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

Sather must decide: Is dealing Girardi best for Rangers?

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
01-15-2014, 10:40 PM
  #876
Gardner McKay
Global Moderator
Last Mango In Paris
 
Gardner McKay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Porch of Indecision.
Country: United States
Posts: 14,056
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cake or Death View Post
Yeah, $6M per is the number a few writers have tossed around.
Id give Girardi 5 - 5.5M x 5 years. I don't think is play will decline in the first 2-3 years. The remainder of the contract will be a smaller % of the cap if he starts to decline.

Callahan on the other hand...

__________________
--For what is a man, what has he got?
If not himself, then he has naught
To say the things he truly feels and not the words of one who kneels
The record shows I took the blows and did it my way
--
Gardner McKay is offline  
Old
01-16-2014, 04:59 AM
  #877
RangerBoy
HOPE & CHANGE
 
RangerBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 35,268
vCash: 500
Where are the Rangers getting the players needed to win? Their system is barren. They have some nice players but none of them are top 6 forwards(except for Miller who can be a second line center on a winning team) or a top 3 D(a D who can add offense is a #1-#3). Buchnevich seems to be the new glamour boy of the organization. This team has a major problem. The Rangers have 74 goals in 48 games at even strength.

RangerBoy is offline  
Old
01-16-2014, 06:42 AM
  #878
Paulie Walnutz
Corsi? Fuhgedaboudit
 
Paulie Walnutz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Bloomfield, NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 6,114
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Paulie Walnutz
Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerBoy View Post
Where are the Rangers getting the players needed to win? Their system is barren. They have some nice players but none of them are top 6 forwards(except for Miller who can be a second line center on a winning team) or a top 3 D(a D who can add offense is a #1-#3). Buchnevich seems to be the new glamour boy of the organization. This team has a major problem. The Rangers have 74 goals in 48 games at even strength.
Don't even bother RB I said the same thing and got chewed out for it.

Paulie Walnutz is offline  
Old
01-16-2014, 06:48 AM
  #879
Bleed Ranger Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 17,948
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clowe Knows Best View Post
Don't even bother RB I said the same thing and got chewed out for it.
Complainers! We should be happy there are 20 guys willing to try to play hockey for us every night

Bleed Ranger Blue is offline  
Old
01-16-2014, 06:51 AM
  #880
TheRightWay
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 1,633
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleed Ranger Blue View Post
Complainers! We should be happy there are 20 guys willing to try to play hockey for us every night
More like 19 because Rick Nash doesn't care though remember?

TheRightWay is offline  
Old
01-16-2014, 06:52 AM
  #881
haohmaru
boomshakalaka
 
haohmaru's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Fleming Island, Fl
Country: United States
Posts: 7,525
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerBoy View Post
Where are the Rangers getting the players needed to win? Their system is barren. They have some nice players but none of them are top 6 forwards(except for Miller who can be a second line center on a winning team) or a top 3 D(a D who can add offense is a #1-#3). Buchnevich seems to be the new glamour boy of the organization. This team has a major problem. The Rangers have 74 goals in 48 games at even strength.
I don't disagree with this but trading Girardi for a pick doesn't help this.

A.) It creates a hole at 1st pairing right D which is a LOT harder to fill than a top 6 forward.
B.) It gives us, more than likely, a 1st round draft pick which guarantees absolutely nothing. Unless we're getting a top 5 pick, which isn't happening, it's a shot in the dark.

haohmaru is offline  
Old
01-16-2014, 07:21 AM
  #882
eco's bones
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Elmira NY
Country: United States
Posts: 15,756
vCash: 500
HF got blasted by a lot of Rangers posters here for the Rangers being so low on the prospect rankings. No goalies in the system. No real power forwards except for maybe Miller who has good size and a bit of orneriness but not great size. No pwp qb defenseman on the way. Best prospect outside the pros may be Brady Skjei who is a stay at home left side D--one of our strongest areas. Kristo is a smallish skilled player--maybe a 2nd liner some day--may be a bust because he sure doesn't fit the profile of well rounded grinder. Lindberg and Fast are more rounded players but have not set the world on fire in the AHL either. Allen looks like he's about ready and McIlrath less so. Hrivik and Yogan have just disappeared this year. Rounding out the amateur end--Buchnevich has had a good year but is signed to his KHL team next year and it may be a while if he comes over at all. Duclair--lots of speed, lots of skill, not a lot of size--plays in the Q--IMO the most suspect of the CHL leagues and Nieves who's done very little this year.

The cupboard is kind of bare. We need more draft picks for sure but IMO we need more legit young prospects at the AHL level even worse. Our Hartford team is just about dead last in the AHL standings. Not a good environment for your best prospects to be playing in.

eco's bones is offline  
Old
01-16-2014, 07:30 AM
  #883
eco's bones
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Elmira NY
Country: United States
Posts: 15,756
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by haohmaru View Post
I don't disagree with this but trading Girardi for a pick doesn't help this.

A.) It creates a hole at 1st pairing right D which is a LOT harder to fill than a top 6 forward.
B.) It gives us, more than likely, a 1st round draft pick which guarantees absolutely nothing. Unless we're getting a top 5 pick, which isn't happening, it's a shot in the dark.
Which is true as well. Girardi would more likely be traded to a legit contending team--any 1st rounder he brought back would be at the back end of the round with a decent chance of busting. IMO if you trade him you still have the right side hole which GM GS will probably look to fill when free agent season opens in July and is likely to be as costly in terms of money and term to replace Girardi with someone probably not as good. So the asset you get back had better be really good.

IMO if we dealt Girardi the Rangers would need at least one of the acquiring team's 3 best prospects back + something else. And if the Rangers dealt Girardi--no team including the Penguins should be off the table. Same deal with Callahan.

Personally I think this is going to be strung out until March. Where the Rangers sit in the standings at that point is going to determine whether the Rangers move the upcoming UFA's or not.

eco's bones is offline  
Old
01-16-2014, 08:09 AM
  #884
GAGLine
HFBoards Sponsor
 
GAGLine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 11,002
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by haohmaru View Post
I don't disagree with this but trading Girardi for a pick doesn't help this.

A.) It creates a hole at 1st pairing right D which is a LOT harder to fill than a top 6 forward.
B.) It gives us, more than likely, a 1st round draft pick which guarantees absolutely nothing. Unless we're getting a top 5 pick, which isn't happening, it's a shot in the dark.
That's why you don't trade him for just picks. The target should be young roster players who have yet to break out and/or prospects who are ready to break into the NHL.

Stop gaps can be signed to fill holes until younger players are ready to fill those spots, but we need to add more young talent.

GAGLine is offline  
Old
01-16-2014, 08:20 AM
  #885
True Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 17,103
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SingnBluesOnBroadway View Post
Careful, you're coming awfully close to having a long-term vision.
Funny that

True Blue is offline  
Old
01-16-2014, 08:27 AM
  #886
CharlieCharleschuk
Registered User
 
CharlieCharleschuk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 214
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by haohmaru View Post
I don't disagree with this but trading Girardi for a pick doesn't help this.

A.) It creates a hole at 1st pairing right D which is a LOT harder to fill than a top 6 forward.
B.) It gives us, more than likely, a 1st round draft pick which guarantees absolutely nothing. Unless we're getting a top 5 pick, which isn't happening, it's a shot in the dark.
You get it. Thank you.

CharlieCharleschuk is offline  
Old
01-16-2014, 08:35 AM
  #887
CharlieCharleschuk
Registered User
 
CharlieCharleschuk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 214
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GAGLine View Post
That's why you don't trade him for just picks. The target should be young roster players who have yet to break out and/or prospects who are ready to break into the NHL.

Stop gaps can be signed to fill holes until younger players are ready to fill those spots, but we need to add more young talent.
Then you should probably use fungible talent like any of our 2C level centers or right wingers to accomplish that. We only have one Girardi.

CharlieCharleschuk is offline  
Old
01-16-2014, 08:51 AM
  #888
SingnBluesOnBroadway
Retired
 
SingnBluesOnBroadway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 31,432
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by CharlieCharleschuk View Post
I'm pretty sure that "having long-term vision" doesn't guarantee that any players coming back will develop into what you already have, never mind hoping that they'll be better.

And then there's the cap space issue. If you're concerned about Girardi's potential cap hit, what's going to replace it? Surely it gets spent on something else that amuses and disgusts over the next few seasons until the young prospect can get a chance to prove himself.

You know, in the 20+ years I've been watching this team, I've seen only a handful of really talented kids come up and develop in the system and stay with the team. I'm a bird-in-the-hand kind of guy after watching prospect after prospect flame out. Ryan McDonagh is not a typical outcome.
Having a long-term vision means:

- Looking at this team as it's currently constructed and asking a hard questions and answering them honestly (without puffery, no sound bites, no propaganda). Questions such as,
  • "How does this team stack up against the top teams in the league?"
  • "As currently constructed will we be able to truly compete for a Cup in the next two years?"
  • "Are we really that much better with Dan Girardi and Ryan Callahan than we would be without him?"
  • "What is the real upside of players such as Dan Girardi and Ryan Callahan?"
  • "If you choose to re-sign these two players, are you paying them for what they've done or what they will give you moving forward?"
  • "If you choose to re-sign these two players, are you really getting value from those cap hits?"
Unfortunately, to truly answer those questions you need to look beyond the season right in front of you. And this front office has shown no ability, desire or willingness to do that.

Is there a guarantee that any return for Girardi would develop into a player like Girardi? Of course not. But I'm not sure that's the goal. Instead, the goal is to add players who will be adding value to this team for the next 5+ years as they enter their prime. And you do that by stockpile picks and prospects to give yourself a better chance to find the next crop of core players or can be traded to add missing pieces at the NHL level. Build a team that can be viewed as a true contender not this nonsense, revolving door of UFAs that ultimately leads to a middle of the road team that might be able to steal a round on the play offer. BUT, IN ORDER TO DO THAT, THEY MUST..

- Put in the hard work and find talent, dammit. Find the players you try to acquire; players you target in the draft, players you think are hidden gems in other organizations players you sign as Free Agents.

- Creating a team philosophy and identity and then making moves around that ethos.

You can talk about how many prospects have flamed out. How much success have you seen in spending big money on UFAs?

__________________
SingnBluesOnBroadway is offline  
Old
01-16-2014, 09:33 AM
  #889
CharlieCharleschuk
Registered User
 
CharlieCharleschuk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 214
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SingnBluesOnBroadway View Post
Having a long-term vision means:

- Looking at this team as it's currently constructed and asking a hard questions and answering them honestly (without puffery, no sound bites, no propaganda). Questions such as,
  • "How does this team stack up against the top teams in the league?"
  • "As currently constructed will we be able to truly compete for a Cup in the next two years?"
  • "Are we really that much better with Dan Girardi and Ryan Callahan than we would be without him?"
  • "What is the real upside of players such as Dan Girardi and Ryan Callahan?"
  • "If you choose to re-sign these two players, are you paying them for what they've done or what they will give you moving forward?"
  • "If you choose to re-sign these two players, are you really getting value from those cap hits?"
Unfortunately, to truly answer those questions you need to look beyond the season right in front of you. And this front office has shown no ability, desire or willingness to do that.

Is there a guarantee that any return for Girardi would develop into a player like Girardi? Of course not. But I'm not sure that's the goal. Instead, the goal is to add players who will be adding value to this team for the next 5+ years as they enter their prime. And you do that by stockpile picks and prospects to give yourself a better chance to find the next crop of core players or can be traded to add missing pieces at the NHL level. Build a team that can be viewed as a true contender not this nonsense, revolving door of UFAs that ultimately leads to a middle of the road team that might be able to steal a round on the play offer. BUT, IN ORDER TO DO THAT, THEY MUST..

- Put in the hard work and find talent, dammit. Find the players you try to acquire; players you target in the draft, players you think are hidden gems in other organizations players you sign as Free Agents.

- Creating a team philosophy and identity and then making moves around that ethos.

You can talk about how many prospects have flamed out. How much success have you seen in spending big money on UFAs?
I don't think your evaluation of the front office (FO) is correct, to start with. Your evaluation of their performance really doesn't look past their long-term record to see what they've done recently with an eye to the future; this is something I've noted about posters in threads like this before, actually.

The signing of Henrik Lundqvist to a long-term contract is the most recent indication that this front office has a pretty long-term plan based on certain players and a certain philosophy. It meshes with the signings of Richards and McDonagh and the trade for Nash. It means they're pursuing a goal which remains unnoticed on this message board by many - it means they don't want to tank and it means they don't want to stock up on prospects and cellar-dwell.

You can easily find fault with any one of these moves. But whatever your feelings about them it shows that the FO is not of the opinion that our team is not a contender and that it should be ripped apart. It is not a FO that is looking for future talent outside of the organization, it's looking at established players.

Even the hiring of AV indicates that the FO feels that the team was just on the wrong footing, maybe embracing the wrong philosophy, rather than truly a bad team. You know what? Maybe they were right. Despite early-season growing pains, if the recent good play continues, we'll all be singing their praises in a month or two. Maybe you're just missing what's already happened right in front of you?

Knowing this, I feel it's even kind of worthless to have this discussion, because all the signs about what the FO will do are already there.

Is your (general) idea better than the FO's? Maybe. Probably not. I certainly wouldn't institute a "two-year" rule to win the Cup. It's unachievable and would result in biannual roster churn that would leave us looking like Edmonton and the Islanders.

And are we that much better with Callahan and Girardi, you ask? Depends what you substitute for them. If you swap them with Ovechkin and Webber than no. But if you swap them for two prospects who haven't played in the NHL you won't know how good they are for probably more than two years, and the answer may still be no. Oh, and Girardi and Callahan would probably still be playing at fine levels. Lastly, if we do trade Girardi to the Pens, say, then three years from now, after we've given up on another prospect because of the two-year rule, he'll probably have a SC ring on his finger or two.

Like I said, it's not about a hard and fast rule. Girardi brings more to our team as a whole with his presence than I think Callahan does. The appearance in our lineup of Miller and Zuccarello make Callahan more expendable.

Now, of course, if Girardi and Sather can't reach an agreement on terms, then he should be traded for the best available offer. But this would really hurt our team, unfortunately. Give them a chance to hash it out.

(And I've always despised UFAs. I don't like the inverse money/effort thing they do. But if you can't ice a team because you've only got prospects in your pipeline, you need to sign them...unfortunately.)

CharlieCharleschuk is offline  
Old
01-16-2014, 09:45 AM
  #890
SingnBluesOnBroadway
Retired
 
SingnBluesOnBroadway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 31,432
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by CharlieCharleschuk View Post
I don't think your evaluation of the front office (FO) is correct, to start with. Your evaluation of their performance really doesn't look past their long-term record to see what they've done recently with an eye to the future; this is something I've noted about posters in threads like this before, actually.

The signing of Henrik Lundqvist to a long-term contract is the most recent indication that this front office has a pretty long-term plan based on certain players and a certain philosophy. It meshes with the signings of Richards and McDonagh and the trade for Nash. It means they're pursuing a goal which remains unnoticed on this message board by many - it means they don't want to tank and it means they don't want to stock up on prospects and cellar-dwell.

You can easily find fault with any one of these moves. But whatever your feelings about them it shows that the FO is not of the opinion that our team is not a contender and that it should be ripped apart. It is not a FO that is looking for future talent outside of the organization, it's looking at established players.

Even the hiring of AV indicates that the FO feels that the team was just on the wrong footing, maybe embracing the wrong philosophy, rather than truly a bad team. You know what? Maybe they were right. Despite early-season growing pains, if the recent good play continues, we'll all be singing their praises in a month or two. Maybe you're just missing what's already happened right in front of you?

Knowing this, I feel it's even kind of worthless to have this discussion, because all the signs about what the FO will do are already there.

Is your (general) idea better than the FO's? Maybe. Probably not. I certainly wouldn't institute a "two-year" rule to win the Cup. It's unachievable and would result in biannual roster churn that would leave us looking like Edmonton and the Islanders.

And are we that much better with Callahan and Girardi, you ask? Depends what you substitute for them. If you swap them with Ovechkin and Webber than no. But if you swap them for two prospects who haven't played in the NHL you won't know how good they are for probably more than two years, and the answer may still be no. Oh, and Girardi and Callahan would probably still be playing at fine levels. Lastly, if we do trade Girardi to the Pens, say, then three years from now, after we've given up on another prospect because of the two-year rule, he'll probably have a SC ring on his finger or two.

Like I said, it's not about a hard and fast rule. Girardi brings more to our team as a whole with his presence than I think Callahan does. The appearance in our lineup of Miller and Zuccarello make Callahan more expendable.

Now, of course, if Girardi and Sather can't reach an agreement on terms, then he should be traded for the best available offer. But this would really hurt our team, unfortunately. Give them a chance to hash it out.

(And I've always despised UFAs. I don't like the inverse money/effort thing they do. But if you can't ice a team because you've only got prospects in your pipeline, you need to sign them...unfortunately.)
I understand the FO doesn't share my opinion. I'm saying they're wrong. I'll gladly eat crow should they win the Cup in the next two years.

SingnBluesOnBroadway is offline  
Old
01-16-2014, 09:47 AM
  #891
Ail
Now we wait.
 
Ail's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Mysidia, PA
Country: United States
Posts: 24,650
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CharlieCharleschuk View Post
I don't think your evaluation of the front office (FO) is correct, to start with. Your evaluation of their performance really doesn't look past their long-term record to see what they've done recently with an eye to the future; this is something I've noted about posters in threads like this before, actually.

The signing of Henrik Lundqvist to a long-term contract is the most recent indication that this front office has a pretty long-term plan based on certain players and a certain philosophy. It meshes with the signings of Richards and McDonagh and the trade for Nash. It means they're pursuing a goal which remains unnoticed on this message board by many - it means they don't want to tank and it means they don't want to stock up on prospects and cellar-dwell.

You can easily find fault with any one of these moves. But whatever your feelings about them it shows that the FO is not of the opinion that our team is not a contender and that it should be ripped apart. It is not a FO that is looking for future talent outside of the organization, it's looking at established players.

Even the hiring of AV indicates that the FO feels that the team was just on the wrong footing, maybe embracing the wrong philosophy, rather than truly a bad team. You know what? Maybe they were right. Despite early-season growing pains, if the recent good play continues, we'll all be singing their praises in a month or two. Maybe you're just missing what's already happened right in front of you?

Knowing this, I feel it's even kind of worthless to have this discussion, because all the signs about what the FO will do are already there.

Is your (general) idea better than the FO's? Maybe. Probably not. I certainly wouldn't institute a "two-year" rule to win the Cup. It's unachievable and would result in biannual roster churn that would leave us looking like Edmonton and the Islanders.

And are we that much better with Callahan and Girardi, you ask? Depends what you substitute for them. If you swap them with Ovechkin and Webber than no. But if you swap them for two prospects who haven't played in the NHL you won't know how good they are for probably more than two years, and the answer may still be no. Oh, and Girardi and Callahan would probably still be playing at fine levels. Lastly, if we do trade Girardi to the Pens, say, then three years from now, after we've given up on another prospect because of the two-year rule, he'll probably have a SC ring on his finger or two.

Like I said, it's not about a hard and fast rule. Girardi brings more to our team as a whole with his presence than I think Callahan does. The appearance in our lineup of Miller and Zuccarello make Callahan more expendable.

Now, of course, if Girardi and Sather can't reach an agreement on terms, then he should be traded for the best available offer. But this would really hurt our team, unfortunately. Give them a chance to hash it out.

(And I've always despised UFAs. I don't like the inverse money/effort thing they do. But if you can't ice a team because you've only got prospects in your pipeline, you need to sign them...unfortunately.)
I can't take you seriously if you believe with any sincerity that a.) Glen Sather has some kind of long-term plan of success and b.) that the team is emerging from growing pains (lol) and we'll be sing their praises soon because surely they will be Cup contenders.

I won't be singing the praises of this roster anytime soon.

You seem to have trouble accepting the idea that maybe, just maybe Sather and co. just aren't as smart as you think they might be. Also the opinion we harbor is not some wild fanatical idea that over-zealous fans concocted to bring their team to the promised land. It is a recipe for success that has been used post lock-out by winning teams.

You're right abourt one thing. Management doesn't want to go that road to win and the goal they are persuing is short-sighted as well as self-destructive. That is not on lost on many people here at all. In fact it is the elephant in the room. I'm not sure how you could mistake this goal as a long-term vision for the franchise.

Ail is offline  
Old
01-16-2014, 09:49 AM
  #892
Ail
Now we wait.
 
Ail's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Mysidia, PA
Country: United States
Posts: 24,650
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SingnBluesOnBroadway View Post
I understand the FO doesn't share my opinion. I'm saying they're wrong. I'll gladly eat crow should they win the Cup in the next two years.
I'll set the table if BRB does the dishes after.

Ail is offline  
Old
01-16-2014, 09:57 AM
  #893
CharlieCharleschuk
Registered User
 
CharlieCharleschuk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 214
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SingnBluesOnBroadway View Post
I understand the FO doesn't share my opinion. I'm saying they're wrong. I'll gladly eat crow should they win the Cup in the next two years.
I think that's entirely unrealistic and would the FO share your opinion, the hockey at MSG will be consistently much worse than we've been accustomed to.

CharlieCharleschuk is offline  
Old
01-16-2014, 10:00 AM
  #894
CharlieCharleschuk
Registered User
 
CharlieCharleschuk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 214
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ailurophile View Post
I can't take you seriously if you believe with any sincerity that a.) Glen Sather has some kind of long-term plan of success and b.) that the team is emerging from growing pains (lol) and we'll be sing their praises soon because surely they will be Cup contenders.

I won't be singing the praises of this roster anytime soon.

You seem to have trouble accepting the idea that maybe, just maybe Sather and co. just aren't as smart as you think they might be. Also the opinion we harbor is not some wild fanatical idea that over-zealous fans concocted to bring their team to the promised land. It is a recipe for success that has been used post lock-out by winning teams.

You're right abourt one thing. Management doesn't want to go that road to win and the goal they are persuing is short-sighted as well as self-destructive. That is not on lost on many people here at all. In fact it is the elephant in the room. I'm not sure how you could mistake this goal as a long-term vision for the franchise.
You just keep dreaming then. There are several players signed to long-term contracts that instruct you as to the intention of the FO.

They will continue to build this team to compete on a yearly basis. That's all.

So much for your conspiracy-theory tainted elephant.

CharlieCharleschuk is offline  
Old
01-16-2014, 10:01 AM
  #895
Ail
Now we wait.
 
Ail's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Mysidia, PA
Country: United States
Posts: 24,650
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CharlieCharleschuk View Post
I think that's entirely unrealistic and would the FO share your opinion, the hockey at MSG will be consistently much worse than we've been accustomed to.
It might be but for how long?

See, that's the difference here. Some of us are willing to take the plunge for a season or two if it means getting out of this endless loop of mediocrity. It's clear you and Sather are kindred spirits.

Ail is offline  
Old
01-16-2014, 10:02 AM
  #896
Ola
Registered User
 
Ola's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Sweden
Country: Sweden
Posts: 20,604
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SingnBluesOnBroadway View Post
I understand the FO doesn't share my opinion. I'm saying they're wrong. I'll gladly eat crow should they win the Cup in the next two years.
And if we make the deals and don't win a cup in two years?

Ola is offline  
Old
01-16-2014, 10:04 AM
  #897
Ail
Now we wait.
 
Ail's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Mysidia, PA
Country: United States
Posts: 24,650
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CharlieCharleschuk View Post
You just keep dreaming then. There are several players signed to long-term contracts that instruct you as to the intention of the FO.

They will continue to build this team to compete on a yearly basis. That's all.

So much for your conspiracy-theory tainted elephant.
I will keep dreaming since it is all I have left with this team.

Conspiracy theory? You just said yourself they will continue to build this team on a year to year basis.

Ail is offline  
Old
01-16-2014, 10:06 AM
  #899
Ail
Now we wait.
 
Ail's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Mysidia, PA
Country: United States
Posts: 24,650
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ola View Post
And if we make the deals and don't win a cup in two years?
Are we any worse off than we are now? I sincerely doubt it.

Also, they don't have to win the Cup in two years as long as they are progressing towards that goal and building towards something.

Ail is offline  
Old
01-16-2014, 10:10 AM
  #900
Ail
Now we wait.
 
Ail's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Mysidia, PA
Country: United States
Posts: 24,650
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kenjets36 View Post
I'll just call you "de la lune" from now on.

Ailurophile Pouloit.
Konjots pls

Wat?

Ail 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 01:08 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"

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.