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

Is Henrik really in the driver's seat?

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-29-2013, 10:59 PM
  #101
gmerger37
Registered User
 
gmerger37's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: North Jersey
Posts: 796
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bullseyes View Post
I actually agree.

Lundqvist is my favorite Ranger player, but I don't think it's wise committing that high of a cap-hit to a goalie. I also think that way with Callahan, although for different reasons.

The problem is that the elite offensive players aren't easy to come by. They either cost an arm and a leg, are older and hitting free agency, or you draft them. Drafting them usually requires high picks and we know that the Rangers will be good enough not to get those.
Just to piggy back off this I would be very very weary of giving cally, girardi and hank big contract extensions over the next 6-7-8 years. All for very different reasons. If we are still hovering near .500 I hope we can at least trade a few of these guys who are up for contracts for something because it is unlikely we will retain all of them, nor should we really.

These guys were all heart and sole players and great rangers but if they are making 5,6, or 8 million + each respectively we cant win a cup with that team.


Last edited by gmerger37: 11-29-2013 at 11:07 PM.
gmerger37 is offline  
Old
11-30-2013, 03:17 AM
  #102
thepoeticgoblin
Registered User
 
thepoeticgoblin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Sweden
Country: Sweden
Posts: 1,538
vCash: 750
I'm thinking trade Girardi to free up space, give Hank a little salary bump but not 9M$!

thepoeticgoblin is offline  
Old
11-30-2013, 05:34 AM
  #103
Siddi
Registered User
 
Siddi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Stockholm
Country: Sweden
Posts: 2,030
vCash: 500
[QUOTE=Crease;75244031]You can win with Lundqvist. You just can't win with Lundqvist making $8-9M a year...QUOTE]



Exactly my thoughts on the matter. And i think Lundqvist desire to win the cup in NY is stronger than his desire to be highest paid player/goalie.

Siddi is offline  
Old
11-30-2013, 08:25 AM
  #104
Bleed Ranger Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 18,011
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crease View Post
You shouldn't. I love Hank. My favorite Ranger since Richter. I wish him to be a career Ranger. But the other part of me is in the business of winning. You can win with Lundqvist. You just can't win with Lundqvist making $8-9M a year unless you got a couple of high draft picks on ELCs scoring 70-90 points for ya. And the latter ain't happening. This is what the Jets went through with Darelle Revis.
In all honesty what is the big difference between Lundqvist making his current $6.8M per year vs. him making 8 or 9M per year? Is giving Sather a couple million dollars to spend the real difference between making this team a contender vs. a pretender? In fact, no amount of cap space will help rescue Sather and his cluelessness when it comes to building a roster.

Its not about $'s at this point, its about philosophy and work ethic. Sather's thoughts on how to build this team changes with the direction of the wind, and you tell me how much work ethic a 70 year old big shot could possibly have?

Bleed Ranger Blue is offline  
Old
11-30-2013, 11:01 AM
  #105
Crease
Registered User
 
Crease's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 10,069
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleed Ranger Blue View Post
In all honesty what is the big difference between Lundqvist making his current $6.8M per year vs. him making 8 or 9M per year? Is giving Sather a couple million dollars to spend the real difference between making this team a contender vs. a pretender? In fact, no amount of cap space will help rescue Sather and his cluelessness when it comes to building a roster.

Its not about $'s at this point, its about philosophy and work ethic. Sather's thoughts on how to build this team changes with the direction of the wind, and you tell me how much work ethic a 70 year old big shot could possibly have?
The team is struggling to put pucks in the net with a $6.8m goalie. It won't be any easier with an $8m or $9m goalie. If you can instead get an above-average goalie who is making say between $3m and $5m, thats an additional $3m to $6m to spend on offense.

If your rationale for giving Lundqvist $8m or $9m is that Sather can't build contender either way..well I don't necessarily disagree. But if I were running the team, I'd think long and hard about allocating that much money to the goalie position.

Crease is offline  
Old
11-30-2013, 11:26 AM
  #106
Bleed Ranger Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 18,011
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crease View Post
The team is struggling to put pucks in the net with a $6.8m goalie. It won't be any easier with an $8m or $9m goalie. If you can instead get an above-average goalie who is making say between $3m and $5m, thats an additional $3m to $6m to spend on offense.

If your rationale for giving Lundqvist $8m or $9m is that Sather can't build contender either way..well I don't necessarily disagree. But if I were running the team, I'd think long and hard about allocating that much money to the goalie position.
With the amount of player's we've imported to solve the goal scoring problem for the last few years (and decades, even), it should be clear by now that using cap space to bring in scoring just doesnt work.

Like I said, I'd be on board with selling off everything that isn't nailed down and committing to a 3-5 year plan to develop young talent and keep a team together for more than a season. This regime just wont do that. For starters, Lundqvist is just too valuable from a marketability standpoint. More importantly, if Sather sold off the likes of Lundqvist, Callahan, and Girardi, you just know he'd blow the cap space on mercenaries trying to win now again. Its a moot point. Lundqvist is coming back, and a raise for him won't prevent this team from much of anything.

Bleed Ranger Blue is offline  
Old
11-30-2013, 11:34 AM
  #107
Crease
Registered User
 
Crease's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 10,069
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleed Ranger Blue View Post
With the amount of player's we've imported to solve the goal scoring problem for the last few years (and decades, even), it should be clear by now that using cap space to bring in scoring just doesnt work.

Like I said, I'd be on board with selling off everything that isn't nailed down and committing to a 3-5 year plan to develop young talent and keep a team together for more than a season. This regime just wont do that. For starters, Lundqvist is just too valuable from a marketability standpoint. More importantly, if Sather sold off the likes of Lundqvist, Callahan, and Girardi, you just know he'd blow the cap space on mercenaries trying to win now again. Its a moot point. Lundqvist is coming back, and a raise for him won't prevent this team from much of anything.
I agree with bolded. Shopping for offense in the UFA market is inefficient. Those guys are being paid for past performance. If you want bang for your buck, you bite the bullet and trade or offer sheet a guy on an ELC or RFA contract.

Crease is offline  
Old
11-30-2013, 11:43 AM
  #108
OverTheCap
Registered User
 
OverTheCap's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 10,338
vCash: 500
There's no guarantee that letting go of Lundqvist to free up space for forwards is going to improve the offense.

The Rangers have finished top 10 in goals per game only once during Sather's reign - his first season as GM, 2000-2001. Even in the prelockout years with no cap constraints and the freedom to spend at will, he struggled to field a top scoring team other than that one season. In the cap era, Sather and the front office has shown that when they do have cap space and money to spend, they don't necessarily spend it on the right players. The Rangers need to find a way to acquire young, cost-controlled elite talent, whether it be via drafting or trade.

OverTheCap is offline  
Old
11-30-2013, 12:03 PM
  #109
NYR Sting
Heart and Soul
 
NYR Sting's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 9,507
vCash: 500
What a baseless and pointless argument to be having, and for what? People are afraid of his cap hit? You don't even know what his cap hit is going to be, and the cap is clearly going to continue rising, anyway. And you KNEW, unless you are totally clueless, that based on his career, he was going to get paid at some point. Kobe Bryant doesn't deserve $24 million a season anymore, but is it really a surprise that the Lakers are giving him that? Think about all of the success and money he has made them.

Are you willing to trade the last 8 years, when Lundqvist was the only reason you got to watch playoff hockey, for the cap hit he MIGHT carry going forward? This franchise, long on years but short on success or true tradition, is going to jettison a guy that has a real chance to go down as the greatest player in franchise history, AT WORST #2, because he might cost them money that he has rightfully earned for them to pay him? Money that won't be the deciding factor in whether or not they are going to be able to field a winner?

Some of the people here are too young to understand what it meant when the Rangers traded Leetch, but that didn't feel good, and it wasn't right. They didn't get anything for him, either. And guess what? You'll never get a trade return for Lundqvist that you think is adequate. Everyone saying this nonsense that he should be traded will INSTANTLY begin whining when they see the return.

NYR Sting is offline  
Old
11-30-2013, 01:13 PM
  #110
mint
Connor Hockey
 
mint's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Waterloo
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,232
vCash: 4769
Lundqvist being blamed

With all due respect, suggesting that the best goalie of this generation is declining based on a sample size of 19 GP is quite simply preposterous.

In fact, Lundqvist's pace has been picking up after an absymal pre-season and October to the season.

His stats in October 2013 were as followed:

9 GP 2.44 GAA .908Sv.%

His stats in November 2013 significantly improved:

11 GP 2.18 GAA .924Sv.%

Now I'm leaning towards that month of October being a statistical anomaly for Lundqvist, because for the most part of his career, he's never sustained a stretch of bad play for that long.

However, when he did, he definitely had more goal support during similar poor stretches.

The Rangers in the October games Lundqvist has played in has provided with only 13 goal as support. 13 goals in 9 GP! That's an average of 1.4 Goals scored per game! Not even Hasek can win with that poor scoring in front of him!

Let's compare a similar poor month Lundqvist had in his career, the month of February in 2012. Remember, this was the season where he won the Vezina.

His stats in February 2012 were as followed:

13 GP 2.53 GAA .897Sv.%


What is the big difference between February of 2012 and October of 2013?

Well Lundqvist performed at a much worse level both GAA and Sv% wise, however the team in front provided him with 38 Goals that month! That's 2.93 Goals Per Game.

So why is Lundqvist getting all the backlash now in his career when he's been prone to worst stretches in his career? Is he getting backlash because the team in front of him sucks offensively? That is not a logical reason to blame the goalie.

With the Rangers, I see Lundqvist as the last issue to be worried about considering the very long list of holes in the roster and Lundqvist's impressive track record.

With that being said, I think the Rangers will settle down and make a playoff push. They have hilariously unlucky shooting luck so far this season. This thread will look silly too because Henrik will probably have a season as probably a top 3 goalie once again. Such little faith in the best goalie in the world.


Last edited by mint: 11-30-2013 at 04:01 PM.
mint is offline  
Old
11-30-2013, 02:55 PM
  #111
Desdichado62
Registered User
 
Desdichado62's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Sweden
Country: Sweden
Posts: 647
vCash: 500
pep, your one year too far ahead, we're still at 2013.

Desdichado62 is offline  
Old
11-30-2013, 03:31 PM
  #112
LittleKev6D9
Unregistered User
 
LittleKev6D9's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middletown
Country: United States
Posts: 1,353
vCash: 500
I have been in a big argument with my friend (granted he is an idiot) on whether the Rangers SHOULD resign Hank or not. I love Talbot, but he is not starter material yet. He is in ideal situation right now and the team seems to play much better when he starts.

I'm glad to see I'm not the only sane person on this matter.

7 years 7.7 per.

LittleKev6D9 is offline  
Old
11-30-2013, 03:57 PM
  #113
SML
Registered User
 
SML's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 3,855
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYR Sting View Post
What a baseless and pointless argument to be having, and for what? People are afraid of his cap hit? You don't even know what his cap hit is going to be, and the cap is clearly going to continue rising, anyway. And you KNEW, unless you are totally clueless, that based on his career, he was going to get paid at some point. Kobe Bryant doesn't deserve $24 million a season anymore, but is it really a surprise that the Lakers are giving him that? Think about all of the success and money he has made them.

Are you willing to trade the last 8 years, when Lundqvist was the only reason you got to watch playoff hockey, for the cap hit he MIGHT carry going forward? This franchise, long on years but short on success or true tradition, is going to jettison a guy that has a real chance to go down as the greatest player in franchise history, AT WORST #2, because he might cost them money that he has rightfully earned for them to pay him? Money that won't be the deciding factor in whether or not they are going to be able to field a winner?

Some of the people here are too young to understand what it meant when the Rangers traded Leetch, but that didn't feel good, and it wasn't right. They didn't get anything for him, either. And guess what? You'll never get a trade return for Lundqvist that you think is adequate. Everyone saying this nonsense that he should be traded will INSTANTLY begin whining when they see the return.
I watched every game of Leetch's career. I started the thread and nowhere do I advocate trading Henrik. I remember Leetch being traded and while it wasnt the popular thing to do, it was the right thing to do. A reasonable offer should be on the table. If Henrik wants to test the market, he's the one getting himself traded. The ball is in his court. You cant blast the team for not being loyal when you have a player forcing their hand.

SML is offline  
Old
11-30-2013, 04:00 PM
  #114
mint
Connor Hockey
 
mint's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Waterloo
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,232
vCash: 4769
Quote:
Originally Posted by Desdichado62 View Post
pep, your one year too far ahead, we're still at 2013.
Soothsaying. I stand corrected, thanks.

mint is offline  
Old
11-30-2013, 06:23 PM
  #115
RangersHank*
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 2,009
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleKev6D9 View Post
I have been in a big argument with my friend (granted he is an idiot) on whether the Rangers SHOULD resign Hank or not. I love Talbot, but he is not starter material yet. He is in ideal situation right now and the team seems to play much better when he starts.

I'm glad to see I'm not the only sane person on this matter.

7 years 7.7 per.


They may play better because he is the backup.

RangersHank* is offline  
Old
11-30-2013, 06:47 PM
  #116
rkhum
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Country: United States
Posts: 1,896
vCash: 500
How much less would Miller cost?

rkhum is offline  
Old
11-30-2013, 06:48 PM
  #117
rkhum
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Country: United States
Posts: 1,896
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by snipeit View Post
Pay Lundqvist stop sign overpaid 4th liners every year.
Wait....I thought we didn't re-sign Prust due to cap reasons?
So we let him walk to sign scrubs to more money?

rkhum is offline  
Old
11-30-2013, 07:53 PM
  #118
Cake or Death
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pep View Post
With all due respect, suggesting that the best goalie of this generation is declining based on a sample size of 19 GP is quite simply preposterous.

In fact, Lundqvist's pace has been picking up after an absymal pre-season and October to the season.

His stats in October 2013 were as followed:

9 GP 2.44 GAA .908Sv.%

His stats in November 2013 significantly improved:

11 GP 2.18 GAA .924Sv.%

Now I'm leaning towards that month of October being a statistical anomaly for Lundqvist, because for the most part of his career, he's never sustained a stretch of bad play for that long.

However, when he did, he definitely had more goal support during similar poor stretches.

The Rangers in the October games Lundqvist has played in has provided with only 13 goal as support. 13 goals in 9 GP! That's an average of 1.4 Goals scored per game! Not even Hasek can win with that poor scoring in front of him!

Let's compare a similar poor month Lundqvist had in his career, the month of February in 2012. Remember, this was the season where he won the Vezina.

His stats in February 2012 were as followed:

13 GP 2.53 GAA .897Sv.%


What is the big difference between February of 2012 and October of 2013?

Well Lundqvist performed at a much worse level both GAA and Sv% wise, however the team in front provided him with 38 Goals that month! That's 2.93 Goals Per Game.

So why is Lundqvist getting all the backlash now in his career when he's been prone to worst stretches in his career? Is he getting backlash because the team in front of him sucks offensively? That is not a logical reason to blame the goalie.

With the Rangers, I see Lundqvist as the last issue to be worried about considering the very long list of holes in the roster and Lundqvist's impressive track record.

With that being said, I think the Rangers will settle down and make a playoff push. They have hilariously unlucky shooting luck so far this season. This thread will look silly too because Henrik will probably have a season as probably a top 3 goalie once again. Such little faith in the best goalie in the world.
Excellent post.

 
Old
11-30-2013, 07:59 PM
  #119
Steve Kournianos
@thedraftanalyst
 
Steve Kournianos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Country: United States
Posts: 18,300
vCash: 500
Lundqvist not getting goal support is his doing as well. When you give up early goals, you allow the other team to dictate play and puts the pressure on the Rangers.

Still, the Rangers will be doomed if they don't resign the guy. Give him what he wants. He deserves it.

Talbots play doesn't make Henrik expendable. It just means the coach has an option. Having a good backup will have Henrik playing into his 40s for THIS franchise.

But he's been marginal this year. Big deal. I can see Henrik dominate the easy schedule in Jan for a Sochi tune up.

Steve Kournianos is offline  
Old
11-30-2013, 11:51 PM
  #120
Baby Punisher
Registered User
 
Baby Punisher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Staten Island, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 4,537
vCash: 500
5 years $42.5 take it or leave it. He get's a multi-year deal and a decent raise & the Rangers get some flexability to make some moves going forward with the cap raising hopefully on a yearly basis.

Baby Punisher is offline  
Old
12-01-2013, 08:20 AM
  #121
Siddi
Registered User
 
Siddi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Stockholm
Country: Sweden
Posts: 2,030
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pep View Post
With all due respect, suggesting that the best goalie of this generation is declining based on a sample size of 19 GP is quite simply preposterous.

In fact, Lundqvist's pace has been picking up after an absymal pre-season and October to the season.

His stats in October 2013 were as followed:

9 GP 2.44 GAA .908Sv.%

His stats in November 2013 significantly improved:

11 GP 2.18 GAA .924Sv.%

Now I'm leaning towards that month of October being a statistical anomaly for Lundqvist, because for the most part of his career, he's never sustained a stretch of bad play for that long.

However, when he did, he definitely had more goal support during similar poor stretches.

The Rangers in the October games Lundqvist has played in has provided with only 13 goal as support. 13 goals in 9 GP! That's an average of 1.4 Goals scored per game! Not even Hasek can win with that poor scoring in front of him!

Let's compare a similar poor month Lundqvist had in his career, the month of February in 2012. Remember, this was the season where he won the Vezina.

His stats in February 2012 were as followed:

13 GP 2.53 GAA .897Sv.%


What is the big difference between February of 2012 and October of 2013?

Well Lundqvist performed at a much worse level both GAA and Sv% wise, however the team in front provided him with 38 Goals that month! That's 2.93 Goals Per Game.

So why is Lundqvist getting all the backlash now in his career when he's been prone to worst stretches in his career? Is he getting backlash because the team in front of him sucks offensively? That is not a logical reason to blame the goalie.

With the Rangers, I see Lundqvist as the last issue to be worried about considering the very long list of holes in the roster and Lundqvist's impressive track record.

With that being said, I think the Rangers will settle down and make a playoff push. They have hilariously unlucky shooting luck so far this season. This thread will look silly too because Henrik will probably have a season as probably a top 3 goalie once again. Such little faith in the best goalie in the world.
How dare you walk in here with your logic and fact based argument!

Siddi is offline  
Old
12-01-2013, 04:23 PM
  #122
shinchanyo
Registered User
 
shinchanyo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Here
Posts: 3,126
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYR Sting View Post
What a baseless and pointless argument to be having, and for what? People are afraid of his cap hit? You don't even know what his cap hit is going to be, and the cap is clearly going to continue rising, anyway. And you KNEW, unless you are totally clueless, that based on his career, he was going to get paid at some point. Kobe Bryant doesn't deserve $24 million a season anymore, but is it really a surprise that the Lakers are giving him that? Think about all of the success and money he has made them.

Are you willing to trade the last 8 years, when Lundqvist was the only reason you got to watch playoff hockey, for the cap hit he MIGHT carry going forward? This franchise, long on years but short on success or true tradition, is going to jettison a guy that has a real chance to go down as the greatest player in franchise history, AT WORST #2, because he might cost them money that he has rightfully earned for them to pay him? Money that won't be the deciding factor in whether or not they are going to be able to field a winner?

Some of the people here are too young to understand what it meant when the Rangers traded Leetch, but that didn't feel good, and it wasn't right. They didn't get anything for him, either. And guess what? You'll never get a trade return for Lundqvist that you think is adequate. Everyone saying this nonsense that he should be traded will INSTANTLY begin whining when they see the return.
To the bolded. Isn't that why everyone is speculating? Why would we speculate if we knew somehow what his future cap hit would be? Pretty much all threads and posts which are speculating about future cap hit are useless. We have no real influence on these things. Then again we have no real influence on the games so should we stop having GDT's?

As for the Kobe example. I thought part of the point was debating whether he should be getting the NHL goalie equivalent of the contract kobe got. Kobe's basketball career has been way better than Lundqvists hockey career. Especially when those championships are included. regardless Lundqvist has been so good that logically he's in line to reap the rewards whether or not current and future play merit it

I agree with the other bolded. Considering we've had him all this time at 6.8 it would be silly to argue that him earning 2 mil more per season would = making it impossible to win a cup with him. Lord knows the team has squandered at least 2 mil every year on absolutely useless players.

Based on this teams history and the current situation it makes all the sense in the world for HFNYR to speculate about what kind of contract he may get and how it might or might not impact the team. This reads like you are berating no one and everyone all at once for silly reasons. This team and fanbase has gotten so screwed by lengthy, expensive, retirement contracts that I can't blame anyone for being anxious. Lundqvist is not Drury obviously or Gomez his past performance would actually warrant the contract. Richards past performance warranted his contract too yet look how badly he's done. I'd be a lot less upset if Henrik lost his game two or 3 years from now because at least he's a ranger and one of the best rangers we've ever seen. So i'm just curious how do you think he'd perform over the length of an 8 for 8 contract or 7 for 9?


Last edited by shinchanyo: 12-01-2013 at 04:37 PM.
shinchanyo is offline  
Old
12-01-2013, 04:39 PM
  #123
NYRangers84
President's Trophy
 
NYRangers84's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 1,179
vCash: 500
People need to stop acting like losing Lundqvist would mean the end of the world.. it's not. Let's not forget we are in today's NHL where elite scoring talent and defense is what is needed to win, along with a good goalie (which Talbot is at the very least). So if keeping Lundqvist will limit our potential to acquire some good goal scorer(s) than I say let him walk and stick with Talbot as starter and look for a backup. Maybe even bring Montoya or Johnson back (Prince Chad LOL) to fill in that role.

NYRangers84 is offline  
Old
12-01-2013, 04:48 PM
  #124
shinchanyo
Registered User
 
shinchanyo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Here
Posts: 3,126
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYRangers84 View Post
People need to stop acting like losing Lundqvist would mean the end of the world.. it's not. Let's not forget we are in today's NHL where elite scoring talent and defense is what is needed to win, along with a good goalie (which Talbot is at the very least). So if keeping Lundqvist will limit our potential to acquire some good goal scorer(s) than I say let him walk and stick with Talbot as starter and look for a backup. Maybe even bring Montoya or Johnson back (Prince Chad LOL) to fill in that role.
Why would it? How has it done this in the past? Point is that our bad GM and failure to draft or trade for top talent has left us with this vacuum. Our ability to grab a functional defense and goalie has been as good as anyone in the league tho

shinchanyo is offline  
Old
12-01-2013, 05:08 PM
  #125
Trxjw
Retired.
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Land of no calls..
Country: United States
Posts: 19,660
vCash: 500
Can't help but marvel that the argument against keeping Lundqvist is "more cap space" and yet this team has managed to accomplish nothing when they have cap to spend. Sather's best moves have arguably come from getting out of cap hell, or when he was forced to think shrewdly because cap space was limited.

Cap space has led to Gomez, Drury, Redden and Richards. Yeah, who wants space invested in a guy who would actually earn his pay check?

I'll buy the argument that this team could take a step back to take several steps forward, but to say "we can use the cap on other pieces" is just mind-blowing to me.

Trxjw 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 11:00 PM.

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.