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

Contract issues loom as Blueshirts struggle with changes

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-15-2013, 12:28 PM
  #26
eco's bones
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Elmira NY
Country: United States
Posts: 15,473
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tawnos View Post
Well, most organizations go through that sort of cycle. Sometimes, on the upswing, the best a team manages is the 2nd or 3rd rounds of the playoffs a few times. The truth is, though, that GMs typically don't survive very far into the downswing of it. I would say that there is a pretty good possibility we could see something similar happen in Washington at some point and GMGM will get the axe. We're not going to see that here, unless Dolan changes his mind.
There are positive things our organization can do. We don't have any incoming graduates to the pros from our amateur prospects--so the Rangers should go hard after the best CHL and college free agent prospects. Trevor Van Riemsdyk--might be one (his brother James was a Rangers fan). He's big like his brother and is a right shooting d-man and one of the better college guys up for grabs. Greg Carey of St. Lawrence might be another. Maybe the most dangerous shooter in Division 1 hockey. Rangers should also be on the lookout for a real quality goaltender.

eco's bones is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-15-2013, 01:34 PM
  #27
KingWantsCup
#FightLikeHell
 
KingWantsCup's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 6,113
vCash: 350
I've been lobbying for trading Callahan and Girardi for a while now. I would have preferred we traded Lundqvist too rather than giving him that wretched contract as well, but oh well. You have to play money ball (puck?) in the cap era. Cold, calculated, logical business decisions need to reign supreme when building a team.

Even if Callahan was having an all-star caliber year, I STILL wouldn't want him resigned because the cost would be too great given what his demands would be with impending UFA status coming up and his history of injury compounded with the fact that his prime is ending or over already.

Emotion has NO PLACE in the business world and that applies to contract negotiations of captains especially. Callahan has been a good captain. Great. He's damaged goods going forward so we need to dump him for picks/prospects. Girardi will finally get overpaid, let him be the Leafs' mistake. Trade him at the deadline to a real contender and we could get a fortune for him.

KingWantsCup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-15-2013, 01:35 PM
  #28
Fitzy
All Is Well
 
Fitzy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 20,193
vCash: 500
I have not seen a NYR scout at a SLU home game this season.

Buffalo, Dallas, and Toronto have been prevalent.

Obviously I'll have a write-up on ECAC free agents at the end of this year. TVR you have to be careful with. He needs AHL seasoning. He hasn't the level of physicality in his game needed to make a smooth NHL transition at present.

Fitzy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-15-2013, 01:42 PM
  #29
beastly115
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 11,021
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by silverfish View Post
This could all be said much easier.

The Rangers built their team for Tortorella.

Sather fired Tortorella.

Sather hired Tortorella's polar opposite.


Sather does nothing but sign dead-weight free-agents.

AV doesn't prepare correctly. Interesting enough, the PP has looked better this season since Arniel actually took the time to watch every minute of Rangers PP last season Homework, it helps.

Rangers suck.

SHOCKING.

Hindsight is 20-20, but I'm sure Sather would go back and untrade Gaborik if he could know full-well that Torts would be gone, and AV would be here.

Just need to re-tool some pieces. Not that far away.
This is basically it in a nutshell. Sather spent YEARS building a team from within only to ruin it all within the course of one season.

We're starting from scratch, folks. I for one will not be along for the ride until Sather is gone.

Edit:
And as for that last part, I also agree. Gaborik was traded because he clashed with Torts. Torts was fired a few months later. Probably one of Sather's biggest blunders I've ever seen of him as a GM and what caused me to stop watching. Awful move.


Last edited by beastly115: 12-15-2013 at 01:47 PM.
beastly115 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-15-2013, 02:06 PM
  #30
Bleed Ranger Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 17,807
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by beastly115 View Post
This is basically it in a nutshell. Sather spent YEARS building a team from within only to ruin it all within the course of one season.

We're starting from scratch, folks. I for one will not be along for the ride until Sather is gone.

Edit:
And as for that last part, I also agree. Gaborik was traded because he clashed with Torts. Torts was fired a few months later. Probably one of Sather's biggest blunders I've ever seen of him as a GM and what caused me to stop watching. Awful move.
Thats not the only reason Gaborik was traded. He was traded for cap reasons as well. In a vacuum, it was a good move to get rid of a declining player.

Brooks article is spot on. Lets not forget that the players asked for this disaster. The "player's coach." An astute GM would have spent his time jettisoning the players that weren't willing to go the extra mile for the team. You could see it coming from a mile away that this team isn't skilled enough to police themselves and open up the game.

Bleed Ranger Blue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-15-2013, 03:31 PM
  #31
HatTrick Swayze
Tomato Potato
 
HatTrick Swayze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 10,908
vCash: 500
Gaborik was traded because of the salary cap. Period. Writing was on the wall as soon as Nash was dealt for. The amount of revisionist history on here is amazing.

__________________
"Here we can see the agression of american people. They love fighting and guns. when they wont win they try to kill us all." -HalfOfFame
HatTrick Swayze is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-15-2013, 04:25 PM
  #32
KingStian
Registered User
 
KingStian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Country: Norway
Posts: 937
vCash: 500
Don't forget; Gaborik was also playing some of his worst hockey ever at the time he was traded away, and Brassard alone had more points (11 in 13) than Gabby (8 in 12) in the regular season after the trade. Brass was also our most effective player in the playoffs with 12 points in 12 games. Of course, he has not been the same player this season with 14 in 32. Gabby has 11 in 17 this season.

I don't think the Gaborik trade was a bad one. He will never be the player he once was, and he most likely could have ended up with a too expencive contract he wouldn't have lived up to a short time into.

KingStian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-15-2013, 04:46 PM
  #33
silverfish
Bow ties are cool
 
silverfish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Alphabet Soup
Country: United States
Posts: 22,375
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HatTrick Swayze View Post
Gaborik was traded because of the salary cap. Period. Writing was on the wall as soon as Nash was dealt for. The amount of revisionist history on here is amazing.
As is your hyperbole.

Gaborik was most certainly not traded solely because of the salary cap. Period.

Was it a factor? You bet. Was it the only period reason period. No way.

silverfish is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-15-2013, 05:40 PM
  #34
ltsthinaz
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Kingman, Arizona
Country: United States
Posts: 737
vCash: 500
Don't get the love for Gaborik here. I think it was an excellent trade. Gaborik is a shell of what he used to be, he doesn't have the speed he once had that made him such a threat. I know people are down on Brassard, but while he is a bit up-and-down, he is a skilled player who showed what he could do when put in a position to do so. I for one am not ready to give up on him at all. Playing on the third line with Brian Boyle and the human pylon (Pyatt) hardly is a plus. Last game, when he was out, we didn't have a prayer against anyone with the lineup we put out there.

If you want to talk about someone who is lost out there, talk about Rick Nash. How about getting some return for him? And get rid of his contract, which in the out years will be an albatross.

As to trading Callahan and Girardi for a great return, I'd do it for the right price. I do like Girardi, however, as the Bruins and Ovechkin how they like playing against McD and him. Callahan is to me easily replaceable and a lot healthier and cheaper.

ltsthinaz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-16-2013, 08:11 AM
  #35
True Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 16,907
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleed Ranger Blue View Post
Brooks article is spot on. Lets not forget that the players asked for this disaster. The "player's coach." An astute GM would have spent his time jettisoning the players that weren't willing to go the extra mile for the team. You could see it coming from a mile away that this team isn't skilled enough to police themselves and open up the game.
The Ranger fat cats have not fared well under the "player coaches". These are proving to be no different as they are slaves to history.

True Blue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-16-2013, 09:18 AM
  #36
RangerBoy
#JTwokeup
 
RangerBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 34,510
vCash: 500
It would have been hard to keep Gaborik with the cap going down and field a team. Keep the free agents. That's old news.

RangerBoy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-16-2013, 01:08 PM
  #37
BrianLeetch2
Registered User
 
BrianLeetch2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Toms River NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 752
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to BrianLeetch2 Send a message via MSN to BrianLeetch2
Im sorry i love the guy but if the Captain wants 7 years, see ya bye. I think we should keep Girardi. Like someone said earlier it is much harder to replace him.

I just cant fathom signing a guy who gets hurt every single year for big chunks at a time. Sometimes twice or 3 times a season. No way, Sorry Cally but we cant do it.

BrianLeetch2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-16-2013, 01:29 PM
  #38
TheTakedown
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Country: United States
Posts: 7,800
vCash: 500
Girardi should stay. He is an allstar defenseman, period. Knows his ****, plays a solid game, and TONS of minutes. Definitely has lost some speed in his legs, so ensuring he is paired with the proper partner is vital for him. Beyond that, like others have said, he is difficult to replace.

Callahan on the other hand... I'm sorry, but if Cally thinks he should get $7M AAV, which happens to be the same as Gaborik's caphit, at HALF of Gabs production....
Seriously, then take a ****ing hike! We don't need another David Clarkson...

Or better yet, he should be sent off for assets back

FWIW, Clarkson will be missing a few more games with a suspension. Not similar to Callahan, but talk about missing games back and forth. It hurts the team, not the player.

As for Gabs, I understand some are saying he is a shell of himself, but honestly if he wanted 1-3 years @ 5M per, I'd take him back

TheTakedown is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-16-2013, 06:46 PM
  #39
Radek27
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 5,755
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Radek27
Quote:
Originally Posted by HatTrick Swayze View Post
Gaborik was traded because of the salary cap. Period. Writing was on the wall as soon as Nash was dealt for. The amount of revisionist history on here is amazing.
So you believe if Gabby was on his 40 goal pace last season he would have been traded? I really don't think so, he struggled and it gave Torts a chance to get rid of him.

Radek27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-16-2013, 07:21 PM
  #40
HatTrick Swayze
Tomato Potato
 
HatTrick Swayze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 10,908
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Radek27 View Post
So you believe if Gabby was on his 40 goal pace last season he would have been traded? I really don't think so, he struggled and it gave Torts a chance to get rid of him.
I was obnoxious in my last comment and I regret that. But yes I do believe that. Unless they were flipping Nash, Hank, or Staal idk how the math would have worked. If they bought out Richards to keep Gaborik their centers would have been Stepan (contract TBD) and Boyle. Miller, Lindberg, Moore (if they could fit him) plus maybe a bottom barrell UFA. No Brassard obviously. Not sure how realistic that was.

If he was on a 40 goal pace they likely would have held him and dished him at the draft for a lesser package. But I don't see how Gabby would have stated a Ranger this year.

HatTrick Swayze is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-17-2013, 06:08 AM
  #41
RangerBoy
#JTwokeup
 
RangerBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 34,510
vCash: 500
Andrew Gross

Quote:
Next season, there's no guarantee either Callahan or Girardi, both unrestricted free agents, will be back. The Rangers must consider the wear and tear on their well-used bodies before offering another long-term deal. It's quite likely another team will value Callahan more.

And it's doubtful Callahan will be offering any hometown discounts, not after the Rangers made Brandon Dubinsky a priority over him during his last contract negotiations.

Change may be inevitable.
http://www.northjersey.com/sports/23...so_bright.html

The Rangers didn't make Dubinsky a priority over Callahan in 2011.

Trade them.

RangerBoy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-17-2013, 10:38 AM
  #42
TheTakedown
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Country: United States
Posts: 7,800
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerBoy View Post
Andrew Gross



http://www.northjersey.com/sports/23...so_bright.html

The Rangers didn't make Dubinsky a priority over Callahan in 2011.

Trade them.
Gross is spot on too. Met his daughter actually (she's very young). Very good family.

I don't see Callahan here next year, sadly.

The only thing that would ruin this is Rick Nash became Captain. I think I'd want to assassinate him.

It does mean that Richards will probably end up with the C (almost positive he won't be bought out)

TheTakedown is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-17-2013, 10:40 AM
  #43
vipernsx
Flatus Expeller
 
vipernsx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Country: United States
Posts: 6,540
vCash: 500
Look at the return teams got for Gaustad, Erat, Ryan, Clowe, Kaberle, Kubina, Regehr, etc. These were valuable players to teams but were moved at the right time where maximum value was produced. This isn't about personal feelings towards a player, it's about winning and having a vision on how to get there.

Unfortunately Slats will be Slats and rather than moving the club forward by shedding expiring value for quality assets in return. Instead he'll be trading away picks and prospects for over the hill has-beens to encourage the Rangers to limp to the playoffs so they can be promptly discharged.

vipernsx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-17-2013, 10:58 AM
  #44
chosen
Registered User
 
chosen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 6,296
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by silverfish View Post
This could all be said much easier.

The Rangers built their team for Tortorella.

Sather fired Tortorella.

Sather hired Tortorella's polar opposite.

Sather does nothing but sign dead-weight free-agents.

AV doesn't prepare correctly. Interesting enough, the PP has looked better this season since Arniel actually took the time to watch every minute of Rangers PP last season Homework, it helps.

Rangers suck.

SHOCKING.

Hindsight is 20-20, but I'm sure Sather would go back and untrade Gaborik if he could know full-well that Torts would be gone, and AV would be here.

Just need to re-tool some pieces. Not that far away.
Would the oft-injured Gaborik be playing better in the stands with AV than Torts?

I am tired of this nonsense that spews from so many that AV requires different players than Torts and that this is somehow an excuse for the current failures.

All coaches need good players to win. It is that simple.

Somehow Torts won a Cup when he had a talented roster. Did he hold back St. Louis or Lecavalier or Richards?

This is not a defense of Torts. It is simply that almost any NHL coach given good personnel can win. The mark of a good coach is adapting to his roster and playing to its strength.

I am so sick of hearing that the roster does not fit AV. It fits no one. It is not good enough.

chosen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-17-2013, 11:12 AM
  #45
Blueshirt Believer
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 6,979
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by chosen View Post
Would the oft-injured Gaborik be playing better in the stands with AV than Torts?

I am tired of this nonsense that spews from so many that AV requires different players than Torts and that this is somehow an excuse for the current failures.

All coaches need good players to win. It is that simple.

Somehow Torts won a Cup when he had a talented roster. Did he hold back St. Louis or Lecavalier or Richards?

This is not a defense of Torts. It is simply that almost any NHL coach given good personnel can win. The mark of a good coach is adapting to his roster and playing to its strength.

I am so sick of hearing that the roster does not fit AV. It fits no one. It is not good enough.
Well, I would argue the roster simply isn't good enough period. Its poorly constructed no matter what system the Rangers wish to implement.

Its too small and beat up to go back to a defensive grind/grit hockey system that Torts implemented. Its doesn't have enough skill to be an uptempo puck possession game that AV wants.

So we are kinda in roster limbo until some serious trades are made and a directional path is taken. Do I think the Rangers could be playing better? Sure. Do I think they would be playing well enough to contend(even if that means just being a decent playoff team) in any meaningful way? No.

Blueshirt Believer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-17-2013, 03:46 PM
  #46
chosen
Registered User
 
chosen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 6,296
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blueshirt Believer View Post
Well, I would argue the roster simply isn't good enough period. Its poorly constructed no matter what system the Rangers wish to implement.

Its too small and beat up to go back to a defensive grind/grit hockey system that Torts implemented. Its doesn't have enough skill to be an uptempo puck possession game that AV wants.

So we are kinda in roster limbo until some serious trades are made and a directional path is taken. Do I think the Rangers could be playing better? Sure. Do I think they would be playing well enough to contend(even if that means just being a decent playoff team) in any meaningful way? No.
You agreed with me. The roster is not good enough. I am just tired of people whining that a coach must fit a roster. If that were true, no coach with personnel input should ever be fired.

chosen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-17-2013, 04:07 PM
  #47
Oak
Hockey Connoisseur
 
Oak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 2,789
vCash: 397
So I guess the majority of us agree on what the problems are, and what needs to be changed. The question is what will Sather do?

If he does something stupid like sign Cally to a long term deal I swear I am going to stop watching the rangers until Sather is gone. There is only so much stupid I can stand.

Oak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-17-2013, 04:11 PM
  #48
NYROrtsFan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 2,010
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by chosen View Post
You agreed with me. The roster is not good enough. I am just tired of people whining that a coach must fit a roster. If that were true, no coach with personnel input should ever be fired.
Agree completely.

It just goes back to the idiots who still want to blame coaching for this team sucking.

The players aren't good enough. Period. These efforts to absolve them of blame is frustrating.

Torts is a pretty good coach and so is AV.

NYROrtsFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-17-2013, 06:03 PM
  #49
CharlestownChiefsESC
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Laurence Harbor NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 161
vCash: 500
The problem with Gaborik was this. Torts put a European player who has played on the right side his entire career on the left side with only a weeks training camp. Than when he didn't perform he demoted him to the fourth line and gave him fourth line minutes and again called him out because he didnt produce. All while doing this he coddled Richards who had a horrible year and basically let Nash do what ever he wanted. If you remember the so win against Boston Nash took a dumb penalty which let the Bruins back into the game. Torts still put Nash out there after that. If that was Gaborik who took the penalty I guarantee he doesn't see the ice the rest of the game. Fact is I think Torts wanted Gaborik gone from the onset by making him do things that he could have asked other players to do. I guarantee you Nash or Callahan could have played the left side last year with no problem, and I also think we could have gotten Dorsett and Moore without dumping Gaborik. Fact is I think everyone is overreacting about Callahan like they did Lundqvist. I think he'll be back but I see Girardi elsewhere.

CharlestownChiefsESC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-17-2013, 06:16 PM
  #50
chosen
Registered User
 
chosen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 6,296
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CharlestownChiefsESC View Post
The problem with Gaborik was this. Torts put a European player who has played on the right side his entire career on the left side with only a weeks training camp. Than when he didn't perform he demoted him to the fourth line and gave him fourth line minutes and again called him out because he didnt produce. All while doing this he coddled Richards who had a horrible year and basically let Nash do what ever he wanted. If you remember the so win against Boston Nash took a dumb penalty which let the Bruins back into the game. Torts still put Nash out there after that. If that was Gaborik who took the penalty I guarantee he doesn't see the ice the rest of the game. Fact is I think Torts wanted Gaborik gone from the onset by making him do things that he could have asked other players to do. I guarantee you Nash or Callahan could have played the left side last year with no problem, and I also think we could have gotten Dorsett and Moore without dumping Gaborik. Fact is I think everyone is overreacting about Callahan like they did Lundqvist. I think he'll be back but I see Girardi elsewhere.
What is Gaborik's problem this year?

chosen 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 03:13 PM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2016 All Rights Reserved.