HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > New York Rangers
Notices

2012-13 Lockout Discussion Part XI: The "Please make it stop" edition.

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
01-02-2013, 01:31 PM
  #1
Bleed Ranger Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 14,750
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lundsanity30 View Post
I agree Sather knew the cap could go down and all the RFAs we had coming up I'm sure he took all that into consideration when he traded for Nash
You give Sather as a pragmatist far too much credit. Im more inclined to believe he had a reply like "We'll deal with that when we get there."

Bleed Ranger Blue is offline  
Old
01-02-2013, 01:34 PM
  #2
TheRedressor
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Country: United Nations
Posts: 3,694
vCash: 500
The 60 million dollar figure isn't agreed upon yet. Let's also not forget that you will be able to trade for cap space (3 or 4 million MAX I believe) in the new CBA.

TheRedressor is offline  
Old
01-02-2013, 01:35 PM
  #3
Bleed Ranger Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 14,750
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheRedressor View Post
The 60 million dollar figure isn't agreed upon yet. Let's also not forget that you will be able to trade for cap space (3 or 4 million MAX I believe) in the new CBA.
And before we dont forget that, lets also not forget that this is total fiction.

Bleed Ranger Blue is offline  
Old
01-02-2013, 01:37 PM
  #4
Trxjw
Moderator
Bored.
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Land of no calls..
Country: United States
Posts: 16,371
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tawnos View Post
I demonstrated a few pages back, but I'll do so again right here. Keep in mind that Lindberg, Yogan and Hrivik are place holders. They can be replaced by veterans at similar prices or by other youngsters. Also keep in mind that the bonus cushion will be in place for every season according to the league's proposals. It should give the Rangers the flexibility they need through the season.

FORWARDS
Rick Nash ($7.800m) / Brad Richards ($6.667m) / Marian Gaborik ($7.500m)
Chris Kreider ($1.325m) / Derek Stepan ($2.600m) / Ryan Callahan ($4.275m)
Carl Hagelin ($1.500m) / Oscar Lindberg ($0.760m) / Andrew Yogan ($0.800m)
Marek Hrivik ($0.685m) / Brian Boyle ($1.700m) / Micheal Haley ($0.600m)
DEFENSEMEN
Marc Staal ($3.975m) / Dan Girardi ($3.325m)
Anton Stralman ($1.700m) / Ryan McDonagh ($3.500m)
Stu Bickel ($0.750m) / Michael Del Zotto ($2.250m)
GOALTENDERS
Henrik Lundqvist ($6.875m)
Martin Biron ($1.300m)


CAPGEEK.COM TOTALS (follow @capgeek on Twitter)
(these totals are compiled without the bonus cushion)
SALARY CAP: $60,000,000; CAP PAYROLL: $59,886,667; BONUSES: $1,037,500
CAP SPACE (20-man roster): $113,333
Flexibility? You have a 20 man roster. Where's the room for a spare forward and spare d-man? Hell, even if you wanted to have Bickel play the role of both, that still leaves you with only $113k to sign another d-man, which of course is impossible.

Trxjw is offline  
Old
01-02-2013, 01:43 PM
  #5
haveandare
Registered User
 
haveandare's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 5,751
vCash: 500
Losing Gaborik would be a HUGE blow to this team. I don't see how anyone can honestly disagree with that. We can argue over whether or not it is a "dismantling" but losing him for a salary dump would undoubtedly be a tremendous problem going forward. For a few years now, NYR has been the team that's got solid D and solid goaltending but falls just short in the offense department. Gaborik has, except for some spells, been the backbone of that "almost good enough" offense. His goal scoring numbers here have been nothing short of incredible. To lose him at this point, effectively replacing him with Nash, a guy who might be able to do what Gaborik has been doing for a few years now, more or less sets this team back the entire Nash trade. Good D, great goaltending, just short on offense.

Also, I think that people need to realize that Sather is the one making the roster decisions. What we'd do isn't terribly important - what Sather would/will do is really what matters. I don't think he'd trade any of the big name guys who sell tickets and win games unless he absolutely had to. He loves big names. He loves players that have that game breaking potential. As much as I might not agree with it, I'm very, very confident that one of Girardi, Staal or McD will be sacrificed to keep Gaborik if it comes down to that. Most likely Girardi or Staal. Girardi has less star power but he's shown that he and McD make a solid NHL first pair. You can't keep 3 first pairing guys and have a first line like Nash- Richards - Gaborik all at once in this league, especially with the cap going down. I don't see Sather losing any of those offensive guys unless he has to. I think he'll move one of those d-men and try to fleece some other GM into taking guys like Asham and Rupp, replacing them with cheaper utility guys.

haveandare is online now  
Old
01-02-2013, 01:43 PM
  #6
Tawnos
Moderator
BoH Mod Only
 
Tawnos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Charlotte, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 11,296
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trxjw View Post
Flexibility? You have a 20 man roster. Where's the room for a spare forward and spare d-man? Hell, even if you wanted to have Bickel play the role of both, that still leaves you with only $113k to sign another d-man, which of course is impossible.
Bonus cushion provides the flexibility, along with injuries (I believe they put into place some flexibility on how emergency recalls affect the cap). It's a 20-man roster and that sucks, but carrying a 20-man roster is preferable to losing either Gaborik or Del Zotto. Especially since it's only for one season.

Tawnos is offline  
Old
01-02-2013, 01:45 PM
  #7
TheRedressor
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Country: United Nations
Posts: 3,694
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleed Ranger Blue View Post
And before we dont forget that, lets also not forget that this is total fiction.
Perhaps I missed something, but wasn't that part of the players proposal a few months back which was accepted?

TheRedressor is offline  
Old
01-02-2013, 01:46 PM
  #8
Tawnos
Moderator
BoH Mod Only
 
Tawnos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Charlotte, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 11,296
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleed Ranger Blue View Post
That works mathematically, but you have to admit its not very likely.

Kids are either have to grow up and be NHL ready VERY VERY quickly, or Sather will be using his offseason to sign 4-5 bottom 6 guys to <$1M contracts. Thats not even getting into who he'll need to get rid of as well.
3 bottom 6 guys, not 4-5. And I believe it's more likely than getting rid of MDZ or Gaborik.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Levitate View Post
That does assume they can get rid of guys like Rupp and Asham
And Pyatt. They'll be able to. Teams are constantly looking for bottom 6 players via trade.

Tawnos is offline  
Old
01-02-2013, 01:48 PM
  #9
Tawnos
Moderator
BoH Mod Only
 
Tawnos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Charlotte, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 11,296
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheRedressor View Post
Perhaps I missed something, but wasn't that part of the players proposal a few months back which was accepted?
No proposals have been accepted, certainly not anything from a few months back. I think people are mistaking this for being able to trade guys and retain a portion of their contract. An example is what happened with Jagr just before the last CBA. The Rangers acquired him and the Capitals were paying part of his deal. The portion the Caps were paying for hit their salary cap number while the portion the Rangers were paying for hit ours.

Tawnos is offline  
Old
01-02-2013, 01:50 PM
  #10
Bleed Ranger Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 14,750
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by haveandare View Post
Losing Gaborik would be a HUGE blow to this team. I don't see how anyone can honestly disagree with that. We can argue over whether or not it is a "dismantling" but losing him for a salary dump would undoubtedly be a tremendous problem going forward. For a few years now, NYR has been the team that's got solid D and solid goaltending but falls just short in the offense department. Gaborik has, except for some spells, been the backbone of that "almost good enough" offense. His goal scoring numbers here have been nothing short of incredible. To lose him at this point, effectively replacing him with Nash, a guy who might be able to do what Gaborik has been doing for a few years now, more or less sets this team back the entire Nash trade. Good D, great goaltending, just short on offense.

Also, I think that people need to realize that Sather is the one making the roster decisions. What we'd do isn't terribly important - what Sather would/will do is really what matters. I don't think he'd trade any of the big name guys who sell tickets and win games unless he absolutely had to. He loves big names. He loves players that have that game breaking potential. As much as I might not agree with it, I'm very, very confident that one of Girardi, Staal or McD will be sacrificed to keep Gaborik if it comes down to that. Most likely Girardi or Staal. Girardi has less star power but he's shown that he and McD make a solid NHL first pair. You can't keep 3 first pairing guys and have a first line like Nash- Richards - Gaborik all at once in this league, especially with the cap going down. I don't see Sather losing any of those offensive guys unless he has to. I think he'll move one of those d-men and try to fleece some other GM into taking guys like Asham and Rupp, replacing them with cheaper utility guys.
Good points about the offense and how this team is constructed. Unless you've OD'd on Kreider kool aid, or think Hagelin has some untapped potential, its quite evident that the Rangers are not developing any pure goal scorers. Those have been, and will continually need to be imported via other means.

What is the point of splitting hairs about the definition of "dismantling" and saying its cool when the Rangers would only be losing 1 or 2 roster players - when that roster player is one of the top goal scorers in the NHL? This is a quality vs. quantity argument.

But I suppose that stance is better than putting on a tin foil hat and insisting that the Rangers can keep all of their high-paid imports and field a team with the cap coming in at $60M.

Bleed Ranger Blue is offline  
Old
01-02-2013, 01:50 PM
  #11
Brian Boyle
portnor, pls
 
Brian Boyle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,628
vCash: 659
Quote:
Originally Posted by haveandare View Post
Losing Gaborik would be a HUGE blow to this team. I don't see how anyone can honestly disagree with that.
I haven't seen anyone who has.

If Gaborik does need to moved, it will be a blow. But if he's traded for a cheap 2nd/3rd line tweener then the team will be in roughly the same spot as last season only with Nash instead of Gaborik (expect all the youngins will be 2 years older and wiser). And that team lost the President's trophy on the last day of the season and was six wins away from winning the Stanley Cup.

Brian Boyle is online now  
Old
01-02-2013, 01:51 PM
  #12
Trxjw
Moderator
Bored.
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Land of no calls..
Country: United States
Posts: 16,371
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleed Ranger Blue View Post
You give Sather as a pragmatist far too much credit. Im more inclined to believe he had a reply like "We'll deal with that when we get there."
My own belief is that Slats is under the impression that Nash can replace Gaborik's 40 goals while being more of a "Torts guy" on the ice. Nash can kill penalties and brings a physical game that Gaborik could never hope to match. He fits the mold of this team better than Gabby does. Get one season of both, then ship off Gabby for a high-end prospect, picks and/or a 2nd line RW.

I don't love the idea, but that's my take.

Trxjw is offline  
Old
01-02-2013, 01:52 PM
  #13
Kershaw
 
Kershaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Country:
Posts: 25,519
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by -31- View Post
I haven't seen anyone who has.

If Gaborik does need to moved, it will be a blow. But if he's traded for a cheap 2nd/3rd line tweener then the team will be in roughly the same spot as last season only with Nash instead of Gaborik (expect all the youngins will be 2 years older and wiser). And that team lost the President's trophy on the last day of the season and was six wins away from winning the Stanley Cup.
You are replacing a 76 pt player with a 59 pt one and expect the same results???

Kershaw is offline  
Old
01-02-2013, 01:54 PM
  #14
HatTrick Swayze
Tomato Potato
 
HatTrick Swayze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 9,248
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trxjw View Post
My own belief is that Slats is under the impression that Nash can replace Gaborik's 40 goals while being more of a "Torts guy" on the ice. Nash can kill penalties and brings a physical game that Gaborik could never hope to match. He fits the mold of this team better than Gabby does. Get one season of both, then ship off Gabby for a high-end prospect, picks and/or a 2nd line RW.

I don't love the idea, but that's my take.
Exactly how I view the situation. Like it or hate it I think the writings been on the wall for a while.

__________________
"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 offline  
Old
01-02-2013, 01:55 PM
  #15
Bleed Ranger Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 14,750
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tawnos View Post
3 bottom 6 guys, not 4-5. And I believe it's more likely than getting rid of MDZ or Gaborik.
To be honest, I'd rather trade Gaborik than jump through such hoops just to field a 20 man roster with no extra pieces. Sure, I hate it, but at least that jettison's your offensive dynamo but keeps a foundation intact.

Your roster, while it works mathematically, would be rotting this team from the bottom up.

Bleed Ranger Blue is offline  
Old
01-02-2013, 01:55 PM
  #16
haveandare
Registered User
 
haveandare's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 5,751
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by -31- View Post
I haven't seen anyone who has.

If Gaborik does need to moved, it will be a blow. But if he's traded for a cheap 2nd/3rd line tweener then the team will be in roughly the same spot as last season only with Nash instead of Gaborik (expect all the youngins will be 2 years older and wiser). And that team lost the President's trophy on the last day of the season and was six wins away from winning the Stanley Cup.
True. Being in the same situation as last season isn't a terrible fate, but it does pretty much negate the Nash trade in terms of being the move that really provided what almost everyone knew this team needed and put them "over the top." Also, we know how Gaborik can perform in this city and with this team while we're only pretty sure how Nash will do.

haveandare is online now  
Old
01-02-2013, 01:55 PM
  #17
truebluegoalie
Registered User
 
truebluegoalie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Virginia
Posts: 2,239
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by -31- View Post
I haven't seen anyone who has.

If Gaborik does need to moved, it will be a blow. But if he's traded for a cheap 2nd/3rd line tweener then the team will be in roughly the same spot as last season only with Nash instead of Gaborik (expect all the youngins will be 2 years older and wiser). And that team lost the President's trophy on the last day of the season and was six wins away from winning the Stanley Cup.
It is also something of a new reality IF (and that is a big if) the cap was 60 million as proposed. You can't expect to have gaborik, nash, richards, lundqvist, etc. all on the roster with such a low cap. Just because people are willing to deal with that doesn't make them ignorant, or happy about it. But if that is the new landscape then it is what it is and you deal with it.

btw, 1k posts, looks like this won't be the last lockout thread, hopefully the next one will be, and I think that is something we can all agree on.


Last edited by truebluegoalie: 01-02-2013 at 02:01 PM.
truebluegoalie is offline  
Old
01-02-2013, 01:56 PM
  #18
Brian Boyle
portnor, pls
 
Brian Boyle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,628
vCash: 659
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tortorella View Post
You are replacing a 76 pt player with a 59 pt one and expect the same results???

Brian Boyle is online now  
Old
01-02-2013, 01:56 PM
  #19
Bleed Ranger Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 14,750
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tortorella View Post
You are replacing a 76 pt player with a 59 pt one and expect the same results???
You should go watch baseball if this is how you value players.

Bleed Ranger Blue is offline  
Old
01-02-2013, 01:57 PM
  #20
Trxjw
Moderator
Bored.
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Land of no calls..
Country: United States
Posts: 16,371
vCash: 500
2012-13 Lockout Discussion Part XI: The "Please make it stop" edition.

Continue...

Trxjw is offline  
Old
01-02-2013, 02:01 PM
  #21
Tawnos
Moderator
BoH Mod Only
 
Tawnos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Charlotte, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 11,296
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleed Ranger Blue View Post
To be honest, I'd rather trade Gaborik than jump through such hoops just to field a 20 man roster with no extra pieces. Sure, I hate it, but at least that jettison's your offensive dynamo but keeps a foundation intact.

Your roster, while it works mathematically, would be rotting this team from the bottom up.
I fail to see how it's rotting the team from the bottom up considering that Boyle, Rupp, Asham and Pyatt all have deals what expire after next season. It's either bring in a bunch of new guys for the bottom 6 next year or the year after. Your choice. If it's going to happen, I'd rather do it when it gives the team a better chance to compete for the Cup in 2013-14.

By the way, that whole idea is why I didn't want Nash in the first place. This team has and will have forward depth problems for the next couple of years. I hated that idea.

Tawnos is offline  
Old
01-02-2013, 02:01 PM
  #22
HatTrick Swayze
Tomato Potato
 
HatTrick Swayze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 9,248
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by haveandare View Post
True. Being in the same situation as last season isn't a terrible fate, but it does pretty much negate the Nash trade in terms of being the move that really provided what almost everyone knew this team needed and put them "over the top." Also, we know how Gaborik can perform in this city and with this team while we're only pretty sure how Nash will do.
Agreed but I mean the plan was always to take two runs with both. Now we're down to one (if we're lucky) thanks to Howson and the lockout uncertainty.

HatTrick Swayze is offline  
Old
01-02-2013, 02:04 PM
  #23
Tawnos
Moderator
BoH Mod Only
 
Tawnos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Charlotte, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 11,296
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by haveandare View Post
True. Being in the same situation as last season isn't a terrible fate, but it does pretty much negate the Nash trade in terms of being the move that really provided what almost everyone knew this team needed and put them "over the top." Also, we know how Gaborik can perform in this city and with this team while we're only pretty sure how Nash will do.
It wouldn't be the same situation. You'd have Nash putting up similar production to Gaborik, hopefully. But you've lost Anisimov and Dubinsky. Unless they figure out a way to keep both Nash and Gaborik, the team has taken a significant step backwards.

Tawnos is offline  
Old
01-02-2013, 02:06 PM
  #24
Tawnos
Moderator
BoH Mod Only
 
Tawnos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Charlotte, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 11,296
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nyr2k2 View Post
Maybe McIlrath is ready in two years and we can move Staal.
One of our top 3 guys will be a salary cap casualty. I think Sather's always been aware of that and I think it's a big part of why we took a defenseman in the draft (at #28, there isn't going to be huge difference on your draft board for BPA). Girardi's deal is up first, but he's a right D and the other two guys are left Ds (I'm not talking about handedness).

Tawnos is offline  
Old
01-02-2013, 02:07 PM
  #25
broadwayblue
Registered User
 
broadwayblue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 15,620
vCash: 500
People arguing over what we can or can't fit with a hypothetical 60M cap. Reminds me of the good old days.

broadwayblue 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 11:42 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.