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

A Walsh type President/GM

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
05-13-2011, 09:57 AM
  #76
Jersey Girl
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 3,911
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pzilla3 View Post
I'm in no way saying I'm a member of his fan club. It certainly could be worse though. (See: Mike Milbury)
You can make the argument that it's the same 2 or 3 players we've needed for quite some time, true. But the supporting cast and the core of the team is much stronger than it has been in past teams. Both in skill and character.

That's why I'm confident in the direction this team is going in. At least until Hemsky or Kovalev wind up on the roster.
LOL if we are going to praise Sather by saying 'at least he's not Mike Milbury'...we have a problem. As someone here said, if you set the bar low enough even Sather can jump over it.

Jersey Girl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-13-2011, 10:02 AM
  #77
pzilla3
Registered User
 
pzilla3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 276
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jersey Girl View Post
LOL if we are going to praise Sather by saying 'at least he's not Mike Milbury'...we have a problem. As someone here said, if you set the bar low enough even Sather can jump over it.
Just an observation. There is a certain point when the bashing just gets petty and ignores any successes though.

pzilla3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-13-2011, 10:21 AM
  #78
Jersey Girl
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 3,911
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pzilla3 View Post
Just an observation. There is a certain point when the bashing just gets petty and ignores any successes though.
As I said earlier, the question is our definition of 'success'. Some want to call success holding onto your draft picks. Some would like to see some playoff victories. YMMV.

Jersey Girl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-13-2011, 10:29 AM
  #79
pzilla3
Registered User
 
pzilla3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 276
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jersey Girl View Post
As I said earlier, the question is our definition of 'success'. Some want to call success holding onto your draft picks. Some would like to see some playoff victories. YMMV.
I agree that the constant inflation of every draft picks worth is mind numbing, but the strength of the current build can't be written off.

pzilla3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-13-2011, 10:47 AM
  #80
Jersey Girl
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 3,911
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pzilla3 View Post
I agree that the constant inflation of every draft picks worth is mind numbing, but the strength of the current build can't be written off.
I'm not even debating the potential of the current class. That is yet to be determined. And this applies not only to the Rangers, but to every team in the league. They all have prospects, and time will tell regarding whose prospects will be better NHLers.

My point is that Sather is being credited with success for 'finally' holding onto his draft picks. And many do not consider doing what every other team in the league is doing to be a 'success'.

Jersey Girl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-13-2011, 10:50 AM
  #81
pzilla3
Registered User
 
pzilla3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 276
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jersey Girl View Post
I'm not even debating the potential of the current class. That is yet to be determined. And this applies not only to the Rangers, but to every team in the league. They all have prospects, and time will tell regarding whose prospects will be better NHLers.

My point is that Sather is being credited with success for 'finally' holding onto his draft picks. And many do not consider doing what every other team in the league is doing to be a 'success'.
I'm not even talking about our prospects. I'm talking on ice product.

pzilla3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-13-2011, 11:34 AM
  #82
Yellot00tr
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Long Island
Country: United States
Posts: 67
vCash: 500
Saying that we're 2 or 3 players from "being a contender" is a ridiculous statement. What the hell does that really mean? Any team in the NHL who isn't a contender right now CAN become one by adding 2 or 3 players. Put Byfuglien, Ovechkin, and Carey Price on the oilers or islanders and suddenly they're contenders as well. Putting us in a position where we're a couple guys short of becoming a contender isn't what any Rangers fan wants-especially after a decade went by since Sather took over. Who cares if it's post lockout or pre lockout? We weren't good before or after the lockout. We've been short 2 or 3 guys from being a contender for more than a decade. At least Walsh put the Knicks in the position of acquiring those missing pieces. Fine, we don't have cap space this year, but wait until 2012 when we actually need that space and we're sitting there with $20 million dollars. That's what it's about. When we need the money, Walsh will have it waiting, and we won't have to do it by dumping guys, buying out contracts, praying for increases to the cap, and whatever other ridiculousness that we have to go through to find the money. I love the Rangers and the Knicks, but if you think Sather has done a good job, YOU'RE CLEARLY NOT UNDERSTANDING WHAT IT MEANS TO DO A GOOD JOB. That's like saying that Isiah Thomas did a good job with the Knicks because he found a couple of decent picks for the Knicks. What about the rest of the job that being a team president entails? What about the most important job it entails-WINNING?


Last edited by Yellot00tr: 05-13-2011 at 11:39 AM.
Yellot00tr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-13-2011, 12:06 PM
  #83
Trxjw
Retired.
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Land of no calls..
Country: United States
Posts: 16,472
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pzilla3 View Post
I'm in no way saying I'm a member of his fan club. It certainly could be worse though. (See: Mike Milbury)

You can make the argument that it's the same 2 or 3 players we've needed for quite some time, true. But the supporting cast and the core of the team is much stronger than it has been in past teams. Both in skill and character.

That's why I'm confident in the direction this team is going in. At least until Hemsky or Kovalev wind up on the roster.
It surely could be worse, but that's not the point. The point is that the team has experienced minimal success since he arrived in NY. I agree that the supporting cast is better than it has been, but those are the easy guys to get. Saying "Our role players are good" does little to mask the fact that 10 years later, we're still a team full of pluggers that is carried by their goalie and one or two offensive players.

Trxjw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-13-2011, 12:11 PM
  #84
SingnBluesOnBroadway
Retired
 
SingnBluesOnBroadway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 29,820
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trxjw View Post
It surely could be worse, but that's not the point. The point is that the team has experienced minimal success since he arrived in NY. I agree that the supporting cast is better than it has been, but those are the easy guys to get. Saying "Our role players are good" does little to mask the fact that 10 years later, we're still a team full of pluggers that is carried by their goalie and one or two offensive players.
Great post. I can't let the fact that there are guys who are likable and work hard cloud the fact that there is not a whole lot of natural talent on this team.

__________________
SingnBluesOnBroadway is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-13-2011, 12:44 PM
  #85
Trxjw
Retired.
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Land of no calls..
Country: United States
Posts: 16,472
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SingnBluesOnBroadway View Post
Great post. I can't let the fact that there are guys who are likable and work hard cloud the fact that there is not a whole lot of natural talent on this team.
Agreed. I love the guys we've turned into NHL regulars, but we're asking them to play roles they're not suited for.

Trxjw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-13-2011, 12:56 PM
  #86
gotmonte
Registered User
 
gotmonte's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: New York
Country: Italy
Posts: 1,545
vCash: 500
In short AND long: FIRE SATHER

gotmonte is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-13-2011, 01:43 PM
  #87
Rangers4Life74
Registered User
 
Rangers4Life74's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 799
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by gotmonte View Post
In short AND long: FIRE SATHER
that sums it up perfectly

Rangers4Life74 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-13-2011, 02:52 PM
  #88
pzilla3
Registered User
 
pzilla3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 276
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yellot00tr View Post
Saying that we're 2 or 3 players from "being a contender" is a ridiculous statement. What the hell does that really mean? Any team in the NHL who isn't a contender right now CAN become one by adding 2 or 3 players. Put Byfuglien, Ovechkin, and Carey Price on the oilers or islanders and suddenly they're contenders as well. Putting us in a position where we're a couple guys short of becoming a contender isn't what any Rangers fan wants-especially after a decade went by since Sather took over. Who cares if it's post lockout or pre lockout? We weren't good before or after the lockout. We've been short 2 or 3 guys from being a contender for more than a decade. At least Walsh put the Knicks in the position of acquiring those missing pieces. Fine, we don't have cap space this year, but wait until 2012 when we actually need that space and we're sitting there with $20 million dollars. That's what it's about. When we need the money, Walsh will have it waiting, and we won't have to do it by dumping guys, buying out contracts, praying for increases to the cap, and whatever other ridiculousness that we have to go through to find the money. I love the Rangers and the Knicks, but if you think Sather has done a good job, YOU'RE CLEARLY NOT UNDERSTANDING WHAT IT MEANS TO DO A GOOD JOB. That's like saying that Isiah Thomas did a good job with the Knicks because he found a couple of decent picks for the Knicks. What about the rest of the job that being a team president entails? What about the most important job it entails-WINNING?
1) Clearly didn't say he's doing a "good job".
2) 2 or 3 players can make any team a decent team. But it's not a ridiculous statement. We need a top line center, secondary scoring and a solid dman who can shoot the puck. We become a contender if we get that. Put the 3 players you named on the Isles and you still have a handful of talent and 2 lines of ECHLers. They don't become a contender.

Oh and why would you infer that my goal is being mediocre. We have a really solid core in place that it would be reasonably simple to push over the hump.


Last edited by pzilla3: 05-13-2011 at 03:05 PM.
pzilla3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-13-2011, 03:02 PM
  #89
Bluenote13
Believe In Henke
 
Bluenote13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: BKLYN, NYC
Posts: 23,652
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pzilla3 View Post
1) Clearly didn't say he's doing a "good job".
2) 2 or 3 players can make any team a decent team. But it's not a ridiculous statement. We need a top line center, secondary scoring and a solid dman who can shoot the puck. We become a contender if we get that. Put the 3 players you named on the Isles and you still have a handful of talent and 2 lines of ECHLers. They don't become a contender.
I think if the Isles were really 2 lines of ECHL'ers they would not have had 30 points their last 30 games. For comparison, Rangers had 32 points their last 30 games.

Bluenote13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-13-2011, 03:09 PM
  #90
pzilla3
Registered User
 
pzilla3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 276
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluenote13 View Post
I think if the Isles were really 2 lines of ECHL'ers they would not have had 30 points their last 30 games. For comparison, Rangers had 32 points their last 30 games.
The point was, they need more than just three players to go deep in the playoffs.

pzilla3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-13-2011, 03:23 PM
  #91
SingnBluesOnBroadway
Retired
 
SingnBluesOnBroadway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 29,820
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by pzilla3 View Post
The point was, they need more than just three players to go deep in the playoffs.
Not so sure about that. What three players? You put a legit #1 goalie, a #1 defenseman and a top #2 center and their team is pretty solid. Add those three to a core of Tavare, Okposo, Comeau, Moulson, Streit, Grabner and Hamonic and that's not a bad team at all — and they already have talent.

Bluenote's point is their second half was similar to the Rangers' in large part because they were healthier. Add three top players to any team makes them much better.

SingnBluesOnBroadway is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-13-2011, 03:52 PM
  #92
Jersey Girl
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 3,911
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SingnBluesOnBroadway View Post
Not so sure about that. What three players? You put a legit #1 goalie, a #1 defenseman and a top #2 center and their team is pretty solid. Add those three to a core of Tavare, Okposo, Comeau, Moulson, Streit, Grabner and Hamonic and that's not a bad team at all and they already have talent.

Bluenote's point is their second half was similar to the Rangers' in large part because they were healthier. Add three top players to any team makes them much better.
Yeah, I hate to say it, but the Islanders do have a lot of young talent. Add three good players to the Islanders and they're still a team with a handful of talent and two lines of ECHLers? I don't think so.

Jersey Girl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-13-2011, 06:32 PM
  #93
Tawnos
A guy with a bass
 
Tawnos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Charlotte, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 11,498
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jersey Girl View Post
I'm not even debating the potential of the current class. That is yet to be determined. And this applies not only to the Rangers, but to every team in the league. They all have prospects, and time will tell regarding whose prospects will be better NHLers.

My point is that Sather is being credited with success for 'finally' holding onto his draft picks. And many do not consider doing what every other team in the league is doing to be a 'success'.
Sather is being credited for building a playoff caliber team in the NHL filled with youth playing important roles in almost every area. Generally speaking, the one universal about youth is that it will improve. The question is one of degree. Where he is being discredited by many of us is by the fact that only one player of the youth could even remotely be considered a first liner at this particular point in time (Dubinsky, argument for a different thread). There are flaws in the system and no one should be denying that. Your post represents a complete misunderstanding of the point of view you are arguing against.

Will Sather be able to take this playoff caliber team that HE built and turn it into a contender? That's what we're waiting to see. It doesn't really matter if you think he's the guy for the job or not. The job is his.

Edit in: it's not the fact that we held onto the draft picks that is the success. It's the fact that there are 4 guys on the team right now that are second liners that he drafted. It's the fact that there are 2 top 4 defensemen on this team that he drafted, plus two more top 4 defensemen he brought into the organization before they were NHLers. To put my frustration another way, why is it that I (and others with this viewpoint) can acknowledge the Redden debacle in these threads, but the other side NEVER mentions the Staal pick? Or that I/we can acknowledge the Gomez debacle, but the other side NEVER mentions the Callahan pick? There are successes and failures both.


Last edited by Tawnos: 05-13-2011 at 07:07 PM.
Tawnos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-14-2011, 02:35 AM
  #94
Jxmarts
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 341
vCash: 500
I know this isn't a basketball forum, but...


Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerBoy View Post
The Knicks now have 2 stars,an aging PG,no draft picks and no cap space. Now what?

This is so true... Very few Knick fans realize it because most of us are no brighter than James Dolan. We're so starstruck by Carmelo that we cannot see the big picture. Walsh was playing it shrewdly, trying to make a smart deal for Carmelo. Then Dolan flew out to Denver and forced him to agree to give the Nuggets everything they asked for (except Landry Fields). This left the Knicks with very little flexibility for the next several years.



Quote:
Originally Posted by I Love Rebecca Black View Post
Knicks will have about 20 mill in cap space after this coming season.

From that point we can sign some players because it will be like a Miami Heat situation where a bunch of players will want to sign because they think it will be a chance to win a championship.

There is no debating the fact that the Knicks are a million times better off now then a couple years ago.

The current cap is $58 million. We don't know what the next CBA will be, but by most accounts, the NBA is aiming to cut costs by implementing a hard cap and eliminationg exemptions. NBA revenues are down, and the cap may go down as well. But let's give the Knicks the benifit of the doubt and assume it remains as it is.

The Knicks already have 7 players under contract for 2011-12 for $59.7 million. Ronny Turiaf will almost certainly pick up his player option for $4.36 million (no other team will pay him this much), and the Knicks will pick up Bill Walker's team option for $0.92 million (a bargain, even for a bench player). Their 1st rounder will make a little more than $1 million, so their payroll for 10 players next season will be over $65 million. This excludes current free agents Jared Jeffries, Shelden Williams, Shawne Williams, Derrick Brown, Roger Mason & Anthony Carter, some of whom logged key minutes last year. The Knicks will be $7 million over the cap with nothing to trade except expiring contracts. Those would only have value to teams looking to dump unwanted longer term deals because the Knicks have little left to enhance any trade. So unless the Knicks take on long term salary dumps, Isaiah-style, by trading Billups or Turiaf, the 2011-12 Knicks will have no choice but to to fill out their roster with 4 or 5 D-league players making minimum salary.

The situation is not much better for 2012-13. We dream of adding Dwight Howard or Chris Paul, but there isn't cap room unless they're willing to play with the Knicks for half of what they may get elsewhere. The Knicks will have 4 players under contract (Anthony, Stoudamire, Balkman & their 2011 1st rounder) for about $42.5 million, or 5 players for just over $44.5 million if they pick up Toney Douglas' option. Turiaf, Walker, Fields, Billups & Rautins will be off the books as free agents then. Let's assume the Knicks let Douglas go as well, so they can have maximum cap space. They'll need to sign 9-10 D-league players making minimum salary to fill out the roster for about $5 million. This adds up to $47.5 million leaving approximately $10 million to sign the third superstar we're all craving. But would such a star be willing to come to the Knicks, a team with 9 or 10 D-leaguers, and play for half of what Carmelo & Stat get?

The reason the Heat were able to sign their 3 stars was because they were all free agents at once, and they each took about $5 million less to be able to fit under the cap and allow the team to sign role players such as they did. Down the line, their salaries will go up, and the 3 of them alone will be making more than the cap, so Miami will have cap problems also. But they did manage to get the 3 of them signed to equitable contracts and on the roster when they had the opportunity. The Knicks won't have that option.

The Knicks traded away draft picks (both 1st & 2nd rounders) & players in the Carmelo deal, such that they will have virtually no tradeable assets for the next 3-5 years. They will have very little cap space. I don't see how Carmelo & Stat can carry them much further than they went this year because they will have even less supporting talent around them in the future.

I don't necessarily blame Donnie Walsh for this predicament. I think Dolan forced the Carmelo trade. If you think Carmelo & Stoudamire plus $10 million to sign another player in 2012-13 (assuming the rest of the roster is made up of D-leaguers) is enough to make the Knicks contenders, then you have a lot more faith than I do. Say what you will about Sather, but the Rangers have not squandered their flexibility & their assets quite the way the Knicks have.

Jxmarts is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-14-2011, 12:55 PM
  #95
Yellot00tr
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Long Island
Country: United States
Posts: 67
vCash: 500
Jxmarts: I haven't checked the numbers you put up there, but just based off of your numbers, you're not taking into account that the league has been talking about rolling back players salaries slightly. If salaries are rolled back even 10%, that means the Knicks will have about $14.25-14.5 million in space. The NHL wanted between 20-30% in salary rollbacks, but ended up at 24% i think. If we use a similar rollback with the NBA, then we're talking about having the four players not including Douglas and the d-leaguers tied up for under $40 million. Assuming that the cap even goes down to $55 million, we'd still be looking at over $15 million of cap space. If the cap is anything above $55 million, then anything over that allows us to offer one of the big free agents more money, or spend more on the supporting cast. At $58 million, we could either spend $18 on one of the big free agents, or more likely, because of the cap on contracts, we would have around $2 million left.

Melo, Stat, CP3/Williams, and then 1-2 above minimum salary players to go along with the the d-league rest of the team is something i'm willing to take. That makes us a very competitive team. At that point, as long as we make it in as a top 4 team, i think we'd all be happy as Knicks fans. The east will have a huge shift in power as the Celtics will def not be constituted the way they are now, and Orlando in all likelihood will lose Howard. I can see the Knicks being anywhere from the 1 to 3 seed depending on Miami and Chicago. Just remember as well, D. Rose is a restricted free agent in 2012 too. I can't picture him picking up and going elsewhere, nor can i see Chicago not matching anything that anyone else would offer him, but again, crazier things have happened.

Donnie Walsh has even stated that we'll have the space in 2012 to sign one of the big free agents, and regardless of what everyone else thinks or says, what the numbers are, or anything else, I gotta believe that there's a reason he has the confidence to say that. Until proven otherwise, I'll take Walsh at his word and believe that he knows what he's doing. Regardless of what people think in terms of his talent evaluation, he's pretty damn near a cap genius to put us in the position we were last year to start free agency. It's not his fault that LBJ didn't come here, as they decided earlier that they were all going to Miami. The Melo deal was in all likelihood Dolan's doing. Had we followed Walsh's plan/goal of signing him this offseason, we'd be even better off. Yes, we stunk for a few years after he took over, but he's put us in a much better position compared to where we were before he took over.

Yellot00tr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-14-2011, 08:27 PM
  #96
gotmonte
Registered User
 
gotmonte's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: New York
Country: Italy
Posts: 1,545
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yellot00tr View Post
Jxmarts: I haven't checked the numbers you put up there, but just based off of your numbers, you're not taking into account that the league has been talking about rolling back players salaries slightly. If salaries are rolled back even 10%, that means the Knicks will have about $14.25-14.5 million in space. The NHL wanted between 20-30% in salary rollbacks, but ended up at 24% i think. If we use a similar rollback with the NBA, then we're talking about having the four players not including Douglas and the d-leaguers tied up for under $40 million. Assuming that the cap even goes down to $55 million, we'd still be looking at over $15 million of cap space. If the cap is anything above $55 million, then anything over that allows us to offer one of the big free agents more money, or spend more on the supporting cast. At $58 million, we could either spend $18 on one of the big free agents, or more likely, because of the cap on contracts, we would have around $2 million left.

Melo, Stat, CP3/Williams, and then 1-2 above minimum salary players to go along with the the d-league rest of the team is something i'm willing to take. That makes us a very competitive team. At that point, as long as we make it in as a top 4 team, i think we'd all be happy as Knicks fans. The east will have a huge shift in power as the Celtics will def not be constituted the way they are now, and Orlando in all likelihood will lose Howard. I can see the Knicks being anywhere from the 1 to 3 seed depending on Miami and Chicago. Just remember as well, D. Rose is a restricted free agent in 2012 too. I can't picture him picking up and going elsewhere, nor can i see Chicago not matching anything that anyone else would offer him, but again, crazier things have happened.

Donnie Walsh has even stated that we'll have the space in 2012 to sign one of the big free agents, and regardless of what everyone else thinks or says, what the numbers are, or anything else, I gotta believe that there's a reason he has the confidence to say that. Until proven otherwise, I'll take Walsh at his word and believe that he knows what he's doing. Regardless of what people think in terms of his talent evaluation, he's pretty damn near a cap genius to put us in the position we were last year to start free agency. It's not his fault that LBJ didn't come here, as they decided earlier that they were all going to Miami. The Melo deal was in all likelihood Dolan's doing. Had we followed Walsh's plan/goal of signing him this offseason, we'd be even better off. Yes, we stunk for a few years after he took over, but he's put us in a much better position compared to where we were before he took over.
Very well said.

gotmonte is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-14-2011, 09:12 PM
  #97
Boom Boom Geoffrion*
CarciLOL
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: NYC
Country: Greece
Posts: 7,553
vCash: 500
You can overcome talent with chemistry, coaching, and effort. And we do have talent. Lundqvist, is talented. Staal is talented. Gaborik -- is talented.

The secondary players that Torts has labeled as our Core, provide the winning attitude this team lacked for nearly a decade. The Dubi's and Cally's and Girardi's. Their approach to the game has already rubbed off on their teammates.

Guys like Anisimov and Stepan have already proven to be pretty crafty players in their own right. They may not have the game-breaking ability's like AO, Stamkos, Crosby, etc, but that doesn't mean they can't develop into extremely solid two-way players who are part of a winning culture.

The entire make-up of this team Sather has composed should allow him to keep the guys he wants on the team long-term. Dubinsky and Callahan shine when they're together on the ice. They've been playing with eachother since Hartford. Their chemistry is obvious. We have so many young guys on this team who are going to get better and better, as a group. If a guy like Stepan, and MZA, or Kreider click, while Richards+Gabby and Dubi+Cally do their thing, watch out.

Most teams might be 2-3 pieces away from serious contention, but that doesn't mean they can easily fill those holes. Richards will be a Ranger in a few months. That's an enormous hole right there. Probably the most vital one, too.

I hear some guys complaining about not having a true #1 or #2 dmen, but I completely disagree. We might not have our choiceof top-pairing dmen, but we do have 2 of them. Girardi's a top-60 dmen in this league. Staal's a top-30. Although rather one-dimensional, they ultimately exceed in the most important aspect of their roles. Assuming McD-Sauer pairing works out long-term, we're more than set on our blue-line.

MDZ's not a 1-year wonder. He's going to be a damn good player for a long time. He will regain the swagger he had his rookie season. He'll be on a better team, playing a lesser role that utilizes the real strengths in his game. He won't have the pressure of being the PP QB either.

This team is headed in the right direction. Anyone using the talent argument is underrating our group of guys. Replace Drury with Richards. Replace Avery+EC+Wolski, and invest that towards a top-6 LW the following year. Add a dash of player-progression, and a sprinkle of chemistry and you have a team that can make it well passed the second-round.

Boom Boom Geoffrion* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-14-2011, 09:27 PM
  #98
Machinehead
★★★★
 
Machinehead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: New York New York
Country: United States
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
I was just thinking; the Ranges already have Walsh. Basically what Walsh has done is get a couple of big stars that have made the Knicks good enough to make the playoffs but not good enough for a championship.

And the Rangers; Jagr, Shanahan, Drury, Gomez, Redden, Gaborik, maybe Richards...been there, done that.

Now that's not a knock on Jags and Shanny who I actually liked (correction; I didn't like Jagr, I loved Jagr), but the philosophy is already similar.

Machinehead is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-14-2011, 09:36 PM
  #99
Boom Boom Geoffrion*
CarciLOL
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: NYC
Country: Greece
Posts: 7,553
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SingnBluesOnBroadway View Post
Great post. I can't let the fact that there are guys who are likable and work hard cloud the fact that there is not a whole lot of natural talent on this team.
How much more talent do we need? If we're going to assume other teams young talent pans out, should we assume the same thing? Hartford's been pumping NHL players into our line-up, and all they have done is improve beyond our initial expectations.

How many people do you recall suggesting Staal's going to be a #1 dmen in a blink of an eye? Girardi was supposed to be a third-pairing dmen. Callahan was supposed to be a bottom-6 guy, while Dubi might be a tweener-type.

Stepan's drafted and half the board kind of 'mehs' at his size, yet he had moments during his rookie season where your jaw dropped in amazement. A rookie who's hockey IQ is reminscent of an adam oates.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trxjw View Post
Agreed. I love the guys we've turned into NHL regulars, but we're asking them to play roles they're not suited for.
We threw them in fire, and for the most part, they've exceeded expectations. We didn't know what we had in Sauer, until he actually played. He had a terrific rookie season, as did McDonagh. They will not only replicate their play, but obviously continue improving.

Oddly enough, nobody was banking on a Sauer, or McDonagh, or Stepan, Anisimov, etc.. Two years ago, they were all just, prospects with upside.

We have talent. We also have super stars. We're on the cusp of being what we hope, and if some of you guys are oblivious to this, then it's safe to say you're being pessimistic, and/or underrating our players and upcoming players, as well as the people drafting them. Clark's picks are ****ing golden. There's a reason to be optimistic about guys like Kreider, Thomas, McIlrath, and MDZ.

Boom Boom Geoffrion* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-14-2011, 11:09 PM
  #100
Jxmarts
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 341
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yellot00tr View Post
Jxmarts: I haven't checked the numbers you put up there, but just based off of your numbers, you're not taking into account that the league has been talking about rolling back players salaries slightly. If salaries are rolled back even 10%, that means the Knicks will have about $14.25-14.5 million in space. The NHL wanted between 20-30% in salary rollbacks, but ended up at 24% i think. If we use a similar rollback with the NBA, then we're talking about having the four players not including Douglas and the d-leaguers tied up for under $40 million. Assuming that the cap even goes down to $55 million, we'd still be looking at over $15 million of cap space. If the cap is anything above $55 million, then anything over that allows us to offer one of the big free agents more money, or spend more on the supporting cast. At $58 million, we could either spend $18 on one of the big free agents, or more likely, because of the cap on contracts, we would have around $2 million left.

Melo, Stat, CP3/Williams, and then 1-2 above minimum salary players to go along with the the d-league rest of the team is something i'm willing to take. That makes us a very competitive team. At that point, as long as we make it in as a top 4 team, i think we'd all be happy as Knicks fans. The east will have a huge shift in power as the Celtics will def not be constituted the way they are now, and Orlando in all likelihood will lose Howard. I can see the Knicks being anywhere from the 1 to 3 seed depending on Miami and Chicago. Just remember as well, D. Rose is a restricted free agent in 2012 too. I can't picture him picking up and going elsewhere, nor can i see Chicago not matching anything that anyone else would offer him, but again, crazier things have happened.

Donnie Walsh has even stated that we'll have the space in 2012 to sign one of the big free agents, and regardless of what everyone else thinks or says, what the numbers are, or anything else, I gotta believe that there's a reason he has the confidence to say that. Until proven otherwise, I'll take Walsh at his word and believe that he knows what he's doing. Regardless of what people think in terms of his talent evaluation, he's pretty damn near a cap genius to put us in the position we were last year to start free agency. It's not his fault that LBJ didn't come here, as they decided earlier that they were all going to Miami. The Melo deal was in all likelihood Dolan's doing. Had we followed Walsh's plan/goal of signing him this offseason, we'd be even better off. Yes, we stunk for a few years after he took over, but he's put us in a much better position compared to where we were before he took over.
I went back and checked my numbers, and I did make an error. The Knicks current cap total for the 10 signed players they'll have (including their 1st round pick) for 2011-12 will be $62 million, not $65 million. Either way, it puts them already $4 million over the current cap for next season.

You're right that salaries might be rolled back in a new CBA, and that could create a little more cap room for the Knicks. It's impossible to know exactly what the rules will be so I tried to make my scenario as simple as possible. There are possibilities I left out, but none of them are sure things.

My point, though, is that the Knicks painted themselves into a dubious corner with the Melo trade. They left themselves with little cap room and almost no assets to deal and no depth. I was not against acquiring Melo, but I thought it was critical that they emerged from the trade with flexibility to improve their roster because the Knicks are not contenders yet, despite having Melo & Stat. Whether it was Dolan or Walsh that was responisible, the Melo trade has handcuffed them for the next several years.

The topic of this thread is whether the Rangers need a Walsh type President/GM. If we're asking whether the Rangers should go in the direction of the Knicks and acquire a couple of high priced stars at the expense of virtually all of team depth, cap space and tradeable assets, then I say no. Depth is even more important in hockey than it is in basketball. I'd rather go forward and take my chances with the current Rangers than turn them into the Knicks.

Jxmarts 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.