You guys are right, over pay Richards, sign Markov, sign Gagne, keep the status quo the same. Last time I'm stating this, I'm neither pro or anti- Richards
Can we agree that most of us want Brad Richards cause we see the obvious need for a #1 C and PP QB?Age aside
Can we also agree that the majority wants no part of Markov or Gagne because we want the team to continue to grow the core young talent?
All most of us are saying is please get us a true #1 C and that's it. I am fine with absolutely NO other FA signings cause I want the home grown talent to continue to get chances.
Everyone freaking out on Richards view things glass half empty while the ones that want him are half full. This will never change as their are pessimisits and optimists in the world
Truth of the matter is Rangers Management wants Brad Richards and that will be shown July 1st whether they sign him or not. The offer will be there
Yes there is...age. And when you go off listing all the players who have performed well after age 30, be sure to also include those whose production went south as they cruised into and through their 30's.
And Richards averages 71.6 points per season to begin with.
Number of centers who had more than 71 points last year. 8. Thats a top 10 center in the NHL right there that wont cost any assets to acquire.
Can we agree that most of us want Brad Richards cause we see the obvious need for a #1 C and PP QB?Age aside
Can we also agree that the majority wants no part of Markov or Gagne because we want the team to continue to grow the core young talent?
All most of us are saying is please get us a true #1 C and that's it. I am fine with absolutely NO other FA signings cause I want the home grown talent to continue to get chances.
Everyone freaking out on Richards view things glass half empty while the ones that want him are half full. This will never change as their are pessimisits and optimists in the world
Truth of the matter is Rangers Management wants Brad Richards and that will be shown July 1st whether they sign him or not. The offer will be there
When you are tying up your cap for six years, you can't say 'age aside'. Age is a big issue.
I still don't see any recognition of the lockout year which is likely in 2012-13 and the possible salary cap changes that may be included in the new CBA in anyone's considerations.
Coming out of the lockout, having a 33 year old center who has a huge long contract might not be the best way to go.
Losing one of Richards remaining "best" years should also be considered.
So this means we should pay him $7.5 million per year for six years?
if you want a top 10 center. yes. he was the #3 center in the league last season as well, so its not like hes trending downwards. i was dead set against signing Drury and Blowmez....but Richards makes sense...granted i was much MUCH more enthusiastic about signing Kovalchuk. he made more sense to me last season because of his combination of age, and point shot.
I still don't see any recognition of the lockout year which is likely in 2012-13 and the possible salary cap changes that may be included in the new CBA in anyone's considerations.
Coming out of the lockout, having a 33 year old center who has a huge long contract might not be the best way to go.
Losing one of Richards remaining "best" years should also be considered.
But it wouldn't be the same thing. If the discussion was about signing role players, players way past their prime, or mediocre second liners whose numerous flaws had been masked by their presence on strong teams, then you'd have a point. However, that's not the case here. You couldn't make a worse argument against signing Richards than bringing up past free agent failures, unless your actual goal is to delineate your inability to discern between different levels of player skill, talent, value and worth. This is not a point. There is no comparison. None. One has absolutely nothing to do with the other, because not only is Richards a MUCH better player than the aforementioned players, the situation is completely different.
Not only have the Rangers NEVER signed a legitimate superstar player during the Sather era, there has never even been an opportunity or consideration to make such an acquisition. There was no reasoning behind signing Gomez and Drury. Those were moves that should never have been even considered, because they made no sense. They didn't solve the team's problems, they didn't fill the team's holes, and they didn't offer the possibility of moving the team forward.
Few things in life are guaranteed, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't take chances. Just take them when the pro column outweighs the con column. That wasn't the case in 2007 or 2008. It's certainly the case today, as far as Richards is concerned.
Can we get another Richards thread going where there is actual intelligent discussion, rather than the same weak and tired argument that has been ripped to shreds time and time again?
Fantastic post, however (bolded) if you recall we passed on Nylander, so we needed a replacement - Gomez
They had no true # 2 center with Cullen not working out, and they had their eyes on Drury since the Buffalo series.
At the time these were moves that needed to be made, they weren't top three players, but they were in their primes and both playing well at the time.
That explains alot. Why don't you explain your answers when people ask you for specifics? You just toss out generalized responses as a way to avoid answering.
Since none of us are actual GM's we are not privy to who is/is not available around the league, it's unfair to ask anyone to give a point-by-point description of how you would build this team into a Stanley Cup contender.
First, I was right here in this forum a few summers ago screaming long and loud about NOT signing Wade Redden to a long term contract. And the funny thing is, while everyone now sees how ridiculous that was, there were a lot of people opposing me, stating how Redden's game only went south because his mom passed away, the guy should be given a break because of one bad year, etc. So I am allowed to criticize that move directly, because I was willing to speak out against it at the time. And I didn't have a lot of company. You can look it up.
Funny how all the people who in RETROSPECT call Redden a terrible signing/AHL player, etc. were not there with me at the time saying it was bad.
No I am NOT saying Richards will be as bad as Redden, but I am saying this idea of overpaying free agents for long term contracts has precedent.
Going forward, at the last two trade deadlines I advocated trading assets (Prospal, etc.) for whatevery young players/draft picks you can get, but once again I was shouted down because 'anything can happen when you get into the playoffs'. Unforturnately nothing happened, and we did not restock whatsoever.
I am sure there are plenty of knowledgeable potential GM's who can come in here and turn the Rangers into Stanley Cup contenders down the road by making good draft picks, trades, and free agent signings. Something Sather has been unable to do.
I cannot list those transactions...heck, the new GM could not list them either, until he sees what's available to him.
But one thing has been proven...Sather constantly putting this team into position to make a run at 8th place has not worked.
Even I didn't defend the signing of the Redden, only the price tag (and at that, my only point was that market value does actually exist). No one here asked you for a diatribe about how the team hasn't done what you thought they should in the past.
You seem like you're pretty aware of the goings-on around the league. No one asked you to look into a crystal ball and see who is available that those of us don't know about. Hell, I don't even care if you tell me what we should do to rectify the problems on the roster. I just want to know what you think those problems ARE in the first place with specifics.
As in: do we still need a stronger checking line? How about 2nd pair D? I honestly don't know if those are things you think because YOU REFUSE TO TELL US. All you have is "nothing will change under Sather" and "I was right about this" (although most of us weren't "make it to the playoffs and anything can happen" this year, but rather "make it to the playoffs to give our youth some seasoning") and your anger. I desperately want to know what holes you think there are in our lineup. Please help me out.
Yeah, but had we just kept Nyl to play with Jagr, then there is no need. We created that need.
agreed, and i would have kept Nylander, but i think he overpriced himself a bit, along with the amount of years he wanted. It might be safe to say that Sather knew Jagr's intention of going to the KHL at some point and didn't want Nylander here after his departure...
agreed, and i would have kept Nylander, but i think he overpriced himself a bit, along with the amount of years he wanted. It might be safe to say that Sather knew Jagr's intention of going to the KHL at some point and didn't want Nylander here after his departure...
Even I didn't defend the signing of the Redden, only the price tag (and at that, my only point was that market value does actually exist). No one here asked you for a diatribe about how the team hasn't done what you thought they should in the past.
OK this is starting to get weird. One guy is relentlessly asking me to tell him exactly what this team needs to do, and another comes on and says 'no one here asked you for a diatribe'.
Well, no one here asked you for a diatribe either.
OK this is starting to get weird. One guy is relentlessly asking me to tell him exactly what this team needs to do, and another comes on and says 'no one here asked you for a diatribe'.
Well, no one here asked you for a diatribe either.
Don't take words out of context. I'm asking you for a diatribe about what's wrong with the roster.
Unfortunately there is nothing to figure out. We are stuck in this cycle until we get a new GM, which is not happening any time soon.
we're not stuck in the same cycle at all. Post-lockout, how many prospects have we traded/let go that have turned into something, save Korpikoski who had 1 good year last season after taking forever to develop and getting his fair chance? Now look at the roster and tell me how many are going to be staples in the future...
And the prospects that many are very confident in becoming NHLers
Hagelin, Thomas, Kreider, Valentenko, Kundtratek
And the other prospects that could end up amounting to NHLers for us as well:
Grachev, Weise, Bourque, Horak,Yogan, Pashnin, McIlrath
Sather made his mistakes, and he salvaged a lot of them too...he turned Gomez into McDonagh, he buried Redden, Drury may be bought out.
So sure, there's plenty of negatives to dwell on, but I certainly don't think Sather is stupid enough to not learn from his post-lockout, UFA mistakes. They were all fairly clustered together save Derek Boogaard.
He's not going to make mistakes that could hurt his chances of retaining top homegrown talent
Don't take words out of context. I'm asking you for a diatribe about what's wrong with the roster.
Nothing. It's wonderful in your world, so let's leave it at that. And with Brad Richards we're obviously Stanley Cup contenders in your world too. I done with you telling me which diatribe is good and which is bad.
Does anyone really believe that the next GM will adopt methods radically different to Sather’s?
By that I mean, allowing the team to finish poorly enough to warrant top 5 picks for several years in a
Row?
Again, Shoenfeld said as much in his recent interview, that would NEVER happen with the NYR.
I would welcome a new GM (the right one, whoever that is) as much as the next guy, but do you really think he will do the above? I don’t.
It’s still going to come down to good drafting and development.
Good trades and bringing the right players via UFA.
Having a coach whose system the players buy into and play for.
We seem to have the above right now and the next year or two will be crucial to see
If the NYR can take the next step.
When you are tying up your cap for six years, you can't say 'age aside'. Age is a big issue.
If the contract is frontloaded it's a lot easier to get rid of Richards towards the end, whether it be a buyout or a trade.
I highly doubt Richards goes from being a PPG player to abysmal in six years. If, and I stress if, he was bad enough at the end for us to want to move him, unless he wasn't willing to move whatever NTC is included in his deal, there'd most likely be a team out there that would take Brad Richard's caphit to be comfortably above the cap floor and getting the name into the lineup while only spending $3-5mil per year.
Nothing. It's wonderful in your world, so let's leave it at that. And with Brad Richards we're obviously Stanley Cup contenders in your world too. I done with you telling me which diatribe is good and which is bad.
What other moves will we make? Players of Richards' caliber aren't going to sign 1 or 2 year deals. It's not happening. Without a player like him, we're going nowhere near the Cup. Would you like us to trade out all our assets and stink it up for 3 years, and hope our prospects work out? Tanking is a terrible thing IMO, and Sather and Dolan would never go for it. They want to stay competitive while building up to be a competitor, and they've been doing a pretty decent job.
To be fair, when the Drury and Gomez deals went down, we were a 4th or 5th place team. They were bad deals, for mid-tier players, before the prospects that now make up our core were even developed and producing the way they are now. Now that core is developed, and a top-tier player if available via free agency. I don't see how anybody would want Sather to pass that opportunity up.
