The extra $2M will give Sather more reason to load Kovalchuk with a high salary. What a bad idea.
I'd much rather sign two $4M-$5M players to make a really solid 1st and 2nd line, and guarantee all our good prospects can get paid when it's due than to give Kovalchuk a $9M salary for the next 10 years.
this!!!! the team needs a lot more then 1 player to be a contender
this!!!! the team needs a lot more then 1 player to be a contender
You aren't making a solid 1st and second line with two $4-5 million dollar players. In addition, because they're UFAs, and all UFAs are overpaid, you're going to be spending $3-4 million more than their value.
You know who are "$4-5 million dollar players?" Gomez and Drury. Unfortunately, they were signed as UFAs, and thus were overpaid and received $7+ million each. Marleau's going to be the same thing this offseason.
The only way to fix our offense is to undergo several years of incremental steps or to add a player who can carry his own line, so that we have.
I'm fine with taking the incremental steps, but obviously others aren't if they're advocating another multi-play UFA shopping spree.
Thus, the superstar who can carry his own line is the only viable short-term/long-term solution. Unfortunately, Kovalchuk is the only player of that ilk that is available... so you go after him, and you go after him hard.
this!!!! the team needs a lot more then 1 player to be a contender
We scored 222 goals this season. If we had 41 goals more, we would've been 2nd in the east in scoring. Even if Kovulchuk offered us 30 more goals, we would be 3rd in east.
Just did this real quick I'd like to see a team that looks like something along these lines next year...
(Note: this is if salary cap were 59 mill.) Also, with this line-up we are 1.4 over the cap and yes 1.4 mill is what donald brashear makes
FORWARDS
* kovalchuk — $9,000,000
Marian Gaborik — $7,500,000
Chris Drury — $7,050,000
Ryan Callahan — $2,300,000
Sean Avery — $1,937,500
Brandon Dubinsky — $1,850,000
Donald Brashear — $1,400,000
Artem Anisimov — $821,666
* Erik Christensen — $750,000
* Jody Shelley — $725,000
* Brandon Prust — $700,000
Brian Boyle — $525,000
* Dane Byers — $500,000
DEFENSEMEN
Michal Rozsival — $5,000,000
* volchenkov — $4,500,000
* Marc Staal — $3,500,000
* Daniel Girardi — $2,550,000
Michael Del Zotto ($212,500) $1,087,500
Bobby Sanguinetti — $855,000
GOALTENDERS
Henrik Lundqvist — $6,875,000
* Alex Auld — $1,000,000
BUYOUTS
NONE
LOST VIA REENTRY WAIVERS
NONE
CAPGEEK.COM TOTALS
ROSTER SIZE 21
SALARY CAP $56,800,000
PAYROLL $60,426,666
BONUSES $212,500
CAP SPACE $-3,414,166
thats IF kovy is willing to take $9mil...i see him taking $10mil. as for volchenkov, im not sold on him wanting to come here just yet
We scored 222 goals this season. If we had 41 goals more, we would've been 2nd in the east in scoring. Even if Kovulchuk offered us 30 more goals, we would be 3rd in east.
It's even simpler than that...replace Prospal's 20 goals with Kovalchuk's 41, and the Rangers go from 16th in the league in scoring to 6th. The teams ahead of them would be WAS, VAN, CHI, PIT and SJ...each of which had more than 100 points.
The higher the cup, the better it for big markets, like Rangers. It helps to fight KHL as well.
We don't need Kovalchuk to be competitive. All we need are the 1st line C and a secondary scorer to compliment Gaborik.
The higher the cup, the better it for big markets, like Rangers. It helps to fight KHL as well.
We don't need Kovalchuk to be competitive. All we need are the 1st line C and a secondary scorer to compliment Gaborik.
Gaborik had 42 goals this year... what do you expect a #1 center to do for him?
Much more important than the elusive #1 center is simply having more than 1 scoring threat.
Gaborik had 42 goals this year... what do you expect a #1 center to do for him?
Much more important than the elusive #1 center is simply having more than 1 scoring threat.
Compliment to Gaborik is expected from a 2nd line winger I was talking about. Someone with Zherdev talent level or close. #1 center is needed because there's hole at that position and it may cost a lot to properly fill it..
Compliment to Gaborik is expected from a 2nd line winger I was talking about. Someone with Zherdev talent level or close. #1 center is needed because there's hole at that position and it may cost a lot to properly fill it..
I just think you (and many others) are too pigeonholed in the traditional #1c - #1 winger dichotomy. Gaborik showed he can perform phenomenally with Christensen, Prospal, or Dubinsky centering him. Why invest $7+ million in a #1 center when you can get just as good performance by having another elite winger? And, there just happens to be an elite winger available.
Joe Thornton, Brad Richards, etc. might turn Gaborik into a 50 goal scorer and add ~20 goals of their own (while benefiting whoever plays LW on that line - let's say Dubinsky for purposes of this argument). An elite winger on a different line won't increase Gaborik's production, but will take pressure off of him and add ~40 goals of their own.
Alternatively, you can sign Kovalchuk, leave Dubinsky and Christensen with Gaborik, and now have another line that is just as dangerous, instead of one line that is marginally better.
So under the #1C scenario you've got:
Dubinsky - First-Line Center - Gaborik Second-Line Winger - Anisimov/Drury/Christensen - Callahan
You need to fill two holes, and if you're doing it from UFA, that means you're overpaying two more players. I just don't see Gaborik's production increasing that much... maybe he becomes a 50 goal scorer, but I seriously doubt he becomes a 55, let along 60 goal scorer.
Alternatively, you can get equal, or arguably better production by signing Kovalchuk (or acquiring a different elite winger: ie: Nash, etc. - Kovalchuk's available, so I'll go with him), and end up with:
Dubinsky - Christensen - Gaborik
Kovalchuk - Anisimov/Drury - Callahan
You've now only brought in 1 UFA, meaning another spot for a player to develop (and having 4 players playing with Gaborik or Kovalchuk at any given time will certainly help their development). Now, instead of shutting down 1 line, you've got two elite scoring threats who make their entire lines better.
Summary: I think people are too focused on the "ideal" hockey lineup (ie: we need a #1 center no matter what) instead of the possibility that we can build a legitimate offense in a different way.
I just think you (and many others) are too pigeonholed in the traditional #1c - #1 winger dichotomy. Gaborik showed he can perform phenomenally with Christensen, Prospal, or Dubinsky centering him. Why invest $7+ million in a #1 center when you can get just as good performance by having another elite winger? And, there just happens to be an elite winger available.
Joe Thornton, Brad Richards, etc. might turn Gaborik into a 50 goal scorer and add ~20 goals of their own (while benefiting whoever plays LW on that line - let's say Dubinsky for purposes of this argument).
Alternatively, you can sign Kovalchuk, leave Dubinsky and Christensen with Gaborik, and now have another line that is just as dangerous, instead of one line that is marginally better.
So under the #1C scenario you've got:
Dubinsky - First-Line Center - Gaborik Second-Line Winger - Anisimov/Drury/Christensen - Callahan
You need to fill two holes, and if you're doing it from UFA, that means you're overpaying two more players. I just don't see Gaborik's production increasing that much... maybe he becomes a 50 goal scorer, but I seriously doubt he becomes a 55, let along 60 goal scorer.
Alternatively, you can get equal, or arguably better production by signing Kovalchuk (or acquiring a different elite winger: ie: Nash, etc. - Kovalchuk's available, so I'll go with him)
You've now only brought in 1 UFA, meaning another spot for a player to develop (and having 4 players playing with Gaborik or Kovalchuk at any given time will certainly help their development). Now, instead of shutting down 1 line, you've got two elite scoring threats who make their entire lines better.
Summary: I think people are too focused on the "ideal" hockey lineup (ie: we need a #1 center no matter what) instead of the possibility that we can build a legitimate offense in a different way.
Nah, I disagree. It is clear Kovalchuk needs his own C to perform. See NJD for reference. Callahan is not top 6 player, BTW. He is great guy and excellent role player, but he is playing over his head. Also, name the players that were made better by Kovalchuk.
People are focus on "ideal" line-up for the reason. It works.
Nah, I disagree. It is clear Kovalchuk needs his own C to perform. See NJD for reference. Callahan is not top 6 player, BTW. He is great guy and excellent role player, but he is playing over his head. Also, name the players that were made better by Kovalchuk.
People are focus on "ideal" line-up for the reason. It works.
Outside of Savard, years ago (who didn't play exclusively with Kovalchuk, other than on the PP), Kovalchuk has never had a #1 center, yet he's still scored 40-50g each season. As far as his time with NJD, he's had 10 goals and 17 assists in 27 games after being thrown into the lineup right before the Olympics. In the playoffs he's got 1 goal (EN), and 4 assists for 5 points in 3 games.
You should be looking at Kovalchuk's time in Atlanta, not NJ, because of the small sample size.
In Atlanta, Antropov (this season), Afinogenov (this season), Kozlov, Peverly, etc. all have benefited from playing with Kovalchuk to an extent.
I think Plekanec would be a real good fit for this team. I think he would mesh well with Gaborik however, I and hopefully Sather have learned our lesson. "Do not overspend" We cant afford anymore bad contracts.
I just think you (and many others) are too pigeonholed in the traditional #1c - #1 winger dichotomy. Gaborik showed he can perform phenomenally with Christensen, Prospal, or Dubinsky centering him. Why invest $7+ million in a #1 center when you can get just as good performance by having another elite winger? And, there just happens to be an elite winger available.
Joe Thornton, Brad Richards, etc. might turn Gaborik into a 50 goal scorer and add ~20 goals of their own (while benefiting whoever plays LW on that line - let's say Dubinsky for purposes of this argument). An elite winger on a different line won't increase Gaborik's production, but will take pressure off of him and add ~40 goals of their own.
Alternatively, you can sign Kovalchuk, leave Dubinsky and Christensen with Gaborik, and now have another line that is just as dangerous, instead of one line that is marginally better.
So under the #1C scenario you've got:
Dubinsky - First-Line Center - Gaborik Second-Line Winger - Anisimov/Drury/Christensen - Callahan
You need to fill two holes, and if you're doing it from UFA, that means you're overpaying two more players. I just don't see Gaborik's production increasing that much... maybe he becomes a 50 goal scorer, but I seriously doubt he becomes a 55, let along 60 goal scorer.
Alternatively, you can get equal, or arguably better production by signing Kovalchuk (or acquiring a different elite winger: ie: Nash, etc. - Kovalchuk's available, so I'll go with him), and end up with:
Dubinsky - Christensen - Gaborik
Kovalchuk - Anisimov/Drury - Callahan
You've now only brought in 1 UFA, meaning another spot for a player to develop (and having 4 players playing with Gaborik or Kovalchuk at any given time will certainly help their development). Now, instead of shutting down 1 line, you've got two elite scoring threats who make their entire lines better.
Summary: I think people are too focused on the "ideal" hockey lineup (ie: we need a #1 center no matter what) instead of the possibility that we can build a legitimate offense in a different way.
Agreed on all points.
Everyone seems to be on the #1 center kick, and while it is important, there are many successful teams without #1 centers. In today's NHL, teams have been finding different ways to build great teams.
The point was brought up earlier by Azrok, what does a #1 center do for Gabby?
A good distrubutor could get him above 50, which is an improment of 10 goals. Kovalchuk is a threat for 50 each year, which is far and away better than our existing wing and center combined...
I just think you (and many others) are too pigeonholed in the traditional #1c - #1 winger dichotomy. Gaborik showed he can perform phenomenally with Christensen, Prospal, or Dubinsky centering him. Why invest $7+ million in a #1 center when you can get just as good performance by having another elite winger? And, there just happens to be an elite winger available.
Because a #1 center, in addition to putting up points himself, makes those he plays with better. It's not just about getting a #1 center to help Gabby score a few extra goals. A #1 center should put up 70+ points himself. And whoever is on the other wing should see a boost in production.
We've seen it this year with Gabby. Yes, he is a good passer and made some really nice plays this year, but he's a shooter first. His play didn't magically elevate the game of those around him. A #1 center can do that.
Look at Kovy in NJ. They have been worse since they got him. They're down 2-1 to a team with no goaltending. A team that had to be US in a shootout to make the playoffs. Kovy has never been part of winning team in the NHL. Atlanta did just as well without him as they did with him this year. Why is that, if he's so good?
Because a #1 center, in addition to putting up points himself, makes those he plays with better. It's not just about getting a #1 center to help Gabby score a few extra goals. A #1 center should put up 70+ points himself. And whoever is on the other wing should see a boost in production.
We've seen it this year with Gabby. Yes, he is a good passer and made some really nice plays this year, but he's a shooter first. His play didn't magically elevate the game of those around him. A #1 center can do that.
You don't think Gaborik elevated the game of Christensen, Prospal, and Dubinsky?
A #1c might elevate their game more, but it's not because they're a #1c, it's because they're a playmaker. You don't have to be a center to be a playmaker... a good example of a playmaking winger is Ales Hemsky.
Kovalchuk absolutely elevated the game of Peverly, Kozlov, Antropov, etc. in Atlanta.
Gaborik absolutely elevated the game of Christensen, Prospal, and Dubinsky... partially because of his playmaking ability (which is being severely underated) and also by creating room on the ice.
EDIT: Summary: You're confusing a #1C and a pure "playmaker." Thornton is a #1c who is purely a playmaker. Lecavalier is a #1c who is less of a playmaker. Kovalchuk, Gaborik, etc. are primarily goal scorers, but they bring a significant degree of playmaking, and elevate the play of those around them simply by creating room on the ice.
Because a #1 center, in addition to putting up points himself, makes those he plays with better. It's not just about getting a #1 center to help Gabby score a few extra goals. A #1 center should put up 70+ points himself. And whoever is on the other wing should see a boost in production.
We've seen it this year with Gabby. Yes, he is a good passer and made some really nice plays this year, but he's a shooter first. His play didn't magically elevate the game of those around him. A #1 center can do that.
Look at Kovy in NJ. They have been worse since they got him. They're down 2-1 to a team with no goaltending. A team that had to be US in a shootout to make the playoffs. Kovy has never been part of winning team in the NHL. Atlanta did just as well without him as they did with him this year. Why is that, if he's so good?
NJ's problems were evident long before Kovalchuk arrived. Look at their record since December. Just because Kovalchuk didn't magically fix their problems, which are primarily defensive, and they're losing to the Flyers isn't a knock solely on Kovalchuk.
Regarding Atlanta, a sample size of 25 games isn't enough to close the book. Kovalchuk more than did his share in Atlanta since the lockout... the problem there was with what they surrounded him with.
In Atlanta, Antropov (this season), Afinogenov (this season), Kozlov, Peverly, etc. all have benefited from playing with Kovalchuk to an extent.
Kozlov, Antropov and Afinogenov are all accomplished NHLers (to an extent). They did and will do well with or without Kovalchuk (to an extent). Peverly is an undeniable talent (to an extent).Therefore Kovalchuk is a star of his own and he would be simply redundant to Gaborik (to an extent).
Kozlov, Antropov and Afinogenov are all accomplished NHLers (to an extent). They did and will do well with or without Kovalchuk (to an extent). Peverly is an undeniable talent (to an extent).Therefore Kovalchuk is a star of his own and he would be simply redundant to Gaborik (to an extent).
I think you're misunderstanding or didn't read my posts. Gaborik and Kovalchuk would be playing on separate lines (except on the PP). They'd be carrying their own lines, not redundant pieces on the same line.
