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

Trade Proposals Thread

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
04-13-2013, 12:37 PM
  #276
bernmeister
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 9,786
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trxjw View Post
Unless I'm absolutely sure Staal wants to leave NY, I don't move him for anything less than a massive overpayment. He's the best defender we have. Yeah, I said it.
IMO he's not just "the best defender we have".
He's the best across the board pure shutdown D in the league.

But there are no sacred cows. We certainly don't look to trade him, but if a deal makes sense in the totality of it all, we should do it.

bernmeister is offline  
Old
04-13-2013, 12:45 PM
  #277
bernmeister
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 9,786
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrooklynRangersFan View Post
Yes and yes - these two points are not mutually exclusive. Staal is currently our best D (although bear in mind that he has years of development over McD, MDZ, Moore, Skjei, McI). However, we will not be able to keep all of our current top D much longer, due to the contracts they'll all demand (and receive) over the next two years. Consequently, we will need to move one and fill up the pipeline behind him. It could be MDZ, it could be Staal, it could be Girardi.

Given Staal's connection to Carolina, it's entirely conceivable that he's the most likely to want to go - and therefore the most eligible to get traded. Given that he's got two years left on his contract (and his aforementioned skill), he might well also garner the highest return. So, it's not an idle question to consider.

ONE of them will have to be moved sooner or later (or else lost for nothing). The only question is which one - and when.

Why is this so hard to understand?
Exactly.
And I'm not pushing anyone out the door this second.
I'm simply noting that in the market Staal, for example, is worth more with more time on a moderately priced deal, than on a shorter term deal.

bernmeister is offline  
Old
04-13-2013, 12:59 PM
  #278
nsvoyageurs
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Country: Canada
Posts: 486
vCash: 500
You don't want to trade one of the defencemen, but with the cap going down, you can't keep everyone and have a contending team going forward. Need to look at the long term. You need the young, cheap talent.

nsvoyageurs is offline  
Old
04-13-2013, 01:07 PM
  #279
Vitto79
Registered User
 
Vitto79's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Sarnia
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,538
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nsvoyageurs View Post
You don't want to trade one of the defencemen, but with the cap going down, you can't keep everyone and have a contending team going forward. Need to look at the long term. You need the young, cheap talent.
I think they will entertain moving Staal but not next yr. He has two yrs left and they will do the same thing Pitts did with Jordan, move him at the draft 2 yrs from now and it has to be for a lot.

For next yr they can fit Staal, Girardi, McD, DZ, Moore, Stralman and a cheap spare like Eminger or ugh Bickel since he has a one way deal still. Call up McIlrath if anyone goes down.

Now if they move anyone next yr it would unfortunately be Stralman at his cap hit but I dont think its necessary

They can find a taker for Pyatt with only one yr left. Maybe TB to play with his bro?

Boyle can be moved too cause the top 3 C are set and one of Miller/Kreider will for sure be in next yr IMO.

Vitto79 is online now  
Old
04-13-2013, 01:26 PM
  #280
bernmeister
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 9,786
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by eco's bones View Post
Unless you believe the #5 pick can move right into the NHL the next year and make a big impact then it's not enough for Staal. And it's not necessarily a case of who is the best player now? or who will be the best player 5 years down the road? Do the Rangers want to make another real run (or even multiple runs) at a SC within the next 5 years? is the real question. Lateral moves that won't increase our chances or moves like Staal for a pick who will need years of development are not likely to increase those chances. Instead of chasing games then we'll be chasing seasons.

Anyway to me that's why Carolina would have to add to the 1st--not us add more than Staal for it.
I respectfully disagree with you.
If we get good/great picks, and generally we should since we have a guru in Gordie Clark, then we should acknowledge the fact that building assets thru the draft will keep us strong and contending unless/until and appreciable core of key guys succumbs to injury/age. Drafting and developing is our best chance to extend that core with replacements.

Right now, we are still catching up. Recently, it feels like we've added just one guy/yr; Hagelin, and I would say Miller could be here. Kreider should be, given what he did in last year's playoffs, except for Torts, but that is a whole separate argument for another thread. And McIlrath needs more time/had a knee injury. Next year, we should fully realize Miller, probably have Kreider, and at some point, probably later, McIlrath gets at least cup of coffee here. But adding to these 2, which we don't feel here yet, could well be Fast(h) and esp. Lindberg, since we picture him as a bottom 6 C.

We have a few other guys who are maybes in the pipeline, but let's not jump the gun on them. So we really can use picks, especially higher picks, given we made a reasonable short term bet on Clowe.

But my key point here is, no, unless special circumstances restrict options otherwise, you always go for the strategy which yields the most/best assets, especially long term Neglecting draft possibilities to bet the farm and go for now is too much high risk.

You CUMULATIVELY build with more draft picks = more total/better talent = best chance to win.

Our course said picks are supplemented with smart trades. But the above pick strategy = best chance to have enough assets to play at dominate level, and still yield more assets for good trades.

Rejecting a good enough pick is not a good move.

bernmeister is offline  
Old
04-13-2013, 01:29 PM
  #281
bernmeister
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 9,786
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vitto79 View Post
I think they will entertain moving Staal but not next yr. He has two yrs left and they will do the same thing Pitts did with Jordan, move him at the draft 2 yrs from now and it has to be for a lot.

For next yr they can fit Staal, Girardi, McD, DZ, Moore, Stralman and a cheap spare like Eminger or ugh Bickel since he has a one way deal still. Call up McIlrath if anyone goes down.

Now if they move anyone next yr it would unfortunately be Stralman at his cap hit but I dont think its necessary

They can find a taker for Pyatt with only one yr left. Maybe TB to play with his bro?

Boyle can be moved too cause the top 3 C are set and one of Miller/Kreider will for sure be in next yr IMO.
If J Staal wanted to stay, Pit could have signed him. They had enough roster moves to juggle around cap.

We will not.

bernmeister is offline  
Old
04-13-2013, 01:35 PM
  #282
RangerBoy
#freejtmiller
 
RangerBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 33,072
vCash: 500
Dan Girardi will command between $4M-$4.5M per as a group III. Tim Gleason has a $4M cap hit.. Zbynek Michalek has a $4M cap hit. Dan Hamhuis has a $4.5M cap hit. Group III contracts.

Henrik Lundqvist. $7M.

Ryan Callahan is a tough one. David Backes has a $4.5M cap hit. Group III contract. Lou gave Zajac $5.75M per for 8 years. Group III contract. Toronto gave Grabovski $5.5M per. Group III. Bozak wants the same contract. Nonis knows Burke made a mistake with Grabovski and doesn't want to repeat the same mistake.

Can the Rangers afford to pay McDonagh(arbitration),Girardi(group III) and DZ(arbitration) $4M-$4.5M per each? Add $5M plus for Callahan(group III). Those 4 players cost $11.45M combined right now. McD has $425,000 in performance bonuses which is included in the $11.45M. It could cost up to $19M to keep all 4 players. That's not happening. At minimum $17M. Not happening.

RangerBoy is offline  
Old
04-13-2013, 02:13 PM
  #283
Alvvays
Marle **3
 
Alvvays's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Listening to music
Country: United States
Posts: 60,777
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerBoy View Post
Dan Girardi will command between $4M-$4.5M per as a group III. Tim Gleason has a $4M cap hit.. Zbynek Michalek has a $4M cap hit. Dan Hamhuis has a $4.5M cap hit. Group III contracts.

Henrik Lundqvist. $7M.

Ryan Callahan is a tough one. David Backes has a $4.5M cap hit. Group III contract. Lou gave Zajac $5.75M per for 8 years. Group III contract. Toronto gave Grabovski $5.5M per. Group III. Bozak wants the same contract. Nonis knows Burke made a mistake with Grabovski and doesn't want to repeat the same mistake.

Can the Rangers afford to pay McDonagh(arbitration),Girardi(group III) and DZ(arbitration) $4M-$4.5M per each? Add $5M plus for Callahan(group III). Those 4 players cost $11.45M combined right now. McD has $425,000 in performance bonuses which is included in the $11.45M. It could cost up to $19M to keep all 4 players. That's not happening. At minimum $17M. Not happening.
Peace out Girardi.

At least I hope he's the odd man out. If they decide to keep Girardi over DZ/McD...I don't even know.

__________________
Alvvays is offline  
Old
04-13-2013, 02:37 PM
  #284
eco's bones
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Elmira NY
Country: United States
Posts: 14,302
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bernmeister View Post
I respectfully disagree with you.
If we get good/great picks, and generally we should since we have a guru in Gordie Clark, then we should acknowledge the fact that building assets thru the draft will keep us strong and contending unless/until and appreciable core of key guys succumbs to injury/age. Drafting and developing is our best chance to extend that core with replacements.

Right now, we are still catching up. Recently, it feels like we've added just one guy/yr; Hagelin, and I would say Miller could be here. Kreider should be, given what he did in last year's playoffs, except for Torts, but that is a whole separate argument for another thread. And McIlrath needs more time/had a knee injury. Next year, we should fully realize Miller, probably have Kreider, and at some point, probably later, McIlrath gets at least cup of coffee here. But adding to these 2, which we don't feel here yet, could well be Fast(h) and esp. Lindberg, since we picture him as a bottom 6 C.

We have a few other guys who are maybes in the pipeline, but let's not jump the gun on them. So we really can use picks, especially higher picks, given we made a reasonable short term bet on Clowe.

But my key point here is, no, unless special circumstances restrict options otherwise, you always go for the strategy which yields the most/best assets, especially long term Neglecting draft possibilities to bet the farm and go for now is too much high risk.

You CUMULATIVELY build with more draft picks = more total/better talent = best chance to win.

Our course said picks are supplemented with smart trades. But the above pick strategy = best chance to have enough assets to play at dominate level, and still yield more assets for good trades.

Rejecting a good enough pick is not a good move.
Well you're going to have a real hard time convincing me on this. Personally I've always thought you to be very trade happy--Mike Milburyish trade happy.

Right now we have a 30 year old goalie--a great player and potential HOF'er when he retires--the gap is closing on him in respect to his getting older and in respect to other younger goalies coming along throughout the league closing the gap in talent. Practically every team in the league realizes right now they have to have great goaltending to win--goals and offense are down and defense is up--that is the trend the league is going in. The Penguins are the anomaly--not hard to figure out why when they have the two best forwards in the league. We are still ahead of the curve because not only do we have a great but we have 4 really good and in Staal and McDonagh's case 2 superb defensive minded d-men--though we do have a glut on the left side.

No way should the team take a step back while those pieces are in place by getting rid of a still young and very experienced legit 1st pairing shutdown d-man for a ****ing draft pick unless that player can immediately help the team in a substantial way and I'm afraid that is not going to happen with a #5 overall pick. Carolina would have to pony up more than that.

Furthermore this idea always going around that you have to give to get is ******** because there is no requirement that our team do either getting or giving. Carolina wants to get the Staal brothers altogether--well fine--we still don't have to accommodate them.

eco's bones is offline  
Old
04-13-2013, 04:17 PM
  #285
Kershaw
 
Kershaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Country:
Posts: 25,519
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerBoy View Post
Dan Girardi will command between $4M-$4.5M per as a group III. Tim Gleason has a $4M cap hit.. Zbynek Michalek has a $4M cap hit. Dan Hamhuis has a $4.5M cap hit. Group III contracts.

Henrik Lundqvist. $7M.

Ryan Callahan is a tough one. David Backes has a $4.5M cap hit. Group III contract. Lou gave Zajac $5.75M per for 8 years. Group III contract. Toronto gave Grabovski $5.5M per. Group III. Bozak wants the same contract. Nonis knows Burke made a mistake with Grabovski and doesn't want to repeat the same mistake.

Can the Rangers afford to pay McDonagh(arbitration),Girardi(group III) and DZ(arbitration) $4M-$4.5M per each? Add $5M plus for Callahan(group III). Those 4 players cost $11.45M combined right now. McD has $425,000 in performance bonuses which is included in the $11.45M. It could cost up to $19M to keep all 4 players. That's not happening. At minimum $17M. Not happening.
If either want a hair over 4.5m, I'd ship them both out.

Kershaw is offline  
Old
04-13-2013, 04:18 PM
  #286
nsvoyageurs
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Country: Canada
Posts: 486
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerBoy View Post
Dan Girardi will command between $4M-$4.5M per as a group III. Tim Gleason has a $4M cap hit.. Zbynek Michalek has a $4M cap hit. Dan Hamhuis has a $4.5M cap hit. Group III contracts.

Henrik Lundqvist. $7M.

Ryan Callahan is a tough one. David Backes has a $4.5M cap hit. Group III contract. Lou gave Zajac $5.75M per for 8 years. Group III contract. Toronto gave Grabovski $5.5M per. Group III. Bozak wants the same contract. Nonis knows Burke made a mistake with Grabovski and doesn't want to repeat the same mistake.

Can the Rangers afford to pay McDonagh(arbitration),Girardi(group III) and DZ(arbitration) $4M-$4.5M per each? Add $5M plus for Callahan(group III). Those 4 players cost $11.45M combined right now. McD has $425,000 in performance bonuses which is included in the $11.45M. It could cost up to $19M to keep all 4 players. That's not happening. At minimum $17M. Not happening.
This is what I'm thinking. To keep the core all together, it'll cost too much cap wise; you'd have the core group, then a bunch of minor league players on minimum contracts. You would have no depth; or at least no quality depth. This would be very bad cap management.

You'd like to get a Cup while Lundqvist is still in his prime years where he's playing at a top level. You'll need cap room to fit in those one or two last pieces you need to get you over the top, and if you have a surplus, or can't sign certain players long term, then you trade them to help address a need that gets you that Stanley Cup. Or trade them to get assets for the longer term to keep a contending team after Lundqvist has past his prime years.

nsvoyageurs is offline  
Old
04-13-2013, 04:59 PM
  #287
dethomas07
Registered User
 
dethomas07's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: New York, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 1,375
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nsvoyageurs View Post
You don't want to trade one of the defencemen, but with the cap going down, you can't keep everyone and have a contending team going forward. Need to look at the long term. You need the young, cheap talent.
we have young cheap talent and are thinking long term.. and in terms of the cap.. yes its going down.. but Hockey revenues are up even with this lockout, they didn't skip a beat.. tv ratings are at its highest point ever.. after 13-14' season cap will go up considerably and moving forward.. until we're at the next dreaded lockout and things will change... but honestly we're set.. and if we're in dire need of cap... Richards will most likely be bought out anyway this summer if but def by 14' summer, which is almost 7m in cap savings.. we're fine.. moving forward..

IMO your right we need young talent.. thats why its imperative to keep your draft picks!!

thats why in terms of cap management.. Mcd will get staal treatment 5yr-4m cap bc if staal got bridge contract we'd be in trouble capwise bc he would easily be at 5m-6m AAV..

if slats was smart he would try to lock up Hags to an Okposo type deal and step to 4m/yr cap hit long term.. hank i think will get 6-7yrs 6m AAV but his last yrs will be lower $$..

we have the young talent.. i think these players want to be here long term and may keep it together bc theyre young playing in NY and on the biggest stage.. might take home town discount.. drafting is key though!!


Last edited by dethomas07: 04-13-2013 at 05:06 PM.
dethomas07 is offline  
Old
04-13-2013, 08:10 PM
  #288
nsvoyageurs
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Country: Canada
Posts: 486
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dethomas07 View Post
we have young cheap talent and are thinking long term.. and in terms of the cap.. yes its going down.. but Hockey revenues are up even with this lockout, they didn't skip a beat.. tv ratings are at its highest point ever.. after 13-14' season cap will go up considerably and moving forward.. until we're at the next dreaded lockout and things will change... but honestly we're set.. and if we're in dire need of cap... Richards will most likely be bought out anyway this summer if but def by 14' summer, which is almost 7m in cap savings.. we're fine.. moving forward..

IMO your right we need young talent.. thats why its imperative to keep your draft picks!!

thats why in terms of cap management.. Mcd will get staal treatment 5yr-4m cap bc if staal got bridge contract we'd be in trouble capwise bc he would easily be at 5m-6m AAV..

if slats was smart he would try to lock up Hags to an Okposo type deal and step to 4m/yr cap hit long term.. hank i think will get 6-7yrs 6m AAV but his last yrs will be lower $$..

we have the young talent.. i think these players want to be here long term and may keep it together bc theyre young playing in NY and on the biggest stage.. might take home town discount.. drafting is key though!!
I agree in that they have to keep the draft choices. I've always been a draft guy; important to have those as you need to keep the pipeline flowing into the future.

nsvoyageurs is offline  
Old
04-13-2013, 08:58 PM
  #289
MidnightRanger
Registered User
 
MidnightRanger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: New York City
Country: United States
Posts: 1,882
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to MidnightRanger
Oh oh! I have a completely revolutionary idea let's trade Girardi now that his trade value is at its highest for young offense.

MidnightRanger is offline  
Old
04-13-2013, 10:25 PM
  #290
bernmeister
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 9,786
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Webhead View Post
Oh oh! I have a completely revolutionary idea let's trade Girardi now that his trade value is at its highest for young offense.
revolutionary you say!!
As in not previously suggested by any one else on the board until now....

bernmeister is offline  
Old
04-13-2013, 10:45 PM
  #291
Krampus
Call me Nils
 
Krampus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: NYC
Country: Austria
Posts: 19,518
vCash: 420
Looking at what people are offering for Girardi on the trade board, if any GMs are even close to being that dumb, Girardi should be gone

__________________
Krampus is offline  
Old
04-13-2013, 11:15 PM
  #292
bernmeister
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 9,786
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by eco's bones View Post
...
Quote:
Well you're going to have a real hard time convincing me on this. Personally I've always thought you to be very trade happy--Mike Milburyish trade happy.
I remain an advocate for active trading to the extent I say you always try for almost every profitable deal possible. I'm sure there were exceptions to the rule, including particularly as to someone like Malkin, who would command maximum assets. However, by and large, I have never been an advocate for throwing away picks just to make a deal. I have sometimes suggested more picks to obtain [a] higher pick(s), and vice versa. But I have viewed picks as assets not to be squandered.


Quote:
Right now we have a 30 year old goalie--a great player and potential HOF'er when he retires--the gap is closing on him in respect to his getting older and in respect to other younger goalies coming along throughout the league closing the gap in talent. Practically every team in the league realizes right now they have to have great goaltending to win--goals and offense are down and defense is up--that is the trend the league is going in.
HL is 30; I give him a full 5-6 years barring injury.
He may have to cut back a few games going forward starting in a year or two; but he will be playing the majority of games, including the key games, and playoffs.
Hank may contribute past 36 in a diminished (games played capacity).

My point is, if you are not sensible about the next two years, you will reap what you sow, and you will not have those extra assets in years three and four and beyond. So the surest way to set up increased likelihood of failure is put all the pressure on what we have in the pipeline to date, without further investing in additionally worthwhile draft results.

Obviously, any idea prevails on merit. So any one proposal to invest picks for a prospect/player or vice versa is to be judged accordingly. But we cannot plan on exclusively squandering draft picks any more than we can get by exclusively on free agents.


Quote:
The Penguins are the anomaly--not hard to figure out why when they have the two best forwards in the league.
Anomaly or not, we must get by them to win. I suggest instead of just hoping that will happen, we maximize our odds by trying to have more total talent for the entire roster. To amass that talent, we need to make more good moves than bad on all fronts (draft, trade, sign). While not passing up the usefulness of the a given pick for a trade, all picks, whether used as selections or to help acquire trade assets, need to be judicious. Case in point is the recent acquisition of Clowe. It's reasonable to gather that the immediate return of Clowe was a more likely success than what would be returned in the draft. However, if Clowe holds us up and cannot be resigned, then the long term result of the loss of those picks is collectively negative, nominally so if the players picked are nominal and dramatically so if the piayers picked [or used to trade up to a higher pick = better player] are substantial.


Quote:
We are still ahead of the curve because not only do we have a great but we have 4 really good and in Staal and McDonagh's case 2 superb defensive minded d-men--though we do have a glut on the left side.

No way should the team take a step back while those pieces are in place by getting rid of a still young and very experienced legit 1st pairing shutdown d-man for a ****ing draft pick unless that player can immediately help the team in a substantial way and I'm afraid that is not going to happen with a #5 overall pick. Carolina would have to pony up more than that.
We are ahead for now, but how long will the cap allow us to stay ahead.
If you wait to move a top guy, you will get less for him because of the reduced contract expiring. More would be nice, but I would not be greedy. 5 overall, plus the cap benefits are worth it.


Quote:
Furthermore this idea always going around that you have to give to get is ******** because there is no requirement that our team do either getting or giving. Carolina wants to get the Staal brothers altogether--well fine--we still don't have to accommodate them.
No one will give up something valuable for free. The more the value, the more the cost. That is straightforward logic.

Yes, we are not required to do anything in a vacuum, but we are obliged to actively make moves to improve the team. That is basically as to overall talent, but it is also as to fitting under the cap.

bernmeister is offline  
Old
04-14-2013, 06:45 AM
  #293
bernmeister
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 9,786
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fitzy View Post
I have heard Oilers fans open to the idea of trading Hall or Yakupov for Del Zotto.
This I find hard to believe.
They have consistently demanded McD, will not part with Hall, an iconic figure for them.
They want like Gagner for Del Zotto, McD for Yak.
Fair value is Girardi/Girardi small + for Yak/Yak small +.

bernmeister is offline  
Old
04-14-2013, 06:54 AM
  #294
richardsequalscup*
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 1,538
vCash: 500
I seriously doubt the way Hall has played that Oilers fans would have any interest in moving him. The guy I would move over there is Nugent. He was a string bean when they drafted him. They rushed him. He's still a string bean.

richardsequalscup* is offline  
Old
04-14-2013, 07:07 AM
  #295
bernmeister
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 9,786
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trxjw View Post
I didn't know Bern was a Edmonton fan.

....


Yeah, Bernmeister was ahead of the curve on variations of getting a top F from Edmonton for one/some of our D, got chastised, while we now see, without any provocation, proposals of our D to EO for Fs which are arguably less viable (Hall for MDZ, e.g.); ... he was ahead of the curve on Richards being bought out, yet pilloried, only to be proven correct as a unanimous consensus;... Bern was right about JT Miller being good enough to play now (not saying he doesn't benefit from more AHL minutes, just saying he could play here if warranted); said Kreider likewise would show something special, which he did in last year's playoffs before being ruined to date by Torts; said one of Staal/Girardi would have to go, simply because of the cap, and we should make the best deal we can, and as long as we are doing that, for the love of God, could we please get more offense; said Torts' system = fail, which was proven by last year's playoffs.

Alright, I plead guilty to Tysen Dowzak ... thought with a possible NHL career, he'd learn to skate...

Yet ... so many posters are all : despite the above.

Could it be ... bernmeister has been horribly misjudged as is probably correct more often than he is wrong?

Not to Trxjw, with whom I agree more often than not, but to those of my critics -- you know who you are -- especially those who choose to be haters who are gonna hate, my reply is

bernmeister is offline  
Old
04-14-2013, 07:46 AM
  #296
bernmeister
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 9,786
vCash: 500
Shea Webber's contract runs thru 2026, so for that reason alone, the following is probably not a good idea. However, that not withstanding, the following is interesting.

Webber is a 7.8m+ to 2026. Preds have space. Don't want that big a salary (they didn't offer, they had to match that #).

Weber to NY at 5m per cap max. Preds eat the balance every year, balance of contract. Ranger commitment to SW is 5m max.

To enable this Rangers will offer a CONDITIONAL pick, typically a 4th, FOR EACH AND EVERY YEAR of the balance of the SW contract, which each pick is conditional on
a) SW is available to play enough minutes in a season.
b) SW reaches certain high yet reasonable performance targets of excellence
If he has a career year, wins Norris, pick that (following) year increases 4th to third or second; if he has subpar year, pick diminishes to 5th or 6th; if he is injured or otherwise DNP, then there is no pick.
c) Rangers must honor this part of the deal whether they keep or trade SW for 6 years; however, after 6 years, this part of the deal is only in force if SW is retained by NYR. If Rangers trade SW after 6 years, this provision is cancelled.

We also get Preds 2013 1st.

In exchange for all that, NY coughs up Staal, Girardi + Stepan.

Pros: we avoid SW playing for a competitor and having that shot from the point do damage; acquire an all star D; net of paying SW a max of 5m per season actually is less cap than Staal, Girardi + Stepan, who will require increases; obtain a high 2013 pick; improve chances to entice Malkin.

We get use out of Richards this year, amnesty buy out, and we really have a better team to offer Malkin if he's looking in 2014, and the above clever juggling, + Richards #s will be downpayment on Malkin --- if he wants to come here.

Roster issues:
temporary C depth:
Richards, Broussard, Miller, Boyle. Boyle moved for potential or upgrade replaced w/cheaper like Haley or Lindberg,
Kreider could be an emergency C until guys like Nieves get here. Or, who knows, he's played the position and might take to it like a fish to water.

new D:
McD SW
MDZ Stralman
Gilroy McIlrath
Hamrlik/Eminger,
Boyle to Hawks, gets Olsen +, add, maybe gets Clendenning + Olsen


This one was for fun, unfortunately with that 2026 commitment of a baker's dozen 13 years; but if there is some work around, no penalty later club option buyout for cheap anytime after 9-10 seasons, then, like I say this would be interesting.

bernmeister is offline  
Old
04-14-2013, 08:06 AM
  #297
5 4 Fighting
Big member
 
5 4 Fighting's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Bk all day
Country: United States
Posts: 6,058
vCash: 783
What's your obsession with Dylan Olsen Berny? Just wondering.

5 4 Fighting is online now  
Old
04-14-2013, 08:13 AM
  #298
Kreider Typical
flex
 
Kreider Typical's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 2,555
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerBoy View Post
Dan Girardi will command between $4M-$4.5M per as a group III. Tim Gleason has a $4M cap hit.. Zbynek Michalek has a $4M cap hit. Dan Hamhuis has a $4.5M cap hit. Group III contracts.

Henrik Lundqvist. $7M.

Ryan Callahan is a tough one. David Backes has a $4.5M cap hit. Group III contract. Lou gave Zajac $5.75M per for 8 years. Group III contract. Toronto gave Grabovski $5.5M per. Group III. Bozak wants the same contract. Nonis knows Burke made a mistake with Grabovski and doesn't want to repeat the same mistake.

Can the Rangers afford to pay McDonagh(arbitration),Girardi(group III) and DZ(arbitration) $4M-$4.5M per each? Add $5M plus for Callahan(group III). Those 4 players cost $11.45M combined right now. McD has $425,000 in performance bonuses which is included in the $11.45M. It could cost up to $19M to keep all 4 players. That's not happening. At minimum $17M. Not happening.
see ya later cally

Kreider Typical is offline  
Old
04-14-2013, 09:10 AM
  #299
Kris Chreider
Pass Off The Pads
 
Kris Chreider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: NYC/Minneapolis
Country: United States
Posts: 7,452
vCash: 500
If Girardi was left handed or we had more than a 2nd/3rd pair tweener below him he'd be gone. Thing is, top pairing righties are worth their weight in gold. Unless one of Moore, Del Zotto, or Staal adjusts to the right side we need a top 4 RD back.

Yakupov interests me, how about Girardi + Palmieri + mid pick for Yakupov + Petry?

Hagelin-Stepan-Nash
Zuccarello-Richards-Yakupov
Clowe-Brassard-Callahan
Powe-Boyle-Asham

Staal-Del Zotto
McDonagh-Petry
Moore-Stralman

Kris Chreider is offline  
Old
04-14-2013, 11:28 AM
  #300
esidebill
Registered User
 
esidebill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Long Island, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 365
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kris Chreider View Post
If Girardi was left handed or we had more than a 2nd/3rd pair tweener below him he'd be gone. Thing is, top pairing righties are worth their weight in gold. Unless one of Moore, Del Zotto, or Staal adjusts to the right side we need a top 4 RD back.

Yakupov interests me, how about Girardi + Palmieri + mid pick for Yakupov + Petry?

Hagelin-Stepan-Nash
Zuccarello-Richards-Yakupov
Clowe-Brassard-Callahan
Powe-Boyle-Asham

Staal-Del Zotto
McDonagh-Petry
Moore-Stralman
I feel like Yak and Zucc would make a good line.

esidebill is offline  
Closed Thread

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 06:51 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.