2013-14 New York Rangers Breakup Day

[Thirty One]

No Rangers need to re-build, period. The window has closed. Hopefully Lundqvist will be able to wait for his Cup.

Is this a serious post?

 

[Vitto79]

I don't understand this idea that higher term means less dollars.

He can get 4.5-5M for 4-5 years on the open market, easily.

Signing him for 6 or 7 for less doesn't make sense for him. He'll be 31-32 and hitting the open market again with a chance to make even more $, depending on his performance. Signing for those 2 extra years means his next contract will likely be less than it would be and he'll overall make less on this contract. It's not gonna happen IMO.

I don't understand why the higher term automatically = less cap hit. That may be true in some cases, but Stralman will be coveted. He's a top 4 RHD and that's not an easy thing to find.

Is be surprised if Stralman is back . He's going to get a ton elsewhere

 

[AHB*]

Is be surprised if Stralman is back . He's going to get a ton elsewhere

I'd be happy giving him 4 over 6. I think he'd take that. Obviously I'd prefer 3.5, but Stralman is only turning 28 in August. That would take him to 34. We get him all through his prime. I don't necessarily feel he'll decline early on either, but you never know.

Regardless, even if he does, we can bump him down to the 3rd pairing. If like everyone anticipates, the cap continues to rise, 4 million won't be a handicap and we can even probably trade him if he doesn't fit our squad anymore. I really think 5 or 6 years would be more enticing then maybe taking an extra million to go on a 3 year deal.

I have no problem locking him up for 6 years at a 3.5-4 cap hit.

No Rangers need to re-build, period. The window has closed. Hopefully Lundqvist will be able to wait for his Cup.

Yup, their window has closed.

26 & Under:
McDonagh
Stepan
Kreider
Hagelin
J. Moore
Zucc
Brassard

Fast
Miller
Lindeberg

They have exactly 6 players in the 30+ group.

MSL
Girardi (30 Exactly)
Richards (Gone this week)
D. Moore (Better to have a vet on the 4th line)
Nash (Turned 30 yesterday)
Lundqvist


Staal and Stralman are literally entering their primes.

Get out of here with the rebuild

 

[Inferno]

People are really looking at this year's playoffs and concluding that the Rangers need more size?

i think they need to get faster personally. its what ive stated repeatedly. theyre already fast. play to your strengths. why try to rip down this team to make them big and strong like the kings. thats not their identity. they made it to the SCF and a semi-literal coin flip could have had them winning the cup.

when they played fast, the kings had no answer. when they tried to play big, the kings dominated.

faster, faster, faster.

Go get me Grabovski.

 

[True Blue]

People are really looking at this year's playoffs and concluding that the Rangers need more size?

No, that was concluded by some before.

 

[True Blue]

You keep brining up Seguin and how the Bruins traded him to make the team better.

I lump the two trades together as hard choice decisions.

How many times you went off about playoff success vs regular season success.

Many

You claimed that the St Louis trade was not going to be a success based on what you assumed the results the team would have this year.

And that is exactly how I judge it.

Remember, the trade is only a success if the team wins the Stanley Cup. So using your barometer for trade success please explain how the Seguin trade is a success. Is a 2nd round playoff exit a success?

No, I judge the St. Louis trade that way. And the reasons are well documented.

Also,

Derick Brassard 6' 1" 202

Carl Hagelin 5' 11"

Dominic Moore 6' 0" 192

In what universe are those players "mighty mites"?

In the universe that they appear small and get outmuscled.

 

[NickyFotiu]

Bigger is great. Faster is great but do not throw out the baby with the bath water. This team just reached the Stanley Cup with solid playoff contributions from Hag, Zook, and Brass. MSL will only be here 1 more year and might even be a trade deadline trade prospect. There were plenty of bigger teams watching us play at home.

 

[OverTheCap]

For me, it's not so much about size, although that helps, but rather the willingness and ability to convert on rebounds and give the opposing goaltender a difficult time in the crease. The Kings were up in Hank's grill constantly. Some forwards in this league are always looking to position themselves in the crease or in the slot for screens, deflections, and rebound opportunities and our forwards did not do enough of that on a consistent basis. Certainly can't hurt to try to get in the opposing goalie's sightlines, especially considering lack of finish has been an issue all year.

 

[True Blue]

There were plenty of bigger teams watching us play at home.

Based on what you just saw, do you think that the Rangers are built to contend with the Bruins? Or any of the other Western teams? I know that the Bruins lost, but do you view the Rangers on equal footing with them?

 

[Tawnos]

Based on what you just saw, do you think that the Rangers are built to contend with the Bruins? Or any of the other Western teams? I know that the Bruins lost, but do you view the Rangers on equal footing with them?

I do, yes.

 

[Son of Steinbrenner]

I lump the two trades together as hard choice decisions.

So if it benefits your argument you just lump trades together. Got it. So we can lump two trades together that were 4 years apart to prove an argument. I'll have to remember that....

That's also not what your Seguin argument was. It was based on the success of the Bruins in relation to the trade. YOU claimed the St Louis trade was a bust (laughably) before the 1st game St Louis played with the Rangers based on YOUR expectations of the Rangers.

Was the Callahan plus 2 first round picks for St Louis a hard choice? Why do other teams get the benefit of the doubt but not the Rangers? Why does a team that traded a 2nd overall pick get a pass?

Many

Is an Eastern Conference Championship a success? So

And that is exactly how I judge it.

That's how every deal you comment on should be judged.

No, I judge the St. Louis trade that way. And the reasons are well documented.

Yes, it was foolish to judge that trade that way. As others proved to you before the playoff run. After the Flyer series you had the nerve to post St Louis was not THE MAN. Funny, how insulted you got when people throughout the playoffs brought up your comments. Now it's back to the same ridiculous argument. Good thing our post histories are public. I literally could quote your old posts and use them against you in this argument. I won't...but I could....I could set this argument up where you are arguing against yourself by using 8 week old posts.

In the universe that they appear small and get outmuscled.

So now it's about how someone appears to you, it's not about reality? Gotcha....

Did you watch the games? The last Ranger goal of the year Hagelin had two guys on him...shorthanded and still passed the puck to Boyle. Explain how he was outmuscled?

 

[NickyFotiu]

Based on what you just saw, do you think that the Rangers are built to contend with the Bruins? Or any of the other Western teams? I know that the Bruins lost, but do you view the Rangers on equal footing with them?

Do I think we can contend? I would you say a team that plays in the Cup was contending. You realize the team the Bruins lost to (Habs) are a smaller team than we are right? Plus Boston is now giving up Thornton so size is not the only important factor to them. You used to say we are what our record says when we were losing so why has that changed now that we ended up in the Cup? Nash has size. Size does not always translate to toughness. Guys like MSL, Marchand, etc won cups without size. We definitely have some areas I would like to improve in but just saying size is too simplistic. As I said before there were bigger teams watching at home last week.

 

[Son of Steinbrenner]

Based on what you just saw, do you think that the Rangers are built to contend with the Bruins? Or any of the other Western teams? I know that the Bruins lost, but do you view the Rangers on equal footing with them?

Yes, the Rangers beat the team that beat the Bruins. I could say the Rangers are on equal footing based on YOUR barometer of playoff success vs regular season success.....

Gee, I'm not going to call you a hypocrite but your posts are hypocritical.

The Rangers are the Eastern Conference Champions not the Bruins. You do understand that, right? You can't pretend the Rangers aren't a contender when just a few days ago they were, ya know, playing of the Stanley Cup. Am I missing the sarcasm in your posts?

 

[eco's bones]

FWIW size has been a determining factor the last 3 times we've been knocked off in the playoffs. In 2012 we managed to hold off both Ottawa and Washington--two big if not bigger teams to then to get knocked off by another big team--the Devils. Last year it was pretty much the same Capitals team we knocked off again to only get beaten by the bigger and more physical Bruins. The bigger Kings team knocked us off this year.

There may be only so much the Rangers can do to mitigate this factor but one thing seems apparent to me. We shouldn't go any smaller than we are now. Even a marginally bigger but younger team might be an improvement. I have to say if we lose Boyle that's going to hurt a lot. Great on the pk, a good face-off guy--not usually a heavy hitter for his size--he still is so big and strong that he wears down defensemen and he turns it up a level or two when the playoffs come around. I wouldn't mind if the Rangers gave him the same deal the Canadiens gave Prust. He's a lot more valuable IMO than Prust is.

 

[Inferno]

one could reasonably make the argument that Reffing OR Luck OR Both was the determining factor in us losing this year...not size.

 

[aufheben]

For me, it's not so much about size, although that helps, but rather the willingness and ability to convert on rebounds and give the opposing goaltender a difficult time in the crease. The Kings were up in Hank's grill constantly. Some forwards in this league are always looking to position themselves in the crease or in the slot for screens, deflections, and rebound opportunities and our forwards did not do enough of that on a consistent basis. Certainly can't hurt to try to get in the opposing goalie's sightlines, especially considering lack of finish has been an issue all year.

We were completely overmatched both in front of Henrik and Quick.

 

[BarbaraAlphanse]

FWIW size has been a determining factor the last 3 times we've been knocked off in the playoffs. In 2012 we managed to hold off both Ottawa and Washington--two big if not bigger teams to then to get knocked off by another big team--the Devils. Last year it was pretty much the same Capitals team we knocked off again to only get beaten by the bigger and more physical Bruins. The bigger Kings team knocked us off this year.

There may be only so much the Rangers can do to mitigate this factor but one thing seems apparent to me. We shouldn't go any smaller than we are now. Even a marginally bigger but younger team might be an improvement. I have to say if we lose Boyle that's going to hurt a lot. Great on the pk, a good face-off guy--not usually a heavy hitter for his size--he still is so big and strong that he wears down defensemen and he turns it up a level or two when the playoffs come around. I wouldn't mind if the Rangers gave him the same deal the Canadiens gave Prust. He's a lot more valuable IMO than Prust is.

I'd be ecstatic of we gave Boyle a 4 year deal worth 12 mill. D. Moore a 3 year deal worth 4.5 million. Traded Dorsett for a draft pick, and signed Carcillo for 700k. The 4th line would be getting paid 5.2 million dollars. Steep but they were damn important to our success. Don't short change what leads you through the playoffs.

 

[Tawnos]

The Rangers problem against the Devils and Bruins wasn't size, it was depth.

And against the Kings, it was execution.

 

[Inferno]

The Rangers problem against the Devils and Bruins wasn't size, it was depth.

id probably disagree a little with the Bruins. I felt like Lucic imposed his well on that series, and i feel like he injured at least 1 if not 2 rangers in that series...Stralman and Hagelin maybe? cant remember....

 

[Infinitum Vitae*]

id probably disagree a little with the Bruins. I felt like Lucic imposed his well on that series, and i feel like he injured at least 1 if not 2 rangers in that series...Stralman and Hagelin maybe? cant remember....

Don't forget there was no staal in that series

 

[RGY]

With Richards and Boyle leaving, you need to make sure you replace those guys with the right players so we have a deep team. I agree with Tawnos that depth was more of our problem than size. However if we can add a center with size that would be a plus. I know its unpopular here but I'd like to see what it would take to get Eric Staal here. I like Miller in the sense that he isnt tall but he is strong and can skate.

Its gona be a tough offseason.

 

[BarbaraAlphanse]

With Richards and Boyle leaving, you need to make sure you replace those guys with the right players so we have a deep team. I agree with Tawnos that depth was more of our problem than size. However if we can add a center with size that would be a plus. I know its unpopular here but I'd like to see what it would take to get Eric Staal here. I like Miller in the sense that he isnt tall but he is strong and can skate.

Its gona be a tough offseason.

Eric Staal's contract is 7.8 mill. He's as inconsistent as Nash. He'd be at best a bandaid solution.

 

[Thirty One]

Eric Staal's contract is 7.8 mill. He's as inconsistent as Nash. He'd be at best a bandaid solution.

8.5 I believe.

 

[BarbaraAlphanse]

8.5 I believe.

Just checked, in between our estimates. 8.25 for 2 more years. Terrible contract.

 

[Rangerfan4life90]

Just checked, in between our estimates. 8.25 for 2 more years. Terrible contract.

At least it's only for two years, though. Cap hit is bad, but the term is more than ideal.