I would. We'd be trading Marian Gaborik for a player who brings nothing that Gaborik doesn't and scores 7-10 less goals.
Ryan is a floater. He's not physical, he doesn't play hard, he doesn't defend. I don't know where any of that came from. Is it an American thing?
you're nuts...5 years younger, averages 32.75 goals/season the last 4 years vs 36.75 goals/year the last 4 full season (skipped year he only played 17 games) from gabby and double the hits gaborik has.
AND a cap hit that is $2.4 mil/year less. you would be completely replacing gaborik's production with a single player AND freeing up cap space to resign mcdonagh, stepan, etc.
i'm against moving gaborik and wouldn't move him just to move him but if you can do it for a younger, cheaper star forward that will also score 30+ then hell yeah
I'd trade Gabby for Ryan. I don't think it's an upgrade right now, but I think Ryan has the upside to be a dynamic two-way player if he gave more effort.
I'd trade Gabby for Ryan. I don't think it's an upgrade right now, but I think Ryan has the upside to be a dynamic two-way player if he gave more effort.
not an upgrade in production but considering the ONLY real reason to move gaborik is the cap, the same production for a lower cap hit is kinda an upgrade in a way.
Bob Murray can't figure out what he wants for Bobby Ryan.
Quote:
The word “rollback” has not been used, that’s true, but that only is because the union never responded to the NHL’s initial offer, never gave it credibility by asking Bettman or the league negotiating committee how it would intend to accommodate existing contracts in a world in which the players’ share and cap immediately would be reduced by 24 percent.
There was pain in 2004-05 when the players agreed to a 24-percent rollback, no doubt, but that wouldn’t compare to the blood-letting that such a rollback would create this time. There were no 10-, 12-, or 15-year deals then. There were no $85 million or $110 million contracts then.
By my inexact calculation, approximately $5.27 billion is owed players under current contracts. Does anyone for a moment believe the union would agree to what would be a giveback of more than $1.26 billion going forward?
Is Bettman prepared to tell Sidney Crosby he can’t play unless he surrenders $25.856 million of the $111.9 million he has coming to him? Shea Weber has $97 million coming to him; Ilya Kovalchuk, Alex Ovechkin, Parise and Ryan Suter all have $88 million coming. Does anyone in his right mind believe they’re going to give back nearly a quarter of what they have been promised?
Many people have these grandiose plans of the NHL players taking a rollback so the Rangers can keep all of their players. The cap will decrease from $70.2M so the players have to accept a rollback. That's the theory.
The Rangers have $52M committed for 13-14 which doesn't included DZ(unsigned group II),McDonagh,Stepan,Hagelin and Sauer(a healthy Sauer). Cap is set at $64.3M for a couple of years until revenue catches up to the players reduced %,the Rangers can't keep all of their players. In other words,the cap can't decrease from $64.3M. The NBA set it at 2 years because they believe revenue for 12-13 will allow for a cap increase from $58M for 13-14.
As Larry Brooks pointed out,the players aren't taking a rollback. Another rollback. NO.
Many people have these grandiose plans of the NHL players taking a rollback so the Rangers can keep all of their players. The cap will decrease from $70.2M so the players have to accept a rollback. That's the theory.
The Rangers have $52M committed for 13-14 which doesn't included DZ(unsigned group II),McDonagh,Stepan,Hagelin and Sauer(a healthy Sauer). Cap is set at $64.3M for a couple of years until revenue catches up to the players reduced %,the Rangers can't keep all of their players. In other words,the cap can't decrease from $64.3M. The NBA set it at 2 years because they believe revenue for 12-13 will allow for a cap increase from $58M for 13-14.
As Larry Brooks pointed out,the players aren't taking a rollback. Another rollback. NO.
I think when the CBA is finished, the players will take a slight cut. But it won't be anywhere near the 25 percent or whatever the NHL wants. Its going to be a combination of some salary reductions and increased revenue sharing imo.
Ryan Kessler career playoffs 10-26-36 in 53 games, 7-12-19 in 25 games when van went to finals. Penner career 10-20-30 in 60 games, 3-8-11 in 20 games last year. I'd take Kesler any day regular season or playoffs
On this one, numbers aren't gonna cut it.
How many more points did Toews get than Byfuglien? Yeah wel Pronger eats Toews (and Kane) or breakfast without Byfuglien.
I'm thinking more gameplay style, which ya can't read on the stats sheet...how many points have guys gotten off Tomas Holmstrom and #96 isn't on the scoresheet?
Gaborik will do jack **** for 9 games. Get a 5 goal game. His stat sheet looks like he put helpers on the board for half of the games. For those that watched those other 9 games, they might be thinking a guy like this could be traded for guys who will help the team in whatever way we need. (too bad +/- is mostly a BS stat IMO)
Penner will put slightly overall points, but he will burden the D physically much more than Kessler. That kinda counts more in the playoff game to me.
I'd love to know why the cap is decreasing with all the reports of "oh well this is the greatest period of financial prosperty the game has seen in a very long time" and so on.
It's a joke. Start getting rid of small market teams who are poorly run, that's the problem. Over expansion was going to screw the NHL in the end, yet Bettman had to do it.
I'd love to know why the cap is decreasing with all the reports of "oh well this is the greatest period of financial prosperty the game has seen in a very long time" and so on.
It's a joke. Start getting rid of small market teams who are poorly run, that's the problem. Over expansion was going to screw the NHL in the end, yet Bettman had to do it.
Even though I would LOVE contraction, it will never happen. Personally, I think those struggling franchises should be moved. But that would be a sign of defeat for Bettman with his approach to "non traditional" hockey markets.
Of the 5 struggling franchises, two or three of them are in those markets.
