I don't disagree, and of course a deal can still be struck. The original point was it didn't need to be done in June or early July. But if not, hopefully the Rangers do their homework and make a case for their number so the difference isn't just split, which does happen, albeit not that common and for me the arbitration process (outside hockey) is, well, sometimes arbitrary!
How come Sather always waits till the last minute
- Thread starter free0717
- Start date
-
Xenforo Cloud will be upgrading us to version 2.3.5 on March 3rd at 12 AM GMT. This version has increased stability and fixes several bugs. We expect downtime for the duration of the update. The admin team will continue to work on existing issues, templates and upgrade all necessary available addons to minimize impact of this new version. Click Here for Updates
I don't disagree, and of course a deal can still be struck. The original point was it didn't need to be done in June or early July. But if not, hopefully the Rangers do their homework and make a case for their number so the difference isn't just split, which does happen, albeit not that common and for me the arbitration process (outside hockey) is, well, sometimes arbitrary!
Very few arbitration cases have taken place in recent years, and the arbiter has almost always split the difference with the exception of Shea Weber. I think in hockey it cleans more towards mediation than arbitration in the real world sense since some binding agreements can last for a long time as opposed to a year or two.
Off Sides
Registered User
- Sep 8, 2008
- 9,755
- 5,585
Agreed,
The leverage on the players side, Brassard and Zucc is they are both only a year away from UFA, since arbitration with those players can only be awarded a one year term, both players if they went through with it would be UFA next off-season.
The leverage on the Rangers side would be larger guaranteed money in longer term contracts. Something an arbitration award can not give out since they can only be one year terms.
So the player has to choose, does he want to go the safer route and take more guaranteed money over a longer term, or does he want to take a one year short term deal, hope for no injury or regression in play and shoot for more overall money next off season, or does he settle somewhere in between?
To me there are certain players the Rangers should be doing this process with, then there are safer players where they could be getting a bargain on cap hit on future years by forgoing some space now.
Not long ago when Stepan was up for contract, and was asking for a longer term I argued that the Rangers should absolutely pay then to reap the benefit of reduced cap hit later. I still believe my stance was correct and I think that will become more apparent next off-season when he is up for contract again.
I made no similar argument for Hagelin as he did not have the body of work to command such a risk. Nor Del Zotto when it was him.
What did the Rangers get out of not making Stepan a long term signing? The chance to sign Halpern, Asham, Pyatt?
To the present, I will not argue that I think Kreider should get a long term UFA year buying up contract, as he does not have the body of work to support it, nor is he slated to become a UFA next off-season. Same for Moore
Normally I would not argue for Zucc either, however he is one year away from UFA, so they have a choice to make there. Brassard similar choice but he does have the overall body of work to predict what he will likely bring going forward.
Now even with that said, what do the Rangers get for not buying up at least some of those UFA years if they choose not to? Where would that extra cap space be allocated? Glass? Whomever else they'd likely sign this or next off-season? Would they use it to buy up some of Stepan's or Hagelin's UFA years, MSL's? or would they just play the same strategy over again?
To sum it up the best I can, the Rangers only currently have McD as their only contract that can and will be considered a bargain going forward on the whole team, how much longer can they go that route and still remain competitive?
NYRKindms
Registered User
- Dec 16, 2009
- 989
- 188
To folks claiming Hank got done early he really didn't
They supposedly were working on something in the summer but then it never got done. It took Hank playing poorly and even making some statements that the contract looming was bothering him and then whammo the deal gets done. So Sather jerked around with Hank all summer and didn't get the deal done to the detriment of the team.
So please stop using hanks contract as a talking point for Sather getting things done proper.
They supposedly were working on something in the summer but then it never got done. It took Hank playing poorly and even making some statements that the contract looming was bothering him and then whammo the deal gets done. So Sather jerked around with Hank all summer and didn't get the deal done to the detriment of the team.
So please stop using hanks contract as a talking point for Sather getting things done proper.
How was it to the detriment to the team? Was the length too long? Did they pay more money?
Great points all around. I think the Rangers look at opportunity cost a little differently than a CHI or BOS. They must sincerely believe, those Asham, Halpern, Pyatt and Glass deals as the wiggle room they need to not buy off the years on an asset that will surely get a bump in pay grade.
The string of signings this off season isn't as bad as the off season of July '12 since the lower tier contracts don't come with term attached outside of the classic Glass signing.
It's obvious that they view this as a strategy and will not deviate from it. Sometimes it works, but sometimes it will hurt as it will in Stepan's case if Step commands $6M in the offseason next year.
All Step has to do is hit 70 points and he's got it, and the Rangers have cap issues next year that forces more lower tier signings.
Cost control is key in asset management.
NYRKindms
Registered User
- Dec 16, 2009
- 989
- 188
Hank playing poorly and admitting that the contract was a total distraction to him ?
Maybe it was BS maybe not but hank started playing much better after that deal was inked. As for term etc that's a whole different discussion. But Hank flat out said the negotiation and speculation as it dragged in to the regular season effected him. So Sather dragging his feet = messed with his goalie
Guess I'm E=NYRKindms;88077973]Hank playing poorly and admitting that the contract was a total distraction to him ?
Maybe it was BS maybe not but hank started playing much better after that deal was inked. As for term etc that's a whole different discussion. But Hank flat out said the negotiation and speculation as it dragged in to the regular season effected him. So Sather dragging his feet = messed with his goalie[/QUOTE]
Gurss I'm looking at the end result which was going further than the team has gone with him. There were other distractions before that. Garden renovation, top winger out due to concussion. In any event, I'd be disappointed a bit if he couldn't focus on game days while working through s contract.
Maybe it was BS maybe not but hank started playing much better after that deal was inked. As for term etc that's a whole different discussion. But Hank flat out said the negotiation and speculation as it dragged in to the regular season effected him. So Sather dragging his feet = messed with his goalie[/QUOTE]
Gurss I'm looking at the end result which was going further than the team has gone with him. There were other distractions before that. Garden renovation, top winger out due to concussion. In any event, I'd be disappointed a bit if he couldn't focus on game days while working through s contract.
They are not all year in and year out contenders. The ones that succeed might be - the ones that sign up the wrong players for a long time are not.
Not that I disagree with you that you got to make some bets on which players might develop more than the value of the contract suggests. And I can see your point that NYR might not have done that often enough under the current GM, but it is still a balancing game.
Realistically how many players are "breaking out" every season? Zuccarello did, but there was little money to sign him up for longer last summer anyway.
And how many teams got a bunch of players signed up with great value? Chicago had three, but soon there will only be Keith being severely "underpaid". Kings got several, but they are also heavily investing in "now" and will struggle to stay competitive as soon as you see Carter, Richards, Gaborik and Brown starting to decline. As for most other teams the NYR matches up well in my opinion. McDonagh has to be one of the best contracts in hockey. Just a shame with Nash. If Nash had lived up to his salary......... tells you something about how little it takes in the NHL.
free0717
Registered User
You see. Sather had to wait till they got to the Arbitration hearing to cut a deal with Kreider
He couldnt do that last week?
He couldnt do that last week?
Both sides need to agree. Perhaps Kreider came down and Sather came up and they had a deal. Kreider could have lowered his asking price, no?
BBKers
Registered User
free0717
Registered User
It just seems other General Managers dont squeeze there players for every penny they can get.
It seems the California GMs(Lombardi, Murray, Wilson) know how to get the players to buy in and get these contracts done.
Old school Sather will always wait till the last minute
Jim Ramsay
Registered User
Okay...but the contract still got done. I'm all knocking Sather when it is deserved, but to complain because it didn't get done in a timely matter is beyond silly..
This team was just in the finals and yet, people will complain endlessly.....
I think overall he is done a good job this offseason
This team was just in the finals and yet, people will complain endlessly.....
I think overall he is done a good job this offseason
Negotiations are a game of chicken. They usually don't end until the very last minute.
Sather sucks for more reasons than I can count, but this isn't one of them.
Sather sucks for more reasons than I can count, but this isn't one of them.
Off Sides
Registered User
- Sep 8, 2008
- 9,755
- 5,585
At the point they are already slated to go to arbitration, it really does not matter.
However why the Rangers hardly ever extend their players before it gets to that point is more of my issue with how they do things.
Sather is always looking to improve the team, I take that as meaning he is going to wait to the last minute to commit cap space because he does not want to limit the possibilities. To me that means there is not so much a long term plan, more so it's save cap space, go shopping every UFA season, then see what happens from there.
With the CBAs schedule of events, it makes some sense if he is going by the notion that limiting the possibilities is a bad idea. He never has to commit cap space to anyone for next season unless they force the issue in some way. And even then it would have to be a pretty important player for them to create any movement.
I guess I just disagree with that philosophy. To me signing young good players to current market rate to longer term deals makes more sense. As long as the player is on a movable contract, it's not limiting the possibilities. Just means one would have to be more creative on the trade market instead of the UFA market. A good player on a good contract, holds value whether to his current team or on the trade market. If that player is still youngish all the better.
Not trying to say they should go that route with every player, but the few that show something more extraordinary, those who look to become top 4D, top 6F, those who look safer, it makes some sense to just commit sooner rather than later.
However why the Rangers hardly ever extend their players before it gets to that point is more of my issue with how they do things.
Sather is always looking to improve the team, I take that as meaning he is going to wait to the last minute to commit cap space because he does not want to limit the possibilities. To me that means there is not so much a long term plan, more so it's save cap space, go shopping every UFA season, then see what happens from there.
With the CBAs schedule of events, it makes some sense if he is going by the notion that limiting the possibilities is a bad idea. He never has to commit cap space to anyone for next season unless they force the issue in some way. And even then it would have to be a pretty important player for them to create any movement.
I guess I just disagree with that philosophy. To me signing young good players to current market rate to longer term deals makes more sense. As long as the player is on a movable contract, it's not limiting the possibilities. Just means one would have to be more creative on the trade market instead of the UFA market. A good player on a good contract, holds value whether to his current team or on the trade market. If that player is still youngish all the better.
Not trying to say they should go that route with every player, but the few that show something more extraordinary, those who look to become top 4D, top 6F, those who look safer, it makes some sense to just commit sooner rather than later.
Miamipuck
Al Swearengen
Exactly, wtf, if it's 1 year, 1 hour, or 1 minute before, it got done. Who gives a rat's rectum.
I knock Sather all the time as well, and I do not think he has done a good job this offseason at all.
That said, I agree that complaining that Sather gets deals done too late is silly. It's done, that's what matters.
Please show me a franchise in any of the four major sports who locks up all important RFAs and UFAs before a deadline?
It just doesn't happen. There are plenty of "legitimate" things to blame Sather for over the last dozen + years. Lets not create additional things that are not real.
free0717
Registered User
Don't you often get to the same place? Most everybody is signed and it's still not the end of July. Whether or not the Rangers management got the deals they wanted is only known by then, but the point is the big deals are done. Being proactive is nice. A guy like Yzerman does it likely because he spent so long being on the other side, but I'm not sure he's getting better deals because of it. There is a market value to these guys. Everyone throws out the numbers and deals get done. Again, the objective is to have a full team in camp. That likely is going to happen and now most can enjoy the rest of their Summer.
AlternateSideParking
Registered User
- Dec 11, 2005
- 21,599
- 5,136
It's not about waiting until the last minute. It's the infuriating tendency to overpay 3rd and 4th line players on July 1st and then haggle over 500K or 1 million with his own home grown players a few weeks later.
Callahan is apparently happy to be out of NY. NHL radio was saying that he was miserable there because Sather has no loyalty to his own home-grown guys when it comes to contracts.
The players aren't stupid. They read the papers, go on CapGeek and see what they are worth. Kreider played hurt and went to war for the team and was their highest PPG player in the playoffs, and he sees Tanner Glass essentially getting some of his money. MZA the same.
It's how he does business. Rangers have always loved the city, loved the fans and loved the organization. But it's bad for business when you alienate your home grown guys.
It depends on philosophy.
I feel you build through the draft and ONLY the draft for three to four years, create competiton, then little by little trade your best expendable prospects for established NHL players with defined roles. Never use free agency unless its's a too-good-to-be-true situation (Like ray Sheppard or Adam Graves), and always stockpile as many picks as you can.
Sather obviously doesnt feel that way. He loves goons. He loves shiny toys. He loves strongarming his youngsters.
Results are mixed. Good and bad. But the game has passed him by. He did a good job the last few years with his signings but in reality this franchise is one good, young GM away from developing a powerhouse.
Callahan is apparently happy to be out of NY. NHL radio was saying that he was miserable there because Sather has no loyalty to his own home-grown guys when it comes to contracts.
The players aren't stupid. They read the papers, go on CapGeek and see what they are worth. Kreider played hurt and went to war for the team and was their highest PPG player in the playoffs, and he sees Tanner Glass essentially getting some of his money. MZA the same.
It's how he does business. Rangers have always loved the city, loved the fans and loved the organization. But it's bad for business when you alienate your home grown guys.
It depends on philosophy.
I feel you build through the draft and ONLY the draft for three to four years, create competiton, then little by little trade your best expendable prospects for established NHL players with defined roles. Never use free agency unless its's a too-good-to-be-true situation (Like ray Sheppard or Adam Graves), and always stockpile as many picks as you can.
Sather obviously doesnt feel that way. He loves goons. He loves shiny toys. He loves strongarming his youngsters.
Results are mixed. Good and bad. But the game has passed him by. He did a good job the last few years with his signings but in reality this franchise is one good, young GM away from developing a powerhouse.
Callahan is not worth what he got. Since 2010 he's played in 83% of the possible games. He's an injury liability and he's getting older. The idea that you should pay players for loyalty is crazy. It's a business. Obviously extreme examples but, Kobe with the Lakers - Jeter with the Yankees. They paid those guys not for what they will do, but for what they did.
You win in hockey by having younger, cheaper players contribute. That's why he plays hardball. You have to pay more in free agency for players that you need. That's why we overpay enforcers, and supposedly 1C centers. If Ryan Callahan was Toews or a player to that ability, he would have gotten paid. Callahan was in it for the money and we, rightfully so didn't give him it.
AlternateSideParking
Registered User
- Dec 11, 2005
- 21,599
- 5,136
The point isnt whether he was deserving or not. The point is that Sather has habitually played hardball with the homegrown players. While he deserves credit for being consistent and not playing favorites, the truth is he is not loyal. These kids arent asking for the stars at a young age. But when you throw contracts to goons like Rupp and Brashear and Glass and useless lazy vets like Frolov and Kotalik and Redden while squeezing your younger guys, it creates animosity.
Sather didnt go with kids because he wanted to. He went with kids because he had to. Sather is the last remaining executive from the Wirtz/Ballard was of thinking. He's not liked or respected around the league, and if you think there's an anti-Rangers attitude from the media, you can thank Dolan and Sather for the vanilla coverage the team gets outside of Brooks. Everybody else hates him.
http://snyrangersblog.com/coachesgm...-nyr-free-agents-rfas-and-free-agency-window/
http://nypost.com/2013/11/08/dubinsky-gaborik-look-back-on-time-with-rangers/
http://prohockeytalk.nbcsports.com/2014/03/13/callahan-i-wanted-to-stay-in-new-york/
http://nypost.com/2013/01/12/del-zotto-rangers-may-not-reach-deal-before-camp/
http://espn.go.com/new-york/nhl/sto...rs-needs-get-little-wiser-says-gm-glen-sather
http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/h...aal-deal-close-article-1.182911#ixzz0sABPJSOQ
