or do we pay Brad over $50 million? When/if Slats gives Brad $8.5m over 6-7 years, this whole board will wish he did nothing.

Like I said, if Brad is willing to come here for $30-35m, sign me up. I just think that his agent should be sued for malpractice if that's all he gets for his client.


Last edited by Beacon: 05-03-2011 at 09:15 PM.
Beacon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-03-2011, 09:14 PM
  #100
Beacon
Sent to HF Minors
 
Beacon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 8,512
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by darko View Post
He's making 7.8 now I believe. If we can sign all our key RFAs and fit Richards under the cap while giving him 7.8 mill per, I'm down for it as long as we dont lose guys like Ani, Cally, Doobs, Sauer etc. I'm OK by sacrifising guys like Drury, Avery, Christensen, Wolski by either buying them out or trading them to make Richards a possibility. None of the 4 are part of the future.

7.8 per, or thereabouts IMO isnt an issue. Length of the contract could be though. I wouldnt feel too comfortable with Richards getting anything more than 5 years.

Watch him get more money than he's getting now. He'll get over $8. And even that would be ok with me if he signed for 3 years. But he'll get double that number of years.

The idea that he'll sign for less money than he makes now is ridiculous unless he decides to take less money to go to a likely Cup winner.

I am just not prepared to give him a $50 million contract. I suspect neither do most people, but 95% of this forum thinks he's signing a $30-$35 contact.

And if we are not signing Brad, then we might as well use up all the dead cap space next year and see where we stand the year after.

Beacon 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 08:38 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.