HFBoards

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

Nylander a Ranger...

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
08-11-2004, 10:45 PM
  #101
Edge
Registered User
 
Edge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Sin City
Country: United States
Posts: 13,196
vCash: 500
I don't necessarily have a problem with Nylander himself so much as the money and the time the Rangers are locked into this deal.

Signing a guy who's been hurt, and who at 32 to a THREE year guranteed contract just isn't a smart move. I can understand a one year deal, even a two year deal, but three with a team option for a fourth is a lot to give on the brink of what is very likely to be a salary cap.

My problem isn't with him on next year's team {which is what some people keep going back to}. Jagr does indeed need someone to play with and Nylander isn't the worst option. My problem is seeing this guy at 33, 34 and 35. At the salary and those ages he's gonna be next to impossible to move. Which essentially means that both him and Jagr have virtual no trade clauses for the next several years.

The argument of "would you rather have Carter" is also very blinded in it's approach. There was never any doubt Jagr was the better player, but the real question is now how handcuffed is this team over the next 4 years if they actually start to build a winner. Regardless of Washington is paying the Rangers, I gurantee the whole salary would be counted against the Rangers. There isn't another team in the league that wants Jagr for more then a late round pick. Believe me, the Rangers shopped him everyday for about a month before the draft.

But see this is now the problem with the Jagr move. Not only we are locked into his salary but now we HAVE to sign a player to play with him...maybe even two. Right away we are almost now locked into having to sign people to play with Jagr and sorry to say that's just not the way to build a team at this point.

Personally i think the issue that is being overlooked is not what this means for next season but rather what it means in the year 2007 when both Jagr and Nylander are 35 years old {with injury histories} and making a possible 14 million dollars combined. The concern isnt whether the Rangers can afford it, the concern is whether the Rangers are going to be stuck in mediocrity because their budget is going to be handcuffed.

Edge is offline  
Old
08-11-2004, 11:45 PM
  #102
BwayBshirt
Registered User
 
BwayBshirt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: My NY State of Mind
Country: United States
Posts: 3,370
vCash: 500
[QUOTE=Edge]I don't necessarily have a problem with Nylander himself so much as the money and the time the Rangers are locked into this deal.

Signing a guy who's been hurt, and who at 32 to a THREE year guranteed contract just isn't a smart move. I can understand a one year deal, even a two year deal, but three with a team option for a fourth is a lot to give on the brink of what is very likely to be a salary cap.

My problem isn't with him on next year's team {which is what some people keep going back to}. Jagr does indeed need someone to play with and Nylander isn't the worst option. My problem is seeing this guy at 33, 34 and 35. At the salary and those ages he's gonna be next to impossible to move. Which essentially means that both him and Jagr have virtual no trade clauses for the next several years.[QUOTE=Edge]

first off, i respect your opinions a lot. however i really don't think there will be a salary cap. i believe a stiff luxury tax is what both sides will agree upon. i have no hard, concrete evidence to support this but it's my gut feeling because i have had, still have and will have a hard time believing the owners can get a hard salary cap. i'm in the see-it-to-believe-it philosophy on that.

2nd, i disagree that nylander will be impossible to move contract-wise. if he's beat up and/or unproductive for next season then there's a legit point that he would be hard to trade. but if he has a solid season (and we all agree 55+ points would be solid) then he would be very much in demand to be dealt. i don't think the rangers plan whatsoever to deal him for the next nhl season. in year 2 or 3 perhaps but not next season.

and somehow even if they would like to deal him in the next season i believe they could because:

- centers are like defensemen...there will always be a serious need for them on some contender anywhere no matter how good or bad they play

- centers who are playmakers (like nylander is) can play for a long time if they want, which is why guys like him have significant value

- and finally, i would have never thought that deVries could have been dealt in his very first year of a 4-year contract last season, ESPECIALLY with his salary...but lo and behold, he was in pretty high demand by the trade deadline


Last edited by BwayBshirt: 08-11-2004 at 11:48 PM.
BwayBshirt is offline  
Old
08-12-2004, 12:41 AM
  #103
Edge
Registered User
 
Edge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Sin City
Country: United States
Posts: 13,196
vCash: 500
Quote:
first off, i respect your opinions a lot. however i really don't think there will be a salary cap. i believe a stiff luxury tax is what both sides will agree upon. i have no hard, concrete evidence to support this but it's my gut feeling because i have had, still have and will have a hard time believing the owners can get a hard salary cap. i'm in the see-it-to-believe-it philosophy on that.
See I gotta disagree on that and think Larry Brooks of all people brought up the point best. Betteman's butt is on the line this time. There is A LOT riding on this contract situation, probably more than any labor situation in recent memory.

If Betteman fails to get a hard cap or at least a VERY stiff luxury tax system his job is done. Also i will almost gurantee that you will see some clubs folding. If clubs fold that means there are less jobs. Despite their positioning, the NHLPA and almost all of the players know it.

Now if indeed their is a STIFF luxury tax don't think for a moment it will just be money. The current talk right now is your talking about draft picks. The higher above the limit, the higher the draft pick.

Quote:
2nd, i disagree that nylander will be impossible to move contract-wise. if he's beat up and/or unproductive for next season then there's a legit point that he would be hard to trade. but if he has a solid season (and we all agree 55+ points would be solid) then he would be very much in demand to be dealt. i don't think the rangers plan whatsoever to deal him for the next nhl season. in year 2 or 3 perhaps but not next season.

But the big problem is that word "if" when talking about Nylander's season. That is a pretty big "if".

Thats why i have problem with the specifics of the deal. I don't mind a one year deal with a team option for two, but THREE guranteed years puts him at closer to 35 when all is said and done. I gotta tell you, I just don't think Nylander is quite in that high of a class of player to still be very productive into his mid 30's. Just one man's opinion though.

Quote:
and somehow even if they would like to deal him in the next season i believe they could because:

- centers are like defensemen...there will always be a serious need for them on some contender anywhere no matter how good or bad they play

- centers who are playmakers (like nylander is) can play for a long time if they want, which is why guys like him have significant value

- and finally, i would have never thought that deVries could have been dealt in his very first year of a 4-year contract last season, ESPECIALLY with his salary...but lo and behold, he was in pretty high demand by the trade deadline
Few differences in the situation. Devries wasn't hurt and Devries would be almost 2 years younger at the time of a trade {assuming that Nylander IF moved would be moved at next years deadline at the earliest}. And all of this is assuming Nylander can stay healthy and productive for the year {his age, the rangers history and even league history suggest it probably isnt the horse to bet on}.

Also Devries was moved at a time where a lot of teams finally said "screw it, we dont know the future so let's go for it". With a more understood labor situation i just don't see those kind of deals happening.

Devries also has a cup and some serious playoff minutes under his belt. What exactly is Nylander's selling point in a scenario like that? That's where it gets tricky.

I also don't think Nylander is going to be that valuable of an asset into his mid 30's. And again that is assuming the big risk that he actually produces next season. If not the argument itself goes completely out the window because then we can't even point to that.

But that still doesn't even touch on the fact that at the end of the day we needed Nylander because we needed someone to play with Jagr, not because we necessarily wanted him. Once the Rangers realized they couldn't move Jagr they needed to go out and get a center for him. Not for anything but that's not the mindset I want as we try to actually build something.

IF Nylander produces than yes MAYBE we MIGHT be able to move him at some point, but IF he doesn't you won't be able to give him away.

I just don't see how a team that is rebuilding signs a guy to a THREE year contract at this point with so many uncertainties. This team never ceases to amaze me.

We can't afford bonuses for Montoya, or to buy Lundqvists contract for $450,000. but we can sign a 32 year old center, who played 20 some odd games last year and at BEST, IF everything falls into place MIGHT get us 15 goals and 55 points for 3 million dollars a year for a guranteed 3 years.

To quote Motley Crue, "It's the same old situation".

Edge is offline  
Old
08-12-2004, 01:56 AM
  #104
BwayBshirt
Registered User
 
BwayBshirt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: My NY State of Mind
Country: United States
Posts: 3,370
vCash: 500
edge those are some very valid points you made, and i can understand your p.o.v. perfectly.

the way i see things is like this. when renney took over as head coach one of the things he said when he was hired...and i believe maloney may have reinforced this as well...was the team was no longer going to look to get "one-dimensional players". he basically was saying that the team was making a commitment towards getting players who are different from what we have had in the past. nylander is a finesse player and he's not physical, but he's definitely considered a competent defensive player. people say he's an intelligent player and his work ethic in recent seasons hasn't been questioned much. also considering who renney has hired as assistant coaches, i see a new outlook on things or at least a new approach which i and many others welcome.

as for nylanders' contract, i think the trade-off here was the rangers pay nylander only a slight increase in salary for another guranteed year. i really believe that if the rangers want to deal him in advance of the contract they would be able to. worse-case scenerio i see here is he gets injured. but that can be said for anybody else. the difference between nylander and guys like lindros or allison is he doesn't have a recurring area of his body that's a concern. i'd be more worried if nylander kept injuring the same place or places over and over again.

and as for the montoya and lundqvist i think the rangers intentionally made low offers to them so that they could stay where they are. maloney said that money had nothing to do with montoya staying in college at michigan. as for lundqvist well...if blackburn wasn't committed to going to hartford then i'd be more upset with him staying in sweden. i know you are talking about our youngsters in general not just those 2 by themselves. i admit i'm not too much up to date on the skating prospects over in europe who aren't signed. hell i don't even know how many of them are considered unanimously to be ready to come to north america. but the feeling i have coming from the organization right now (i know it can change but at this very moment i'm talking about now) is that sather is allowing renney, maloney and co. to help make decisions for him. until now i had the feeling that sather was doing things independantly outside of the drafts or that dolan was in on things heavily.

maybe these are right decisions, maybe these are wrong decisions. only time will tell. but no one man can do it alone. and for the first time in a while it seems that rangers management is on the same page with their operations, from the GM all the way down to hartford and in between. and that makes me feel encouraged.

BwayBshirt is offline  
Old
08-12-2004, 02:07 AM
  #105
Edge
Registered User
 
Edge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Sin City
Country: United States
Posts: 13,196
vCash: 500
And i understand your points on Nylander as well. You're view makes a lot of sense and I can't really say that it won't happen. In the end, from a decision standpoint, I personally wouldn't have done a three year deal. I could very well be wrong on it, in fact I hope I am. I just get this sinking feeling that in the three years his contract is for, at some point before it is even close to being over, that we're gonna be complaining and upset that Nylander is still here. Again I hope I am wrong, because that could mean good things are happening.

As for what Maloney said, I don't buy it for one second personally. Everyone I talked to, {even Brooks reported on it} has said it came down to money. He wanted basically the same contract as Blackburn, but the Rangers would budge. Now I'm not saying to just throw money at every young player, but both Montoya and Lundqvist were willing to go to the AHL and work {and do it on a two way contract BTW}. The Rangers simply didn't want to pay $450,000. to bring Lundqvist over when they can get him for free next season. As for Montoya, their offer was somewhere in the area of $600,000 with a VERY low minor league salary and Montoya wasn't willing to slip his junior year of college for it knowing he was going to spend all if not most of his time in Hartford.

It bothers me more because at earliest Blackburn will be back in November and the smarter move says sometime around December would be best.

For around $800,000 the Rangers could have added to two top young goalies to their system and had their goaltending coach work full time with them. Their every advance would have been with the Rangers looking on. Instead for more money we've added Jason Strudwick and Michael Nylander.

This team continues to make it's roster moves in an almost bi-polar manner. They do something right one day and the next leave you scratching your head.

I mean what is Maloney going to say "I think Glen Sather is going senile?". He knows if he ever wants to be an NHL GM again he needs to shut his mouth and work within the parameters he is given.

Edge is offline  
Old
08-12-2004, 02:27 AM
  #106
BwayBshirt
Registered User
 
BwayBshirt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: My NY State of Mind
Country: United States
Posts: 3,370
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edge

I mean what is Maloney going to say "I think Glen Sather is going senile?". He knows if he ever wants to be an NHL GM again he needs to shut his mouth and work within the parameters he is given.
you definitely have a point there. you're absolutely right about that because outspoken people, especially in management positions, can get blacklisted in a flash. all i'll say on maloney is that i have never, ever seen him in his time with the rangers speak or have the freedom to speak about anything the team has done, is doing or will do like this year. he's said more things publicly and has been quoted on more stuff since june than i have personally paid attention to in any of the past few years combined. maybe i've missed him say a lot before but i doubt that i have.

BwayBshirt is offline  
Old
08-12-2004, 02:36 AM
  #107
Edge
Registered User
 
Edge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Sin City
Country: United States
Posts: 13,196
vCash: 500
Well this draft WAS Maloney's so that is one reason you heard it. Sather flew out to see a few prospects towards the end, but this draft belonged to Maloney with insight from Rockstrom and a few others. Their college scouts had a big say in the draft and surpisingly the Rangers looked at two places they traditionally haven't: Finland and Quebec.

Edge is offline  
Old
08-12-2004, 02:54 AM
  #108
BwayBshirt
Registered User
 
BwayBshirt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: My NY State of Mind
Country: United States
Posts: 3,370
vCash: 500
i guess i'm waiting for the "lousy" move to happen--which i hope we can go at least one year without and God please let it be this year-- before i get ready to poke needles in the crotch of my sather voodoo doll...which i haven't had to do yet this summer

BwayBshirt is offline  
Old
08-12-2004, 05:42 AM
  #109
Ola
Registered User
 
Ola's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Sweden
Country: Sweden
Posts: 17,271
vCash: 500
The chechz PP unit was Prucha-Prospal-Jagr-Straka-Slegr/Prucha-Straka-Jagr-Kaberle-Slegr

Prucha played with Dopita on the 3rd line during even strength

Ola is online now  
Old
08-12-2004, 08:41 AM
  #110
bigblue21
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Country: United States
Posts: 289
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edge
As for what Maloney said, I don't buy it for one second personally. Everyone I talked to, {even Brooks reported on it} has said it came down to money. He wanted basically the same contract as Blackburn, but the Rangers would budge. Now I'm not saying to just throw money at every young player, but both Montoya and Lundqvist were willing to go to the AHL and work {and do it on a two way contract BTW}. The Rangers simply didn't want to pay $450,000. to bring Lundqvist over when they can get him for free next season. As for Montoya, their offer was somewhere in the area of $600,000 with a VERY low minor league salary and Montoya wasn't willing to slip his junior year of college for it knowing he was going to spend all if not most of his time in Hartford.

It bothers me more because at earliest Blackburn will be back in November and the smarter move says sometime around December would be best.

For around $800,000 the Rangers could have added to two top young goalies to their system and had their goaltending coach work full time with them. Their every advance would have been with the Rangers looking on. Instead for more money we've added Jason Strudwick and Michael Nylander.
Were the rangers to sign both lundqvist and montoya, where would they put all of these goalies? I would argue that it's much smarter to leave them where they are for the time being for several reasons. Both montoya and lundqvist are starters for their respective teams right now, and will get action in plenty of games. dunham, labarbera, blackburn, and valiquette (i think) are all signed. Once blackburn comes back (in november or december, whenever that may be) he will be able to start for hartford, giving us 2 goalies in hartford and 2 in new york. If both montoya and lundqvist were signed, 2 goalies of the six wouldn't even dress for games. at best, one of the big 3 would back up dunham and the other 2 would split time in hartford, leaving valiquette and laberbera in the stands. I mean, sure, they would get to work with the goalie coaches, but how worthwhile is that when you don't play enough games?

Secondly, god forbid we sign both goalies and then there is a lockout. this means one of the big 3 wouldn't even get to dress for hartford, and they'd be splitting games 3 ways. Why do that when all 3 could be starters, in the CCHA, AHL, and Finnish league, which are not bad leagues by any stretch of the imagination. I believe it's smarter not to sign them than to "put all your eggs in one basket".

bigblue21 is offline  
Old
08-12-2004, 07:43 PM
  #111
Edge
Registered User
 
Edge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Sin City
Country: United States
Posts: 13,196
vCash: 500
Quote:
Were the rangers to sign both lundqvist and montoya, where would they put all of these goalies?
So to avoid that unpleasent situation we sign none of them?

Quote:
I would argue that it's much smarter to leave them where they are for the time being for several reasons. Both montoya and lundqvist are starters for their respective teams right now, and will get action in plenty of games.
There's no denying that, but especially with Lunqvist there is no denying that he should be over this season. Going with an all or nothing plan doesnt help anyone.

Quote:
dunham, labarbera, blackburn, and valiquette (i think) are all signed. Once blackburn comes back (in november or december, whenever that may be) he will be able to start for hartford, giving us 2 goalies in hartford and 2 in new york. If both montoya and lundqvist were signed, 2 goalies of the six wouldn't even dress for games. at best, one of the big 3 would back up dunham and the other 2 would split time in hartford, leaving valiquette and laberbera in the stands. I mean, sure, they would get to work with the goalie coaches, but how worthwhile is that when you don't play enough games?
Well for starters Labarbera and Valiquette are not the future for this team in goal. And the issue isn't signing all of them so much as at least one of them. The argument for having all three in Hartford makes perfect sense, but there is no reason that at least one of them isn't in Hartford.

Playing less games is perfectly worthwhile if they are in a direction to get you to the NHL. If Lunqvist only played 35 games in Hartford it would still be worthwhile because he's getting adjusted to the north american.

All this team has done is delayed the situation for a year by signing none of them. Now next year this team is in another situation where they're gonna have two young goalies with nothing left to prove in their respective league's. That is a problem i have. By not signing either Lunqvist or Montoya we've just pushed the problem back till next year.

Meanwhile now our goaltending at Hartford will consist of Labarbera and whoever else till about 3 months into the season.

Of course this is assuming that Blackburn even can come back from December to April. He might need another year in Hartford on top of that.

There was enough room for at least one of these guys next year, at least Lunqvist. But it came down to money. The Rangers are trying to get cutesy and overplay their hand because they can tell the kid "Well we have player x here so we don't NEED to sign you". It's always when the Rangers try to get cute that they start screwing things up.

Quote:
Secondly, god forbid we sign both goalies and then there is a lockout. this means one of the big 3 wouldn't even get to dress for hartford, and they'd be splitting games 3 ways. Why do that when all 3 could be starters, in the CCHA, AHL, and Finnish league, which are not bad leagues by any stretch of the imagination. I believe it's smarter not to sign them than to "put all your eggs in one basket."
Putting all your eggs in one basket is one thing, dumping the basket on the floor and leaving yourself with nothing is another.

Assuming their is a lockout, at least one of them could have been splitting the time with Labarbera for the first three months of the season. Afterwards it would be a little more of a three way split, but personally i really don't care how much icetime Labarbera gets after that point. He doesn't represent the future of this team in goal, so after that {we'll say Lunqvist because i think he is more pro ready than Montoya} Lunqvist and Blackburn get the majority of starts. Blackburn when he comes back is going to need time anyway, he's not just gonna jump and start playing.

There is no denying your point against signing both, but they needed to sign at least one. What essentially happened here is they overplayed their hand. They didn't get Lunqvist because they thought they were gonna sign Montoya, but when Montoya wasn't stupid and didn't sign the first contract put in front of him they were left with a hand full of nothing.

The Rangers will say all season this is how they wanted things, but believe me it's not what they planned. They'll insist it was their idea and they'll all cover for each other, but it's the same story from MSG. When something goes right, no one can wait to take credit. When something goes wrong, everyone goes into coverup mode.

Edge is offline  
Old
08-12-2004, 08:02 PM
  #112
Son of Steinbrenner
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Country: Tromelin
Posts: 9,481
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edge
So to avoid that unpleasent situation we sign none of them?


There's no denying that, but especially with Lunqvist there is no denying that he should be over this season. Going with an all or nothing plan doesnt help anyone.



Well for starters Labarbera and Valiquette are not the future for this team in goal. And the issue isn't signing all of them so much as at least one of them. The argument for having all three in Hartford makes perfect sense, but there is no reason that at least one of them isn't in Hartford.

Playing less games is perfectly worthwhile if they are in a direction to get you to the NHL. If Lunqvist only played 35 games in Hartford it would still be worthwhile because he's getting adjusted to the north american.

All this team has done is delayed the situation for a year by signing none of them. Now next year this team is in another situation where they're gonna have two young goalies with nothing left to prove in their respective league's. That is a problem i have. By not signing either Lunqvist or Montoya we've just pushed the problem back till next year.

Meanwhile now our goaltending at Hartford will consist of Labarbera and whoever else till about 3 months into the season.

Of course this is assuming that Blackburn even can come back from December to April. He might need another year in Hartford on top of that.

There was enough room for at least one of these guys next year, at least Lunqvist. But it came down to money. The Rangers are trying to get cutesy and overplay their hand because they can tell the kid "Well we have player x here so we don't NEED to sign you". It's always when the Rangers try to get cute that they start screwing things up.



Putting all your eggs in one basket is one thing, dumping the basket on the floor and leaving yourself with nothing is another.

Assuming their is a lockout, at least one of them could have been splitting the time with Labarbera for the first three months of the season. Afterwards it would be a little more of a three way split, but personally i really don't care how much icetime Labarbera gets after that point. He doesn't represent the future of this team in goal, so after that {we'll say Lunqvist because i think he is more pro ready than Montoya} Lunqvist and Blackburn get the majority of starts. Blackburn when he comes back is going to need time anyway, he's not just gonna jump and start playing.

There is no denying your point against signing both, but they needed to sign at least one. What essentially happened here is they overplayed their hand. They didn't get Lunqvist because they thought they were gonna sign Montoya, but when Montoya wasn't stupid and didn't sign the first contract put in front of him they were left with a hand full of nothing.

The Rangers will say all season this is how they wanted things, but believe me it's not what they planned. They'll insist it was their idea and they'll all cover for each other, but it's the same story from MSG. When something goes right, no one can wait to take credit. When something goes wrong, everyone goes into coverup mode.
edge don't you think if there wasn't an impending lockout the eurpoean prospects would be signed?

is it possible montoya asked for more money than he is worth? does it really matter that the rangers have wasted money in the past?

Son of Steinbrenner is offline  
Old
08-12-2004, 08:25 PM
  #113
Edge
Registered User
 
Edge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Sin City
Country: United States
Posts: 13,196
vCash: 500
Quote:
edge don't you think if there wasn't an impending lockout the eurpoean prospects would be signed?
Honestly, I don't. Because this team knows full well that they have spots for these kids.

The talk all last season was getting Lunqvist over, in fact it was heard even while he competed in the world championships. What it came down to in the end was the Rangers overplaying their hand. Lunqvist has already faced NHL competition, he's faced at the championships and he'll likely face it in the world cup at least a little. At 22, he has done all there is to in Sweden basically.

Furthermore it doesn't make sense to bring BOTH Lundqvist and Montoya up next season.

Quote:
is it possible montoya asked for more money than he is worth? does it really matter that the rangers have wasted money in the past?
But see him asking for a contract similar to Blackburn's isn't that out of line. Especially for a kid the Rangers have touted as their goalie of the future and one of their elite prospects. On top of that the kid was the 6th pick in the draft. Asking for the rookie max isn't that out of line.

But therein lies the problem. The rangers then go out and sign guys like Nylander and Strudqick for nearly 4 million dollars.

If you're a rebuilding team and you're unwilling to pay a $450,000 buyout for Lunqvist in place of Strudwick or unwilling to give your top draft pick a normal salary in place of HAVING to sign a center for a winger that you tried and failed to move, than not a darn thing has changed around here.

Edge is offline  
Old
08-12-2004, 09:16 PM
  #114
Brooklyn Ranger
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn, of course
Posts: 7,681
vCash: 500
I agree Edge.

What I really fear is that Sather is just waiting for the CBA to get done, figuring that the UFA age will be lowered and betting that the only luxury tax will be $$$. If Sather bets wrong (and it's a hard cap or something similarly onerous), then we wait for another year, essentially just wasting time and hoping that the kids in the system develop into something special. If Sather bets right, then he'll have the pick of a crop of free agents, cut because their former teams can't afford to play a large tax.

It really seems like Sather has been marking time since the trade deadline. Some of the prospects in Europe are definitely ready to come over and if it turns out that they end up spending the year in Hartford because of a long lockout that really wouldn't be so bad. The kind of atmosphere that has been so lacking in the organization is built by having players play together for a number of years, Sather is just slowing down the process by refusing to pay a little more up front for them. And is once again "forced" to dip once again into the pool of free agents and overpay (in the form of an extra year or two) for the privilege because there isn't enough talent in the system. I'm willing to give Nylander time to live up to his billing, but I'd really rather see and hear about what Lundqvist and Prucha are doing in Hartford and perhaps even seeing them play in the NHL for the first time.

I'm not expecting anything big from Lundqvist during the World Cup--Sweden would be taking quite a risk playing such a young goalie when so much is at stake. But, I can't tell you how much I would love to see Sather choke on that damned cigar as Lundqvist backstops the Swedes to victory. Losing might very well be worth it just to hear Sather try to explain why it was better for Lundqvist to stay in Sweden for another year. :lol

Brooklyn Ranger is offline  
Old
08-12-2004, 09:36 PM
  #115
BobMarleyNYR
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Alphabet
Country: Iraq
Posts: 2,903
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to BobMarleyNYR
Anyway, back to the case in point, I really don't see how 32 is all that old... or 33 or 34... 35 is pushing on old, 36, yeah, 37, definitely.

The fact of the matter is, if we're always going to do what's "safe," we'll have a team full of 3rd liners with limited ceilings. What is the alternative? Lindros? Holik? :

Think about how devoid of talent the NHL would be if everyone had reservations about 30+ players... no Sakic, no Modano, no Blake, no Brodeur, no Fedorov, no Roenick, etc.

And I also have trouble buying the "injury-prone" argument... he doesn't have a history of injuries, he was hurt the last two seasons, and most of his injuries are relatively minor. I think he'll be able to stay healthy.

BobMarleyNYR is offline  
Old
08-12-2004, 09:46 PM
  #116
Edge
Registered User
 
Edge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Sin City
Country: United States
Posts: 13,196
vCash: 500
Quote:
Anyway, back to the case in point, I really don't see how 32 is all that old... or 33 or 34... 35 is pushing on old, 36, yeah, 37, definitely.
That just goes to show you how conditioned we are with this team now. 34 and 35 are now only pushing on old. Someone has to be closing in on 40 to be considered old on this team now.

Quote:
The fact of the matter is, if we're always going to do what's "safe," we'll have a team full of 3rd liners with limited ceilings. What is the alternative? Lindros? Holik? :
I dont follow what gambling on a 32 year old center has to do with the future of this team and a team full of third liners. If we're talking about a 25 year old sure, but I'm not following where this point is going. Explain it a little more for me.

Quote:
Think about how devoid of talent the NHL would be if everyone had reservations about 30+ players... no Sakic, no Modano, no Blake, no Brodeur, no Fedorov, no Roenick, etc.
Okay, BIIIIIG difference between the players you named and Nylander. Not even on the same continent. Secondly the reservations aren't about his age alone, they are about how that fits into the scheme of a team that is trying to rebuild.

The reservations are also about WHY we signed him. Because frankly we backed oursleves into a corner with our last ditch effort to make the playoffs and we were unable to trade Jagr. That's getting back to more of what i said earlier is that now we are signing this guys because we HAVE to not necessarily because we should.

Quote:
And I also have trouble buying the "injury-prone" argument... he doesn't have a history of injuries, he was hurt the last two seasons, and most of his injuries are relatively minor. I think he'll be able to stay healthy.
The last two seasons is exactly right. We're not exactly talking about a month here. I don't think he's gonna somehow get stronger now that he is getting further into his 30's. And name one other team in this league that would have signed a guy who {injury history or not} has been banged up the last two seasons to a GURANTEED three year deal.

Tell me how a 35 year old Nylander is going to fit into a team that is starting to grow with hopefully a bunch of twenty somethings?

And don't say leadership because if we signed Nylander for that purpose we're really missing the point of this whole rebuilding thing.

Edge is offline  
Old
08-12-2004, 11:58 PM
  #117
Chief
Registered User
 
Chief's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: NY, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 1,825
vCash: 500
Bad contract!

Going into the summer, I thought Nylander would be a great fit with Jagr. He's a playmaker, eventhough he's not a true #1. However, I don't like the signing because of the years and the money.

First of all, there is a player and team option for a 4th year, so let's call a spade a spade and a 4 year contract a 4 year contract. A 32 year old player signed to a 4 year contract is bad news. However, the contract is even worse because of the money.

Anybody who thinks a player past his 32nd birthday making $3 million a year will be easy to move is kidding themselves. Just ask Columbus. Geoff Sanderson is 32 years old and his salary for the 04-05 season is $3 million. Sound familiar? Well, the BJ's tried to trade him at the end of last season and all they could do was get rid of him for a month. Vancouver only acquired him with the agreement that they would put him on waivers after the season and if no one picked him up then Columbus had to take him and his salary back. Which is exactly what hapened.

Too many people are only focussing on this upcoming season. We're rebuilding, aren't we? As much as people seem to despise the thought of Holik playing with Jagr, Jagr still put up points with Holik and if that's the way it played out next season then the Rangers could have set their sights on a less talented center who could have manned the 2nd or 3rd line. Guys like Weimer or Neidermeyer would have done fine as a stopgap. And you know what, that kind of setup would not have been the end of the world for the Rangers.

The Rangers could have explored trades all next season or they could have waited to see who would be available next summer when we would have a better idea as to how some of our kids were developing and see what new crop of UFA's might be out there. And that's something that's even more noteworthy with the possibility of a lower UFA age after the next CBA. That would be called leaving your options open. Instead we've now got a 32 year old 2nd line center as our 1st line center and have 2 center spots locked up for the next few years to the tune of $12 million.

The Rangers will be better next season but who cares? I don't see Nylander as turning the Rangers into a PO contender and all he does is close off more options in the following years. And those future years is when having another big money vet on the roster starts to clog up opportunities for our own young players or even players we might look to trade for or sign as UFA's.


Last edited by Chief: 08-13-2004 at 08:54 AM.
Chief is offline  
Old
08-13-2004, 01:34 AM
  #118
Edge
Registered User
 
Edge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Sin City
Country: United States
Posts: 13,196
vCash: 500
You pretty much hit the nail on the head there. It's not next year i am worried about.

Say this team gets a VERY good young center in next year's draft {insert name here}.

And say this kid has all the talent in the world to make the squad, you've now already got two center spots LOCKED. I don't mind having Nylander but I have big problem with him being signed for the years and the money he is making. Mark my words, this move will haunt the Rangers. That is the biggest problem with having a Jagr on the team. Now you HAVE to sign players for HIM not for YOU.

Edge is offline  
Old
08-13-2004, 09:04 AM
  #119
Chief
Registered User
 
Chief's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: NY, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 1,825
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edge
That is the biggest problem with having a Jagr on the team. Now you HAVE to sign players for HIM not for YOU.
Just wait until we sign Jagr's buddy Kip Miller to be the 1st line LW.

Chief is offline  
Old
08-13-2004, 10:04 AM
  #120
RangerBoy
1994 FOREVER
 
RangerBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 31,530
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edge
You pretty much hit the nail on the head there. It's not next year i am worried about.

Say this team gets a VERY good young center in next year's draft {insert name here}.

And say this kid has all the talent in the world to make the squad, you've now already got two center spots LOCKED. I don't mind having Nylander but I have big problem with him being signed for the years and the money he is making. Mark my words, this move will haunt the Rangers. That is the biggest problem with having a Jagr on the team. Now you HAVE to sign players for HIM not for YOU.
Think the Garden will have any problem eating a contract to get a player off the team.It's $3 million and you are acting like it's $10 million.The Jaromir Jagr move is the move which will haunt this franchise.If there is a luxury tax system,the Rangers are going to pay the tax.The Knicks have a $100 million payroll and will pay $40-50 million more in tax.The NBA is dollar for dollar over the threshold.The Jagr $$$ is not even $11 million per.Under the MLB CBA,the Yankees are only being charged for the portion they are paying Alex Rodriguez instead his entire salary with the rest being paid by Texas.The Rangers just take the money from the Capitals and use it towards the luxury tax.It's not going to be hard cap.How can there be a hard cap with guaranteed salaries?The NHLPA is NOT going to accept a hard cap plus non-guaranteed contracts.It's not going to fly


Last edited by RangerBoy: 08-13-2004 at 10:12 AM.
RangerBoy is offline  
Old
08-13-2004, 10:09 AM
  #121
RangerBoy
1994 FOREVER
 
RangerBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 31,530
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brooklyn Ranger
I agree Edge.

What I really fear is that Sather is just waiting for the CBA to get done, figuring that the UFA age will be lowered and betting that the only luxury tax will be $$$. If Sather bets wrong (and it's a hard cap or something similarly onerous), then we wait for another year, essentially just wasting time and hoping that the kids in the system develop into something special. If Sather bets right, then he'll have the pick of a crop of free agents, cut because their former teams can't afford to play a large tax.

It really seems like Sather has been marking time since the trade deadline. Some of the prospects in Europe are definitely ready to come over and if it turns out that they end up spending the year in Hartford because of a long lockout that really wouldn't be so bad. The kind of atmosphere that has been so lacking in the organization is built by having players play together for a number of years, Sather is just slowing down the process by refusing to pay a little more up front for them. And is once again "forced" to dip once again into the pool of free agents and overpay (in the form of an extra year or two) for the privilege because there isn't enough talent in the system. I'm willing to give Nylander time to live up to his billing, but I'd really rather see and hear about what Lundqvist and Prucha are doing in Hartford and perhaps even seeing them play in the NHL for the first time.

I'm not expecting anything big from Lundqvist during the World Cup--Sweden would be taking quite a risk playing such a young goalie when so much is at stake. But, I can't tell you how much I would love to see Sather choke on that damned cigar as Lundqvist backstops the Swedes to victory. Losing might very well be worth it just to hear Sather try to explain why it was better for Lundqvist to stay in Sweden for another year. :lol
I hope Henrik Lundqvist lights up the World Cup.It only increases his value as a trading chip

RangerBoy is offline  
Old
08-13-2004, 10:17 AM
  #122
RangerBoy
1994 FOREVER
 
RangerBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 31,530
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chief
Going into the summer, I thought Nylander would be a great fit with Jagr. He's a playmaker, eventhough he's not a true #1. However, I don't like the signing because of the years and the money.

First of all, there is a player and team option for a 4th year, so let's call a spade a spade and a 4 year contract a 4 year contract. A 32 year old player signed to a 4 year contract is bad news. However, the contract is even worse because of the money.

Anybody who thinks a player past his 32nd birthday making $3 million a year will be easy to move is kidding themselves. Just ask Columbus. Geoff Sanderson is 32 years old and his salary for the 04-05 season is $3 million. Sound familiar? Well, the BJ's tried to trade him at the end of last season and all they could do was get rid of him for a month. Vancouver only acquired him with the agreement that they would put him on waivers after the season and if no one picked him up then Columbus had to take him and his salary back. Which is exactly what hapened.

Too many people are only focussing on this upcoming season. We're rebuilding, aren't we? As much as people seem to despise the thought of Holik playing with Jagr, Jagr still put up points with Holik and if that's the way it played out next season then the Rangers could have set their sights on a less talented center who could have manned the 2nd or 3rd line. Guys like Weimer or Neidermeyer would have done fine as a stopgap. And you know what, that kind of setup would not have been the end of the world for the Rangers.

The Rangers could have explored trades all next season or they could have waited to see who would be available next summer when we would have a better idea as to how some of our kids were developing and see what new crop of UFA's might be out there. And that's something that's even more noteworthy with the possibility of a lower UFA age after the next CBA. That would be called leaving your options open. Instead we've now got a 32 year old 2nd line center as our 1st line center and have 2 center spots locked up for the next few years to the tune of $12 million.

The Rangers will be better next season but who cares? I don't see Nylander as turning the Rangers into a PO contender and all he does is close off more options in the following years. And those future years is when having another big money vet on the roster starts to clog up opportunities for our own young players or even players we might look to trade for or sign as UFA's.
Wait a minute,the Rangers have misused Bobby Holik for two years.Do you really want to make it three years?Only the Rangers would pay a player $45 million and then proceed to misuse him in his Ranger career.Put Holik back in his more comfortable role instead of telling him to be something he is not capable of doing.

RangerBoy is offline  
Old
08-13-2004, 11:21 AM
  #123
RangerBoy
1994 FOREVER
 
RangerBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 31,530
vCash: 500
What happens during the lockout and if the Rangers had signed Al Montoya,would there be enough games for Jason LaBarbera,a recovering Dan Blackburn and Montoya to go around?We have already been through Blackburn watching instead of having him playing.Montoya is better off playing at Michigan being the #1 guy than being a back-up 19 year old goalie in the AHL playing one game every two weeks.Look at the big picture.Having one first round pick goaltender sitting on his ass instead of being the #1 guy in Kootenay was more than enough.Do we really want to repeat that mistake for a second time in three years?Blackburn will be back sometime before the end of this calender year and in the meantime LaBarbera is the #1 guy.When Blackburn returns,he will get an opportunity to re-establish his career.Montoya is the #1 guy at Michigan and dor the U.S. WJC team.Henrik Lundqvist continues to develop in Sweden.Mike Dunham is in the last year of his contract which allows the Rangers to evaluate their goaltending situation next spring.

RangerBoy is offline  
Old
08-13-2004, 12:03 PM
  #124
Chief
Registered User
 
Chief's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: NY, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 1,825
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerBoy
Wait a minute,the Rangers have misused Bobby Holik for two years.Do you really want to make it three years?Only the Rangers would pay a player $45 million and then proceed to misuse him in his Ranger career.Put Holik back in his more comfortable role instead of telling him to be something he is not capable of doing.
Holik looked pretty comfortable centering Elias in his last season with the Devils and Jagr's stats didn't take any kind of great plunge playing with him either, last season. Let's just remember that Holik isn't "just" a checking center. We're not talking about a guy with limited skills like Craig MacTavish was when he was on the Rangers. Funny how a lot of people would have no problem with Craig Conroy playing as a #1 center but he hasn't proven to be a more offensive player than Holik.

Would it be the perfect scenario to have Holik playing with Jagr? No, but it might have been a better option than signing Nylander to the deal the Rangers just did. And wouldn't making Nylander a team's #1 center be misusing him since he's proven he's not a top line player but rather a solid 2nd line option?

Chief is offline  
Old
08-13-2004, 12:12 PM
  #125
Chief
Registered User
 
Chief's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: NY, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 1,825
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerBoy
Think the Garden will have any problem eating a contract to get a player off the team.
Why don't you run down the list of players who have underachieved as Rangers over the last decade and then tell me how many have have had the Garden "eat" their contracts. It won't take long, it hasn't happened much. If the Rangers are going to go on with business as usual and count on buying there way out of problems then this organization still hasn't learned its lesson.

Chief 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 02:32 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.