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

Does Hiring Vigneault Mean a Reprieve for Brad Richards?

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
06-16-2013, 02:15 AM
  #26
Kane One
Global Moderator
🚨🚨🚨🚨🚨🚨🚨🚨
 
Kane One's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Brooklyn, New NY
Country: United States
Posts: 27,657
vCash: 3075
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Boyle View Post
If he gets injured, then we're completely ****ed.

Also, if he doesn't turn it around, we'll still be stuck with an abomination of a player who can't contribute to the roster. It'll just be an anchor to the team.
Unless it's some sort of career-ending injury, why wouldn't he want to be bought out?

He could pull a Drury and allow the buyout anyway if it's a small injury. He would probably make more money in the long run.

If he gets bought out after next season, he will receive $1.5MM for the next 12 years of his life from the Rangers, which is a total of $18MM. If he signs with another team for let's say $3MM for three years, that will be a total of $27MM.

I'm sure he'd rather do that than stay on the IR.

I say buy him out after next season.

__________________
Kane One is online now  
Old
06-16-2013, 04:41 AM
  #27
nyrpassion
Vetted.
 
nyrpassion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Washington DC
Country: United States
Posts: 4,120
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GAGLine View Post
LTIR won't help us when he retires 3 years before his contract is up.

Some of you guys just don't get it. This decision has nothing to do with the coach. This is 100% on Sather and the rest of the front office.

If not for the change to the amnesty rules, Redden would have spent this season on his couch, because the Rangers weren't going to risk him getting hurt and them not being able to buy him out. Why does anyone believe that it will be any different with Richards?

Richards will get bought out this summer. Period. End o' story.
The more I think of it, the more I think this will be the case. Although personally I'd strongly argue against it, I'd keep him this season and buy him out next year, the summer of 2014.
Use him as a stopgap this year to make sure our young players develop according to plan. If we buy Richie out THIS year, who replaces him?
At the end of the day, this FA class is a ****show, our young players are not ready to step into that void he leaves.
Who would be our centers? Stepan, Brass, Boyle? I'd keep Richards 1 more year, I know it's a risk, but I think it's worth it.

nyrpassion is online now  
Old
06-16-2013, 04:57 AM
  #28
Mr Atoz*
I hid the Atavachron
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Country: United States
Posts: 2,915
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Machinehead View Post
Call it a gut feeling if you want but I'd bet money Brad Richards is a Ranger next season.

The main thing is, many people say Torts leaving means Richards leaving but I think this coaching change was in part for him, not against him. His relationship with Torts wasn't the same at the end.

This is what gave me the idea to start the thread in the first place. I still think he's gone but that's the only reason that I can see him being given another chance. And these are the Rangers, who I always say make their GM's put on the Spock's brain helmet when they take over to do the absurdities only Ranger GM's can do.

But to those that say that the cap will force a buyout no matter how he played, it seems to me that couldn't be the case unless every player at that level would be bought out. Who will take his place as third line center? Who do you think? Everyone's favorite third line center on this team. Five goals a year. 20% of the cost.

Mr Atoz* is offline  
Old
06-16-2013, 06:11 AM
  #29
RangerBoy
#freejtmiller
 
RangerBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 31,847
vCash: 500
Richards signed with the Rangers because Torts was the Rangers coach. He went against the advice of his agents and took less money(Calgary) to play for Torts. The Rangers gave a 31 year old Richards a nine year deal because Torts pushed for it. I love how now Richards and Torts don't like each other now. Sather said the Richards benching in the playoffs was an "organizational decision". Management was involved too. Torts is proclaiming his love for Richards after game 4. How much he loves Richards a player and a person. Torts said he thought Richards would bounce back next season. Of course,Torts does. He went out on the limb and pushed ownership to give Richards 9 years and $60M.

Brooks reflects the mood of some people here

Quote:
Given the change in coaches and the absence of cost-effective available talent down the middle on the free agent market, it is beginning to seem more and more likely the Rangers won’t be asking Brad Richards to clean out his locker during the amnesty buyout period that will follow the Stanley Cup Finals.

If defenseman Roman Josi is worth $28 million over seven years to re-up as a restricted free agent coming off entry level in Nashville, what does that mean for Ryan McDonagh?

Five years, $25 million enough for the Blueshirts to sign him before he can attract a Group II offer sheet — and maybe not from Philadelphia, but from, say, Edmonton?
http://www.nypost.com/p/sports/range...ontent=Rangers

Change in coaches? Cost effective talent in never available in free agency. Richards already cleaned out his locker along with the other players last month. Then Larry discusses $5M for McDonagh. Last month,Brooks wrote about Stepan being worthy of a long term deal just like McDonagh. $5M for him too? The cap is set at $64.3M. The Rangers need more depth throughout their line-up. Where is that money coming from? Pay McDonagh $5M as Brooks suggests. Stepan gets his money. Hagelin gets less than those 2 but he still triples his cap hit from his ELC. That's it. The same team will be back. There's no money to do anything else.

RangerBoy is offline  
Old
06-16-2013, 06:24 AM
  #30
Mr Atoz*
I hid the Atavachron
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Country: United States
Posts: 2,915
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerBoy View Post
Richards signed with the Rangers because Torts was the Rangers coach. He went against the advice of his agents and took less money(Calgary) to play for Torts. The Rangers gave a 31 year old Richards a nine year deal because Torts pushed for it. I love how now Richards and Torts don't like each other now. Sather said the Richards benching in the playoffs was an "organizational decision". Management was involved too. Torts is proclaiming his love for Richards after game 4. How much he loves Richards a player and a person. Torts said he thought Richards would bounce back next season. Of course,Torts does. He went out on the limb and pushed ownership to give Richards 9 years and $60M.

Brooks reflects the mood of some people here



http://www.nypost.com/p/sports/range...ontent=Rangers

Change in coaches? Cost effective talent in never available in free agency. Richards already cleaned out his locker along with the other players last month. Then Larry discusses $5M for McDonagh. Last month,Brooks wrote about Stepan being worthy of a long term deal just like McDonagh. $5M for him too? The cap is set at $64.3M. The Rangers need more depth throughout their line-up. Where is that money coming from? Pay McDonagh $5M as Brooks suggests. Stepan gets his money. Hagelin gets less than those 2 but he still triples his cap hit from his ELC. That's it. The same team will be back. There's no money to do anything else.

Don't confuse Larry Brooks with someone that wants to see the Rangers win. The only thing he hates more than the Rangers is that he must cover them because they own the city. Brooks' lips went directly from Al Arbor's a** to Lou Lamoriello's.

Mr Atoz* is offline  
Old
06-16-2013, 08:03 AM
  #31
dethomas07
Registered User
 
dethomas07's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: New York, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 1,209
vCash: 500
**** that!!! bye brad... need help packing?

dethomas07 is offline  
Old
06-16-2013, 09:16 AM
  #32
Green Blob*
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 3,257
vCash: 500
He will redeem himself. Probably put up 70 points which is better then anyone we will get on the market.

If he stinks again we sit him and buy him out next season, no big deal.


For someone who "stunk" so bad this year, 34 points in 46 games, good for 3rd on the team isnt bad...just saying (yes i know he was brutal though in the playoffs).

He was put in the doghouse by Torts which is why he was going to be bought out, now thats Torts is gone hes very likely to stay.

Green Blob* is offline  
Old
06-16-2013, 09:21 AM
  #33
Green Blob*
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 3,257
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerBoy View Post
Richards signed with the Rangers because Torts was the Rangers coach. He went against the advice of his agents and took less money(Calgary) to play for Torts. The Rangers gave a 31 year old Richards a nine year deal because Torts pushed for it. I love how now Richards and Torts don't like each other now. Sather said the Richards benching in the playoffs was an "organizational decision". Management was involved too. Torts is proclaiming his love for Richards after game 4. How much he loves Richards a player and a person. Torts said he thought Richards would bounce back next season. Of course,Torts does. He went out on the limb and pushed ownership to give Richards 9 years and $60M.

Brooks reflects the mood of some people here



http://www.nypost.com/p/sports/range...ontent=Rangers

Change in coaches? Cost effective talent in never available in free agency. Richards already cleaned out his locker along with the other players last month. Then Larry discusses $5M for McDonagh. Last month,Brooks wrote about Stepan being worthy of a long term deal just like McDonagh. $5M for him too? The cap is set at $64.3M. The Rangers need more depth throughout their line-up. Where is that money coming from? Pay McDonagh $5M as Brooks suggests. Stepan gets his money. Hagelin gets less than those 2 but he still triples his cap hit from his ELC. That's it. The same team will be back. There's no money to do anything else.
There is more then enough money to keep richards and resign all those players. Clowe is not coming back. Buyout Richards next season. The team was fine last season, do you want to reconstruct the team every 6 months? The market is horrible this year anyway.

Green Blob* is offline  
Old
06-16-2013, 09:32 AM
  #34
Ola
Registered User
 
Ola's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Sweden
Country: Sweden
Posts: 17,531
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Atoz View Post
Don't confuse Larry Brooks with someone that wants to see the Rangers win. The only thing he hates more than the Rangers is that he must cover them because they own the city. Brooks' lips went directly from Al Arbor's a** to Lou Lamoriello's.
Brooks worked for NJD, but the last months I've for the first time even see him directly refer to his time as Ranger fan. IE, having seen ranger games as a kid etc.

Ola is offline  
Old
06-16-2013, 09:39 AM
  #35
Vitto79
Registered User
 
Vitto79's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Sarnia
Country: Canada
Posts: 16,433
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by eco's bones View Post
It's not that Richards can't redeem himself as a player--I have my doubts though--it's that his contract can put our team in a hole for a long time. The Rangers shouldn't even be fooling around with this situation. It is the single most important they have left to deal with this summer and at least for me it's ranks equally with the head coaching decisions.
yea if they give him another yr and he gets concussed and they cant buy him out next summer they are screwed. Pretty much have to do it

Vitto79 is online now  
Old
06-16-2013, 09:45 AM
  #36
Tawnos
A guy with a bass
 
Tawnos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Charlotte, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 11,497
vCash: 500
I don't think they have anything to do with each other. Richards gets bought out because he's an injury away from not being able to be bought out at all and he's a cap recapture risk. The decision to buy him out isn't a hockey one.

Tawnos is online now  
Old
06-16-2013, 09:50 AM
  #37
Rangers Fail
4 8 15 16 23 42
 
Rangers Fail's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: NY
Country: United States
Posts: 17,487
vCash: 500
I counted 5 giveaways per period for him sometimes. He can't control the puck, can't out produce Brian Boyle in the playoffs when it matters most, and most certainly doesn't make the players around him better. Buy him out please.

Rangers Fail is offline  
Old
06-16-2013, 10:31 AM
  #38
GAGLine
Registered User
 
GAGLine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 9,155
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tawnos View Post
I don't think they have anything to do with each other. Richards gets bought out because he's an injury away from not being able to be bought out at all and he's a cap recapture risk. The decision to buy him out isn't a hockey one.
Exactly. I think Richards can rebound and have a good year. But I'm not willing to risk him getting injured and screwing us on the cap. I doubt the Rangers are either, but we'll see.

GAGLine is offline  
Old
06-16-2013, 10:52 AM
  #39
RangerBoy
#freejtmiller
 
RangerBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 31,847
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Green Blob View Post
There is more then enough money to keep richards and resign all those players. Clowe is not coming back. Buyout Richards next season. The team was fine last season, do you want to reconstruct the team every 6 months? The market is horrible this year anyway.
The team wasn't fine last season. Keeping Richards makes no sense for next season and future years. He can't keep up with the play anymore. Where he is going to play? On the 3rd line? Keeping Richards ties the Rangers hands. The Rangers need to dump all of the 4th liners except for Dorsett pretending to be 3rd liners. They need another goal scoring winger. They more depth on D. Maybe you like seeing Eminger play. More depth throughout the lineup. No Newbury and Haley. Real depth. You look at the 4 final teams. The Rangers don't measure up based on the 2013 team.

RangerBoy is offline  
Old
06-16-2013, 11:26 AM
  #40
eco's bones
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Elmira NY
Country: United States
Posts: 12,435
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerBoy View Post
The team wasn't fine last season. Keeping Richards makes no sense for next season and future years. He can't keep up with the play anymore. Where he is going to play? On the 3rd line? Keeping Richards ties the Rangers hands. The Rangers need to dump all of the 4th liners except for Dorsett pretending to be 3rd liners. They need another goal scoring winger. They more depth on D. Maybe you like seeing Eminger play. More depth throughout the lineup. No Newbury and Haley. Real depth. You look at the 4 final teams. The Rangers don't measure up based on the 2013 team.
Depth is a key issue. It hurt us all year long. Losing Dubinsky, Anisimov, Prust, Fedetenko were major factors why the team took a big step backwards. I understand that players of Nash's ilk are very rare. Even so Dubi, Artem, Prust and Feds were all capable of offense--even if some of them were frustrating. They all killed penalties. We lost toughness and grit. Replacing those 4 with Pyatt, Halpern, Powe and Asham just about dropped us in 1 year from best team in the east to almost not a playoff team. From 4 guys who were providing offense we went to 0 of their replacements providing offense. From 4 guys who were regular penalty killers we went to two and then we traded Halpern. We took a step back with toughness and grit as well. Add to that Richards crappy season and it's almost over achievement making it to the second round.

eco's bones is offline  
Old
06-16-2013, 11:27 AM
  #41
JohnC
#FreeSteve
 
JohnC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 4,539
vCash: 500
The Rangers lost the Boston series because Richards was benched. How can they possibly expect to win any games next season with him not on the team?

JohnC is offline  
Old
06-16-2013, 11:46 AM
  #42
Rangers Fail
4 8 15 16 23 42
 
Rangers Fail's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: NY
Country: United States
Posts: 17,487
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnC View Post
The Rangers lost the Boston series because Richards was benched. How can they possibly expect to win any games next season with him not on the team?
No, they lost because the defense **** the bed and they couldn't score. Richards wasn't scoring anyway.

He was also in the press box in game 4 and they won that. Please stop pretending that Richards is good anymore. He's done.

Rangers Fail is offline  
Old
06-16-2013, 11:47 AM
  #43
JohnC
#FreeSteve
 
JohnC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 4,539
vCash: 500
Huh. Didn't think the sarcasm smiley was necessary for that one

JohnC is offline  
Old
06-16-2013, 11:51 AM
  #44
Rangers Fail
4 8 15 16 23 42
 
Rangers Fail's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: NY
Country: United States
Posts: 17,487
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnC View Post
Huh. Didn't think the sarcasm smiley was necessary for that one
Doooohhh....

Well in that case, carry on as you were.

Rangers Fail is offline  
Old
06-16-2013, 12:05 PM
  #45
mschmidt64
Registered User
 
mschmidt64's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 828
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Green Blob View Post
He will redeem himself. Probably put up 70 points which is better then anyone we will get on the market.

If he stinks again we sit him and buy him out next season, no big deal.


For someone who "stunk" so bad this year, 34 points in 46 games, good for 3rd on the team isnt bad...just saying (yes i know he was brutal though in the playoffs).

He was put in the doghouse by Torts which is why he was going to be bought out, now thats Torts is gone hes very likely to stay.
You are missing the point. 34 points in 48 games is not bad, and if you could get him back for another season cheaply, yeah, why not? Even though he runs the risk of not having a role and ending up benched again when Brassard takes his spot, you could at least give him a chance and role the dice to see if he can regain ppg form.

But that's not what's at stake.

The problem is he's a guy on the decline. There is NO WAY he makes it through the next 7 years at a high level. Chances are he doesn't make it through half those years even as a 50 point player.

This team cannot afford to get stuck with Richards for the length of his contract at that salary. It will be crippling.

It is not worth risking an injury, which would mean we can't buy him out, which would mean we are stuck with him.

mschmidt64 is offline  
Old
06-16-2013, 12:26 PM
  #46
Silence Of The Plams
All these feels
 
Silence Of The Plams's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Lancaster, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 17,351
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnC View Post
The Rangers lost the Boston series because Richards was benched. How can they possibly expect to win any games next season with him not on the team?
LOLOLOLOL no. Richards was a black hole. We lose cause our transition game sucked and our depth was horrid.

Silence Of The Plams is online now  
Old
06-16-2013, 12:42 PM
  #47
Son of Steinbrenner
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Country: Tromelin
Posts: 9,481
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Green Blob View Post
He will redeem himself. Probably put up 70 points which is better then anyone we will get on the market.

If he stinks again we sit him and buy him out next season, no big deal.


For someone who "stunk" so bad this year, 34 points in 46 games, good for 3rd on the team isnt bad...just saying (yes i know he was brutal though in the playoffs).

He was put in the doghouse by Torts which is why he was going to be bought out, now thats Torts is gone hes very likely to stay.

Maybe in NHL 2013 it isn't a big deal. This is reality where a guy making $7M bucks a year getting scratched on a nightly basis is a big deal. It would be an unneeded distraction and not something you me or any Rangers fan wants to see. The questions of "why wasn't Richards bought out?" would linger throughout the year. Richards was brutal the whole year. Take away the last two weeks of the season and what were Richards totals? He wasn't put in the doghouse by Torts. Richards put himself in the doghouse. Sather also said it was an organizational decision. Lets not pretend Torts was the sole reason Ricahrds got scratched. For all we know Torts was the sole reason Richards wasn't scratched earlier.

The Rangers should buy Richards out and move on. You can use the money for depth. You can also not use the money and keep it until the trade deadline.

What's more likely to happen, Richards plays great or Richards has another terrible year?

Son of Steinbrenner is offline  
Old
06-16-2013, 12:45 PM
  #48
kingnashty61*
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 126
vCash: 500
honestly i say we keep him.... he only had 1 bad year with us and oh look at that its the year of the LOCKOUT... he obviously didn't train enough to get back into form.. give him a chance or amnesty him and watch him go sign somewhere for 3m and have a 80 point season

kingnashty61* is offline  
Old
06-16-2013, 12:47 PM
  #49
Rangers Fail
4 8 15 16 23 42
 
Rangers Fail's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: NY
Country: United States
Posts: 17,487
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kingnashty61 View Post
honestly i say we keep him.... he only had 1 bad year with us and oh look at that its the year of the LOCKOUT... he obviously didn't train enough to get back into form.. give him a chance or amnesty him and watch him go sign somewhere for 3m and have a 80 point season
Yeah maybe he can go back to Dallas and have Benn or Eriksson do all the work for him again.

Rangers Fail is offline  
Old
06-16-2013, 12:47 PM
  #50
JohnC
#FreeSteve
 
JohnC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 4,539
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guess What View Post
LOLOLOLOL no. Richards was a black hole. We lose cause our transition game sucked and our depth was horrid.
http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh...5&postcount=43

no respeck

JohnC 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 10:20 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.