July 1st - Free Agent Extravaganza Part III

  • 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
Status
Not open for further replies.
Nash is a star player still give it a break.. He wasn't healthy for majority of the year and he still almost netted 30 goals in 65 games... All this talk of him traded are you kidding me? We gave up a lot and even the players we gave up don't Even come close to the player Nash is... Any team in the league would do that trade 10 out of 10 times..

Give it a rest he's here to stay!!!!!!!!!! Not saying I wouldn't trade him if the offer was right but that could be said about anyone

I'll admit I thought the Nash deal was a no-brainer when the Rangers made it. I'll also admit, I would have rather had Dubinsky and Anisimov suited up against the Kings in the Finals.

That said, if Vanek could have his pitiful playoff performance and still fetch $6.5MM for 3 years, then you have to believe Nash still has value around the league.

There's always teams like looking for goals. We could look in the mirror (see Gartner, Bure, Robitaille, Jagr, Gaborik, Nash), or we could look at the Kings (Penner, Gagne, Richards, Williams, Carter, Gaborik).

The only way I could see the Rangers getting rid of Nash was if they were targeting another player making $7MM or more and we needed the cap space. Until that situation comes around, Nash will stay.
 
Im not one calling for Nash's ouster, and Im willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.

But hes got half a regular season of playoff games under his belt now and his production is hideous. How much longer do I have to call it just being unlucky?

I don't disagree with you (which is rare). Maybe it was just me but I saw a lot more hustle from Nash during the playoffs than I did in the regular season. Especially in the defensive zone. The one thing that doesn't concern me about Nash in the playoffs, when he isn't scoring, he becomes better at other areas of the game. Despite a few brain farts (none were at the level of a Del Zotto brain fart), I thought he was actually good in the defensive zone during the PO's.

What does concern me is his regular season play. After posting the second best PPG of his career (albeit in a shortened season) he posts the 2nd worst PPG of his career. We need his production to get to the playoffs.

I think this year is going to be a career defining year for Rick Nash. Either he bounces back and shows the world that he is capable of being the player we all know he can be and leads the Rangers to a successful playoff run to cast away the notion that he is not a playoff performer OR he has another down year and cements the fact that he is now a shell of his former self and will be remembered as a player who couldn't step it up when it mattered.
 
If you honestly believe Lundqvist would have become the highest paid player in the league as a UFA, there's nothing I can really say, aside from it being a ridiculous notion

C'mon now. Are you telling me that you don't think it's possible any of the following teams would have broken the bank for Lundqvist? (And I realize that some of these teams would have had to make salary cap or player moves to bring Hank in with a $10MM contract.)

PHILLY - They would have loved to have stuck it to the Rangers and they have doled out crazy contracts in the past.

WASHINGTON - They paid Orpick $5.5MM. You don't think they would have rather paid Hank $10MM?

ST. LOUIS - They traded a big haul for Miller and have nothing to show for it. Hank would have been a slam dunk for them.

Pittsburgh - They'd have to trade The Flower, which would complicate things but with the general vibe around the team being that Crosby isn't getting the proper support, and with Ruhterford cutting the checks (remember he gave J. Staal a $10 year/$60MM contract), nothing would shock me.

SJ and ANAHEIM - The Sharks and Ducks are both looking for ways to get past the Kings.

And that list doesn't include the bottom-feeders like Edmonton or the Isles, who Hank wouldn't sign with but would offer to spend to get him.
 
So I was just reading on Hockey Buzz about how Columbus is deep in centers and if they would consider trading Anisimov. Just speculation and all but what do you think it would take?
 
Not gonna get my hopes up on Nash all of the sudden having a great playoff run. Dude's 30 and I don't see him adjusting his style of play to get it done in the playoffs. Would love to be proven wrong. His style of play reminds me of video game.
 
I don't see Nash becoming Claude Lemieux in the playoffs but he's gotta regress (or progress) toward the mean.

He was playing with no confidence, but he also couldn't buy a goal. Totally snakebitten. Tap-ins going off the post or wide open nets deflected by the shaft of a stick. That absurdity can't continue.
 
I've been a bit provocative with my latest posts about Lundqvist's contract (and he definitely left a ton of money on the table).

I think it steams from that I am a bit annoyed about Slats really not really picking up the mechanisms of the cap world. What was expensive yesterday really is not today, and this development will only go faster and faster.

There are only 30 goalies in this league, and only a handful of them are really "elite" in the sense that they stay at the top year after year like Hank. So there aren't quite any compareables right now. But let look at the second best goalie IMO, Jonathan Quick. LAK resigned him to a 10 year deal when he still was a RFA. 7m per for 7 years, and then cheap years at the end to bring the AAV down to 5.8m. And Quick's contract will only keep getting better and better and better.

This don't make Hank overpaid, it just shows that LAK signed Quick to an awsome contract.

In NY though, a long contract is a negative. Yes, you should be careful with long contracts. But I can bet than 4m per for say Anton Strålman in 4 years will be a good AAV, the cap is going up while Strålman is entering his true prime.

Some obvious conclusions:

1. A long contract can be a risk, but -- it is also a definitey must to have good players on good contracts to win a cup and one of few ways to get someone on a good contract is to lock someone up long term and have that contract mature into a cheap AAV as the cap goes up.

2. Hence you -- must -- sign players to long contracts. You just cannot have your players always turn UFAs on a regular basis.

3. You need to stay tuned into what really is "market value" for these guys. 7m in 07' ain't "7m" in 14'... A player making 4m today is not taking up a major part of your cap. A player signed to a 8.5m contract is not even remotely making what a top player would get on the open market.

Ryan Suter and Zach Parise is making 12m per right now -- 12m per -- and I have a really hard time not seing the top players make 12m per if they hit the UFA market today. Seriously, like we are talking about if Hank would make 10m per or not on the open market. I have not brought it furhter, but I honestly don't think he would make 10m per. I think he would make 12m per if he took the highest offer, I am fairly certain of it. That's 17 percent of the cap. Someone would pay him that. Its equal to the 6.8m contracts signed right after the lock-out. I mean just look at what guys like Nikitin and Clarkson are making, its just worth it to bring in one player that you know for sure will carry your team at that level. There are 30 teams, as we know on the UFA market if you take the highest bid all it takes is one of those teams to think that it makes sense and the bar is set.

So don't compare the AAV of any player we have or can sign or whatever with players that signed contracts 5 years ago or signed cap circumventing contracts or whatever. You must look much deeper than that. Look at portions of the cap and -- always count extremely high.

Why is this relevant? You always need to have this in the back of your head when you evalute your situation and how you manage your cap. A 7.8m contract might seem expensive today, for example. People were suggesting Nash to be bought out. Boyle and MSL's contracts will be off our books in 2 years probably, wee will have room to make a move then. But, the next time we hit the UFA market and sign a big star we won't be paying 7-7.5m per for the next Zach Parise if you get what I mean, we will be paying 10 or even 12 or who can rule out 14m per (the cap will be over 80m by then no doubt, probably closer to 85m. 14% of 85m is 12m... We paid Gomez 14.5% of our cap when we signed him, and those deals weren't outrageous for superstars (Gomez wasn't a superstar though but thats another issue...)).

I mean, many are asking themselves if we really shouldn't try to move Nash. Should we pay him 7.8m per in 4-5 years? I am not saying that isn't a relevant question, but you can't forget that 7.8m in 4-5 years most definitely won't be "7.8m" anymore. It will be more like 5.5m.
 
If you honestly believe Lundqvist would have become the highest paid player in the league as a UFA, there's nothing I can really say, aside from it being a ridiculous notion

Come on, do some homework. Brad freakin Richards was paid 12m per last season, and he signed his contract in 2011. Its 2014 now...

There are 9 guys in this league making 10+m per and there are 50 players making more than 6.2m per.

Hank can carry a team. Someone would have paid him 14% of their cap 2 weeks ago if he went to the highest bidder. A ton of teams has given players 14% of their cap post the lockout, you mean that its ridicouls to think that "one" would do it for Hank?

The last 5-6 years before the last lockout almost everyone signed the cap circumventing deals, you can't look at them anymore. They are banned in the new CBA...
 
I've been a bit provocative with my latest posts about Lundqvist's contract (and he definitely left a ton of money on the table).

I think it steams from that I am a bit annoyed about Slats really not really picking up the mechanisms of the cap world. What was expensive yesterday really is not today, and this development will only go faster and faster.

There are only 30 goalies in this league, and only a handful of them are really "elite" in the sense that they stay at the top year after year like Hank. So there aren't quite any compareables right now. But let look at the second best goalie IMO, Jonathan Quick. LAK resigned him to a 10 year deal when he still was a RFA. 7m per for 7 years, and then cheap years at the end to bring the AAV down to 5.8m. And Quick's contract will only keep getting better and better and better.

This don't make Hank overpaid, it just shows that LAK signed Quick to an awsome contract.

In NY though, a long contract is a negative. Yes, you should be careful with long contracts. But I can bet than 4m per for say Anton Strålman in 4 years will be a good AAV, the cap is going up while Strålman is entering his true prime.

Some obvious conclusions:

1. A long contract can be a risk, but -- it is also a definitey must to have good players on good contracts to win a cup and one of few ways to get someone on a good contract is to lock someone up long term and have that contract mature into a cheap AAV as the cap goes up.

2. Hence you -- must -- sign players to long contracts. You just cannot have your players always turn UFAs on a regular basis.

3. You need to stay tuned into what really is "market value" for these guys. 7m in 07' ain't "7m" in 14'... A player making 4m today is not taking up a major part of your cap. A player signed to a 8.5m contract is not even remotely making what a top player would get on the open market.

Ryan Suter and Zach Parise is making 12m per right now -- 12m per -- and I have a really hard time not seing the top players make 12m per if they hit the UFA market today. Seriously, like we are talking about if Hank would make 10m per or not on the open market. I have not brought it furhter, but I honestly don't think he would make 10m per. I think he would make 12m per if he took the highest offer, I am fairly certain of it. That's 17 percent of the cap. Someone would pay him that. Its equal to the 6.8m contracts signed right after the lock-out. I mean just look at what guys like Nikitin and Clarkson are making, its just worth it to bring in one player that you know for sure will carry your team at that level. There are 30 teams, as we know on the UFA market if you take the highest bid all it takes is one of those teams to think that it makes sense and the bar is set.

So don't compare the AAV of any player we have or can sign or whatever with players that signed contracts 5 years ago or signed cap circumventing contracts or whatever. You must look much deeper than that. Look at portions of the cap and -- always count extremely high.

Why is this relevant? You always need to have this in the back of your head when you evalute your situation and how you manage your cap. A 7.8m contract might seem expensive today, for example. People were suggesting Nash to be bought out. Boyle and MSL's contracts will be off our books in 2 years probably, wee will have room to make a move then. But, the next time we hit the UFA market and sign a big star we won't be paying 7-7.5m per for the next Zach Parise if you get what I mean, we will be paying 10 or even 12 or who can rule out 14m per (the cap will be over 80m by then no doubt, probably closer to 85m. 14% of 85m is 12m... We paid Gomez 14.5% of our cap when we signed him, and those deals weren't outrageous for superstars (Gomez wasn't a superstar though but thats another issue...)).

I mean, many are asking themselves if we really shouldn't try to move Nash. Should we pay him 7.8m per in 4-5 years? I am not saying that isn't a relevant question, but you can't forget that 7.8m in 4-5 years most definitely won't be "7.8m" anymore. It will be more like 5.5m.

Lundqvist is the highest paid goalie by about 20% per year, is signed long term and until he is about 39. Not sure that when he signed the deal you are saying he left money on the table, but I'd say that when he signed the deal he didn't leave any money on the table. If you're saying that in three years we will be looking at an $8.5MM cap hit and say, wow, that's a great contract, well, then that's fine but you can't ignore what the cap was when he signed the contract and the fact that you still have to put together rosters in the early years of his contract. I don't mind long-term contracts for certain players, Hank especially, and I agree that it will benefit in future years, but you still need to budget today and I would say that Lundqvist got a good deal for himself.
 
Come on, do some homework. Brad freakin Richards was paid 12m per last season, and he signed his contract in 2011. Its 2014 now...

There are 9 guys in this league making 10+m per and there are 50 players making more than 6.2m per.

Hank can carry a team. Someone would have paid him 14% of their cap 2 weeks ago if he went to the highest bidder. A ton of teams has given players 14% of their cap post the lockout, you mean that its ridicouls to think that "one" would do it for Hank?

The last 5-6 years before the last lockout almost everyone signed the cap circumventing deals, you can't look at them anymore. They are banned in the new CBA...

Your worth is what someone is willing to pay you. Further, when determining relative value you're comped against comparable players. Lundqvist is comped against goalies. He's paid 20% more currently than the next goalie. That shows that he's the most valuable goalie in the league. I don't know what someone else would have paid, but perhaps they would not have paid much more because they have a decent goalie and they prefer to use that extra money on defense and forwards and depth because they need to put together an entire team. It's a good contract for both sides. Nobody should be upset with the amount today, and in the future.
 
Del Zotto - why not sign him?

I know all the criticism of MDZ. I get it. He does make stupid mistake sometimes.

But when he is available without us having to trade anyone, why not take a risk? He won't cost much.

We already have a set top 4. I see him as doing much better in bottom 2, where he won't have to face other team's top lines. We need more PP quarterbacks and I still feel he has untapped offensive upside.

I would sign him for around $1 mill for 1 year.

It will give us this:
McDonagh - Girardi
Boyle - Staal
Del Zotto - Klein
J.Moore

I think that is a very strong top 6! With J.Moore as #7 thats excellent depth...not to mention Kostka, Hunwick and others in minors.

I would be very happy with this D going into the season...
 
Don't think it's a good idea. The thought occurred to me with Boyle a right shot on the pwp and DZ a left shot--DZ's pwp production might actually go up. McDonagh though is a much better left shot pwp player than Del Zotto. DZ would not be the first option. I prefer John Moore in the lineup over DZ otherwise. Another thought is you burn your bridges you leave them burned. I don't think DZ and Manhattan necessarily go together. He needs to prove himself again and a fresh start in a new place would IMO be the best thing for him anyway. The money is another issue. The suggested $1 mil per--it's all conjecture whether he'd even accept it.
 
...

Because he sucks. On to the next thread

I think thats unfair.

He put up a 41 point season and a 37 point season. He was actually a +20 in 2011-2012.

He did not play well last season, thats clear. But he is still only 24. I think that he still has plenty of upside. There is a reason he was a 1st round pick. He can still rebound.
 
He had seasons of 37 and 41 points because he was force fed 4 minutes of PP time a game with 4 other forwards because we had no other offensively capable blueliners.

Rozsival, who was not an offensive defenseman put up 37 and 40 under similar circumstances.

Now that we have McDonagh, we don't need to have to put up with a blueliner who can't play defense any more. It's no longer necessary.

It would also appear that NHL gm's are not reductionists that think possession stats are the be all end all of hockey. Imagine that.
 
Nothing like Todd Bertuzzi and Dom Moore in the same locker room.

Hahahah exactly what i was thinking.


The Nash is hate is stupid. He was snake bitten in the playoffs. He played hard and elevated his game as the playoffs went deeper. He is going to have a big year for us.
 
8420841.jpg
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad