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's best move vs Sather's worst move

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
02-05-2009, 05:42 PM
  #51
NYR Sting
Heart and Soul
 
NYR Sting's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 9,506
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by billyH2O View Post
What would fans here rather have...

Nylander for 4 years, $5m cap hit

or

Gomez for... whatever his contract length is. $7m

Hindsight is easy, at the time everyone was happy with how it went down. I agree with Bodhistava... I think Nylander playing with Gomez makes each player better than if they were playing separately. I also think Straka has a better year.
Not everybody.

The correct answer is NEITHER of them, but if I had to choose, easily Nylander for 4 years at 5 million than gomez for 7 years at 7 million. No doubt.

NYR Sting is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-05-2009, 05:44 PM
  #52
jniklast
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Country: Germany
Posts: 5,347
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melrose_Jr. View Post
Players over 35 are ineligible for LTIR, period. Retirement, injury, holding out, there are no exceptions.
where did you get this information? i can't find anything in section 50.10(d) of the cba about a players age being important to LTIR.
and in section 50.5(d)(i)(B) it says:
Quote:
(B)
From the day following the last day of Training Camp until
and including June 30 of each League Year, "Averaged
Club Salary" for each Club shall be calculated as the sum
of the following amounts:
...
(5)
All Player Salary and Bonuses earned in a League
Year by a Player who is in the second or later year
of a multi-year SPC which was signed when the
Player was age 35 or older (as of June 30 prior to
the League Year in which the SPC is to be
effective), but which Player is not on the Club's
Active Roster, Injured Reserve, Injured Non Roster
or Non Roster, and regardless of whether, or where,
the Player is playing, except to the extent the Player
is playing under his SPC in the minor leagues, in
which case only the Player Salary and Bonuses in
excess of $100,000 shall count towards the
calculation of Averaged Club Salary; plus
...
there's nothing about the bona-fide long-term injured reserve, so i'd say they are still eligible for that.

and anyway, nylander was not yet 35 on june 30th, 2007


i still think it was right not to sign nylander to a 4 year deal. that doesn't make the gomez and drury signings much better though...


Last edited by jniklast: 02-05-2009 at 05:49 PM.
jniklast is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-05-2009, 07:01 PM
  #53
qwertyaas
LGR@
 
qwertyaas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 5,135
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SingnBluesOnBroadway View Post
Zubov wasn't Sather.
Ahh my mistake. Well yeah, Sather sounds more like signing players rather than trading away our good ones, good thing for that. *crosses fingers*

qwertyaas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-05-2009, 07:11 PM
  #54
Fataldogg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 7,483
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bodhisattva View Post
My expectation was that signing Nylander would have kept the chemistry with Jagr together. Something that EVERYONE agrees worked rather well. Chemistry this team struggled to find last year and really has none of this year.

Plus it would have SAVED cap space now and in the future

Plus it would have kept him from signing both Drury and Gomez at inflated UFA prices.

Nylander as a Ranger with Jagr > than any combo since...


I know he got injured last year, but thats always a risk. Perhaps as a Ranger he stays healthy. Who knows.

Let me say again this is all hindsight. I was aginst giving Nylander the contract he asked for. But now I wish Sather had.
Agree 100% with you. The Rangers had one of the best lines in the NHL. Had the ability to dominate games. Straka - Nylander - Jagr is a line that should have been kept together. The Rangers should have signed one of the two centers between Gomez and Drury but getting both was a horrible mistake. Not resigning Jagr was a horrible mistake. It becomes more evident as the season moves along how much they need a legitimate scoring threat and Jaromir is one of the best in the world at doing so.

I'd take Nylander and his $5 million contract over Gomez and his $7.3 million contract and Drury's $7.1 million contract any day. Nylander is better than Gomez. Nylander with Jagr is 5x better than Gomez.

Oh and the saddest moment in Rangers history was trading Brian Leetch. It broke my heart to see the guy not retire as a Ranger.

Fataldogg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-05-2009, 08:06 PM
  #55
fourhole
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Best move: Keeping Don Maloney for as long as did.
Worst move: Not stepping down when Maloney left

  Reply With Quote
Old
02-05-2009, 08:26 PM
  #56
Fletch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 21,473
vCash: 500
fatal...

I was all for another year of Nylander, but at the same time, since around November 2005 I had been suggesting that this team (and its coach) better start relying on offense outside Jagr because an injury or a couple seasons down the road they could be struggling to score goals. And eventually the production of these guys would start to wane and you'll be watching 37 year olds not look like the dominant players you thought they were. One more year, fine, four more, nah.

As for signing both Drury and Gomez...I cannot support that. One? Yes, definitely needed. Not two. But hey, I wanted Savard a couple seasons ago for 5 years and $5MM per. Admittedly I thought it may be a tight situation with Nylander, but I also thought it would be a good transition off Nylander and Jagr. That may be Sather's worst non-move. He chose to spend the $$$ on Cullen and Shanny.

Fletch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-06-2009, 12:17 AM
  #57
RangerFan10
Registered User
 
RangerFan10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Long Island/Plattsbu
Country: United States
Posts: 5,328
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to RangerFan10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fataldogg View Post
Agree 100% with you. The Rangers had one of the best lines in the NHL. Had the ability to dominate games. Straka - Nylander - Jagr is a line that should have been kept together. The Rangers should have signed one of the two centers between Gomez and Drury but getting both was a horrible mistake. Not resigning Jagr was a horrible mistake. It becomes more evident as the season moves along how much they need a legitimate scoring threat and Jaromir is one of the best in the world at doing so.

I'd take Nylander and his $5 million contract over Gomez and his $7.3 million contract and Drury's $7.1 million contract any day. Nylander is better than Gomez. Nylander with Jagr is 5x better than Gomez.

Oh and the saddest moment in Rangers history was trading Brian Leetch. It broke my heart to see the guy not retire as a Ranger.
While it's easy to look back and miss the Straka-Nylander-Jagr line...all 3 were declining, and if their current statuses don't tell you that I don't know what will. Jagr is in Russia giving it 70% every night and getting paid crazy amounts to do so. Straka dropped off the face of the earth, and Nylander is playing about as good as a 3rd line center. Their last year just about everyone was ready for a change. The change came and didn't quite work out. It happens.

RangerFan10 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-06-2009, 12:20 AM
  #58
RangerFan10
Registered User
 
RangerFan10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Long Island/Plattsbu
Country: United States
Posts: 5,328
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to RangerFan10
The year we had Cullen, Shanny, Avery, etc. was the best year post-lockout as far as support and depth players scoring and being productive. If we get a few bounces in the Sabres series I think we would've gone to the finals(and probably lost). The only problem with the Shanny/Cullen/Avery moves were they were short term. I guess the plan was for guys like Dawes, Prucha, Callahan, Dubinsky to be putting up the kind of numbers those guys did on 2nd and 3rd lines, but it's yet to happen. It also really hurts that they're all very similar players. Dubinsky's pretty big but he needs to put on some weight, Cally, Prucha, and Dawes have different styles but put up the same kind of points and are all 3rd liners.

RangerFan10 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-06-2009, 05:43 AM
  #59
Cake or Death
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
The big problem is that the "worst" column is vastly bigger than the "best" column. It takes quite a few good deals just to make up for signing Holik at 9 million per.

  Reply With Quote
Old
02-06-2009, 07:51 AM
  #60
RangerFan10
Registered User
 
RangerFan10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Long Island/Plattsbu
Country: United States
Posts: 5,328
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to RangerFan10
I don't see Holik as horrible because of his contract, pre-cap salaries don't mean much to me. Have ticket prices gone down now that the Rangers have spending limits now? So who cares if Holik made 500K or 500 million, he was a bad signing because he sucked.

RangerFan10 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-06-2009, 08:05 AM
  #61
RangerFan10
Registered User
 
RangerFan10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Long Island/Plattsbu
Country: United States
Posts: 5,328
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to RangerFan10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bodhisattva View Post
Team offers 2 year , player asks 4 years... plenty to discuss if they wish

The team certainly suffered losing Nylander. Nylander suffered losing Jagr/NYR, Jagr suffered losing Nylander.

Im not feeling the upside. At least not today. Maybe then we were a one line team but the team now doesnt really have ANY line that shows any consistency. We had one of the most dominant lines in the NHL and blew it up to sign Gomez and Drury to longer more expensive deals. I'm just saying... the returns thus far are not so impressive.

Id rather be looking at Nylanders contract winding down and banking the chemistry continued to be Magic. We still could have signed One of Gomez/Drury to be the 2nd line C
I just don't understand the feeling that letting them go(even though they were offered the short term contracts they deserved) is a bad move. The lack of talented replacements is the problem. Don't get me wrong, I'd love the talent and point production any one of them had in 2006-07 on the wing for this team, but those 3 were done here. It was time to move towards something bigger. And Gomez, Drury, Redden being the faces of this team weren't really great plans. But the Jagr era was over. And if it was more exciting than this era for this team, so be it; but let's be honest with ourselves, nothing would be much different regarding point total or where I expect this team to finish in the playoffs. It'd be easier to make a deadline move, maybe. It'd be possible that we may bring in a nice sniper to provide secondary scoring, sure. But that's a lot of what-if's to talk about.

RangerFan10 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-06-2009, 10:00 AM
  #62
Fataldogg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 7,483
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerFan10 View Post
While it's easy to look back and miss the Straka-Nylander-Jagr line...all 3 were declining, and if their current statuses don't tell you that I don't know what will. Jagr is in Russia giving it 70% every night and getting paid crazy amounts to do so. Straka dropped off the face of the earth, and Nylander is playing about as good as a 3rd line center. Their last year just about everyone was ready for a change. The change came and didn't quite work out. It happens.
Or because Straka / Nylander / Jagr were playing in a defensive system that didn't suit their style? It's easy to say Jagr was declining until you saw his true potential in the last quarter of the season and into the playoffs. When Jagr plays the way he wants to play he's one of the best in the world. But they were getting older. This is true. But Jagr is still much better than anyone on the Rangers and I wouldn't exactly say Gomez / Drury are players on the rise like Kane, Getzlaf, etc; but players who already peaked out and are just great 2nd line players in their prime but not true 1st line players. Jagr is much better than them.

And Jagr giving 70% in Russia. Can you blame the guy? He saw a friend of his die next to him on the bench. I know I'd lose a lot of interest in hockey if I saw that. So, don't be quick to judge the guy. I'd imagine it would be a difficult task to see your friend die and a month later get back to playing competitive hockey. The whole team has struggled and declined off since his death.

Fataldogg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-06-2009, 10:03 AM
  #63
Fataldogg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 7,483
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerFan10 View Post
I just don't understand the feeling that letting them go(even though they were offered the short term contracts they deserved) is a bad move. The lack of talented replacements is the problem. Don't get me wrong, I'd love the talent and point production any one of them had in 2006-07 on the wing for this team, but those 3 were done here. It was time to move towards something bigger. And Gomez, Drury, Redden being the faces of this team weren't really great plans. But the Jagr era was over. And if it was more exciting than this era for this team, so be it; but let's be honest with ourselves, nothing would be much different regarding point total or where I expect this team to finish in the playoffs. It'd be easier to make a deadline move, maybe. It'd be possible that we may bring in a nice sniper to provide secondary scoring, sure. But that's a lot of what-if's to talk about.
And our point total is from a lot of luck in shoot outs, over achieving, etc; it doesn't reflect what we are. With Jagr our point total actually reflected the quality of play. And I don't think we'll be much of a playoff threat this season. Once we get eliminated in the first round in five games by the Capitals you'll understand that we're not at the same competitive level this season. We're not making the 2nd round this year. And we're getting boring hockey to boot.

Fataldogg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-06-2009, 11:24 AM
  #64
mschmidt64
Registered User
 
mschmidt64's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 856
vCash: 500
Someone set me straight.

I thought you could send a player down to the minors, subject to waivers, to remove his salary from the cap.

Is that not true?

mschmidt64 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-06-2009, 11:29 AM
  #65
Trxjw
Retired.
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Land of no calls..
Country: United States
Posts: 17,215
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mschmidt64 View Post
Someone set me straight.

I thought you could send a player down to the minors, subject to waivers, to remove his salary from the cap.

Is that not true?
It's true.

Trxjw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-06-2009, 11:37 AM
  #66
mschmidt64
Registered User
 
mschmidt64's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 856
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trxjw View Post
It's true.
Ok.

So if we want, can we just send Gomez or Redden, if they're so terrible, down to the minors (subject to waivers) and get rid of his salary?

Then we'd have the space to sign a FA this offseason.

mschmidt64 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-06-2009, 11:45 AM
  #67
Trxjw
Retired.
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Land of no calls..
Country: United States
Posts: 17,215
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mschmidt64 View Post
Ok.

So if we want, can we just send Gomez or Redden, if they're so terrible, down to the minors (subject to waivers) and get rid of his salary?

Then we'd have the space to sign a FA this offseason.
In theory you could do that, yes. However, you run into some problems.

1) An ethical problem. Redden just signed a long-term deal with us and it speaks negatively to potential free-agent acquisitions by saying; "Play well or play somewhere else." In today's tumultuous market, job security is as important as salary. Guys who are in the latter stage of their career want long-term deals so they don't have to pick up and move their family every few seasons.

2) You want some value for your players. Sather is too proud to admit a massive mistake like Redden. He's going to try and move him via trade if he really wants to get rid of him. If you waive a guy like Gomez, I'm sure someone will claim him regardless of his contract. He's a better player than many small markets could attract and they give up nothing other than cap space to acquire him. Sather would much rather try to fish some value for him than let him go for free.

Trxjw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-06-2009, 11:54 AM
  #68
jniklast
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Country: Germany
Posts: 5,347
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trxjw View Post
In theory you could do that, yes. However, you run into some problems.

1) An ethical problem. Redden just signed a long-term deal with us and it speaks negatively to potential free-agent acquisitions by saying; "Play well or play somewhere else." In today's tumultuous market, job security is as important as salary. Guys who are in the latter stage of their career want long-term deals so they don't have to pick up and move their family every few seasons.

2) You want some value for your players. Sather is too proud to admit a massive mistake like Redden. He's going to try and move him via trade if he really wants to get rid of him. If you waive a guy like Gomez, I'm sure someone will claim him regardless of his contract. He's a better player than many small markets could attract and they give up nothing other than cap space to acquire him. Sather would much rather try to fish some value for him than let him go for free.
and 3) there's a 10 million dollar salary cap in the ahl i believe

jniklast is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-06-2009, 12:19 PM
  #69
mschmidt64
Registered User
 
mschmidt64's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 856
vCash: 500
I see.

Well, I was hearing some talk about signing a guy like Kovalchuk in the offseason. Given that our primary need right now is some scoring, and we have a lot of defensemen coming up in the minors, and we also seem to be backlogged with 2/3 line centers (Drury, Gomez, Dubinski, Anisimov) it might be wise to send down at fat contract from either one of those positions, hope they get picked up on waivers, and then use the freed up cash to sign a guy like Kovalchuk.

mschmidt64 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-06-2009, 01:03 PM
  #70
n8
WAAAAAAA!!!
 
n8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: san francisco
Country: United States
Posts: 7,439
vCash: 500
Worse trade by Sather was Rick Middleton to Boston for Ken Hodge.
That and Ratelle & Park for Espo.

seriously, what is with people getting Sather and Neil Smith mixed up?

n8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-06-2009, 01:10 PM
  #71
Fletch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 21,473
vCash: 500
If Gomez...

and Redden have some sort of no movement clauses, does that also mean they can't be moved to the AHL? I don't think there will be a scenario that we'll see them there. That's just being totally fiscally irresponsible on Sather's part.

Fletch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-06-2009, 01:22 PM
  #72
Trxjw
Retired.
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Land of no calls..
Country: United States
Posts: 17,215
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fletch View Post
and Redden have some sort of no movement clauses, does that also mean they can't be moved to the AHL? I don't think there will be a scenario that we'll see them there. That's just being totally fiscally irresponsible on Sather's part.
A no-movement clause prevents a player from being sent down to the minors. Gomez and Redden only have limited no-trade clauses, so they could, in theory, be waived.

Trxjw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-06-2009, 01:26 PM
  #73
levski87
Registered User
 
levski87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 3,980
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trxjw View Post
A no-movement clause prevents a player from being sent down to the minors. Gomez and Redden only have limited no-trade clauses, so they could, in theory, be waived.
Trxjw, if they are waived, what would be their AHL Salary? It would still be 6.5 mil (Redden) for the course of the year?

levski87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-06-2009, 01:50 PM
  #74
Trxjw
Retired.
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Land of no calls..
Country: United States
Posts: 17,215
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by levski87 View Post
Trxjw, if they are waived, what would be their AHL Salary? It would still be 6.5 mil (Redden) for the course of the year?
I believe so. I don't think salaries are reduced when a player is in the AHL, unless they're on an entry-level contract. Even then, I think some ELC players are guaranteed a certain compensation level.

Trxjw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-07-2009, 02:04 AM
  #75
Jersey Girl
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 3,956
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by fourhole View Post
Best move: Keeping Don Maloney for as long as did.
Worst move: Not stepping down when Maloney left
Because of how well Maloney ran the Islanders when he was their GM?

Jersey Girl 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 06:15 PM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.