As far as Im concerned, losing Richards is addition by subtraction. He was abominable in every aspect of the game post-Olympic break. I could care less about his 50 points. As you said, that'll be made up elsewhere, likely by guys that can keep up with the play.
July 1st recap: Now and the Future
- Thread starter DelZottoHitTheNetJK
- 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
As far as Im concerned, losing Richards is addition by subtraction. He was abominable in every aspect of the game post-Olympic break. I could care less about his 50 points. As you said, that'll be made up elsewhere, likely by guys that can keep up with the play.
Tawnos
A guy with a bass
Rangers have space to buy up UFA years from both of those players. What do you think their UFA years are worth? Brassard's are worth about $4-4.5m. Zuccarello's about the same, right now. $15m in space, $8-9m for those players, $4m for Kreider and J.Moore. That leaves $2-3m to improve the 3rd line and sign a 13F.
2 years for Boyle represents long-term planning because it's an acknowledgment that they don't have players ready right now, but the probably will when Boyle's contract is up.
Agreed, Singin'. Forget about the Poulliot deal, as that much for him made no sense whatsoever. Unless you are the Oilers. But they will reap what they sew. Letting Boyle go at $2m is a typical Sather move. He simply does not get intangibles. And at $2m, to keep a key locker room guy whose performance gets better in the playoffs seems like a no brainer. Unless you are Sather.
The Boyle move is also a typical Sather move. If there is an over-the-hill aging vet, Rangerland is a natural landing place for him.
What else is left? Maybe Ott to improve bottom 2 line attitude? Not sure.
Brian Boyle leaving may have been more on Boyle than the Rangers...remember Boyle's first words were "I want a bigger role" and the Rangers saw him as coming back int he same role. It's entirely possible he basically said "I want out" and money wasn't the issue there.
As for Dan Boyle, as I said before the move in and of itself isn't really an issue, it's more that the makeup of the defense needs some changing. Staal either needs to get back to the player he used to be, or John Moore needs to take a big step, or whatever, but there are too many guys who don't put up points and don't move the puck quite well enough. Adding Dan Boyle by himself doesn't bother me, but if the Rangers consider him a replacement for Stralman then yeah it's kind of an issue
As for Dan Boyle, as I said before the move in and of itself isn't really an issue, it's more that the makeup of the defense needs some changing. Staal either needs to get back to the player he used to be, or John Moore needs to take a big step, or whatever, but there are too many guys who don't put up points and don't move the puck quite well enough. Adding Dan Boyle by himself doesn't bother me, but if the Rangers consider him a replacement for Stralman then yeah it's kind of an issue
Where/What could the Rangers get if they trade brass, Staal, Nash, Hags?
I posted in another thread that the Rangers and Toronto can be very good trade partners if they are willing to take risks.
Personally i don't see the rangers doing much next season unless they make some sort of trade.
A lot is riding on Stepan next season.
I posted in another thread that the Rangers and Toronto can be very good trade partners if they are willing to take risks.
Personally i don't see the rangers doing much next season unless they make some sort of trade.
A lot is riding on Stepan next season.
SingnBluesOnBroadway
Retired
My point was I don't think you can look line by line and evaluate whether a team is better based on an individual's production.
SingnBluesOnBroadway
Retired
SingnBluesOnBroadway
Retired
Maybe it is. But you can argue that Sather felt that Boyle does more for the team at 4.5 than Stralman does. He'll play second pair minutes and be a fixture on the PP. It's easier to replace Stralman's PK minutes with what was already in house.
offdacrossbar
misfit fanboy
i like the boyle deal. 2 yrs is smart and the money is reasonable if he produces the results we intend. he needs to manage the puck on the top of the pp and create offense at even strength. he has a reliable shot and hes always been a smart player. his hockey sense is very good. with minimal 5on5 minutes against top lines, he may well flourish in the av system. his legs worry me though, especially late in games and into the end of the season and the playoffs.
the whole glass things is dumb. should have just paid boyle and called it a day. i guess its all about old time tough guy hockey. need someone who can throw em.
i still dont like our size and speed up the middle. miller will be a nice addition but his ability to add scoring is a complete unknown. stepan as a 1 doesnt excite me at all. brass without poo makes me nervous as well.
the loss of poo is gonna hurt. the guy was a dope sometimes but he brought alot more than most of our forwards every single night.
the whole glass things is dumb. should have just paid boyle and called it a day. i guess its all about old time tough guy hockey. need someone who can throw em.
i still dont like our size and speed up the middle. miller will be a nice addition but his ability to add scoring is a complete unknown. stepan as a 1 doesnt excite me at all. brass without poo makes me nervous as well.
the loss of poo is gonna hurt. the guy was a dope sometimes but he brought alot more than most of our forwards every single night.
Off Sides
Registered User
- Sep 8, 2008
- 9,755
- 5,585
Not about what they are worth as UFAs right now, next off-season the cap is going up. It will be about what their market worth would be then and beyond if the Rangers want to buy up those years.
I would actually be a little surprised to not see both Zucc and Brassard both be taken or take the Rangers to arbitration. From there the Rangers either pony up and buy up some of those years or they can just be UFAs next off-season when the cap is higher. That seems like a fair amount of leverage for them to be able to get more per year on a longer term deal.
Also who is this player who is going to take over for Boyle in two years?
With the way some of the silly money is thrown out around the league, I'm surprised nobody has made an offer sheet to Kreider, Zucc or Brassard. The Rangers would be in an extremely tenuous situation if some team throws a boatload at one of these guys.
If they don't match they lose that player, and if they do match, they may not be able to afford one or two of the other players. Sather likes to have leverage, and he can easily lose it. Scary.
If they don't match they lose that player, and if they do match, they may not be able to afford one or two of the other players. Sather likes to have leverage, and he can easily lose it. Scary.
But is it easy to replace Anton Stralman the possession magician?
I say that in jest because I think WAY to much credence has been given to Stralman's Corsi #'s, especially consider that translated into zero offense from him. Even though Boyle is a worse defender, he adds an offensive element thats been lacking from the blue line. At worst, I think its a push in terms of effectiveness.
Fair enough. Maybe the Rangers look to move him and something else for a legit #1 C.
In my Opinion the only Untouchable players on the Rangers are McDonagh and KreidGod and Hank and Zuc. Everyone else is expendable.
Tawnos
A guy with a bass
Bold: That's not how these negotiations work. First of all, when a player does re-sign, it's almost always for less than open market value. Second, no GM would ever negotiate a contract based on an unknown future cap number. It is absolutely based on what they are worth as UFAs right now.
As for who is taking over for Boyle... McIlrath is probably the answer, but we should probably keep the McIlrath talk to the McIlrath thread. Maybe Allen. The point is that Boyle for 2 years doesn't tie our hands the way that Stralman might have.
It's bad culture to "steal" players from other teams. You don't see a lot of offer sheets around the league.
SingnBluesOnBroadway
Retired
Off Sides
Registered User
- Sep 8, 2008
- 9,755
- 5,585
That means you are guesstimating on what those players think they are worth as UFAs right now. Zucc is not worth more than Gionta at 4.25M? Hemsky at 4M? Brassard is not worth more than Bolland at 5.5M? Don't think those players could command those types of contracts next off-season as UFAs? Pouliot just got 4M per on a long term deal after signing a cheap one year deal, did Zucc and Brassard miss that?
Boyle, so they sign him to be their PP QB and then they expect McIlrath to take over that role in two years?
Ian
Mike York fan club
This July 1 day has made me think there is zero chance the Rangers move any of their prospects in a trade. I think they've completely bought into the idea that the current crop of kids are perfectly fit to fill the open roles on this team, both now and in due time.
I think the decision to go with Boyle over Stralman had as much to do with the lack of a PP QB as it did with Skjei and not believing in locking a guy up for 5 years as opposed to 2.
I think they let Pouliot walk (and will likely bring someone in on a 1 or 2 year deal) had as much to do with what he commanded on the market as it did with the team feeling like Duclair/Buch will command a top 9 wing spot in two years.
Right or wrong, the team has hitched its wagon to this next set of prospects.
I think the decision to go with Boyle over Stralman had as much to do with the lack of a PP QB as it did with Skjei and not believing in locking a guy up for 5 years as opposed to 2.
I think they let Pouliot walk (and will likely bring someone in on a 1 or 2 year deal) had as much to do with what he commanded on the market as it did with the team feeling like Duclair/Buch will command a top 9 wing spot in two years.
Right or wrong, the team has hitched its wagon to this next set of prospects.
Brooklyn Rangers Fan
Change is good.
Expanding on what I wrote yesterday:
The only thing I don't get at this point is the Glass signing. Granted, I don't know the player well, but my limited viewings have left me unimpressed and those who have seen him are evaluating him as your basic facepuncher. Why did we have to give this guy $500K over the min and THREE years? Aren't there a ton of guys still out there who do the same thing that could be had for the min for one year? Hopefully I'm missing something and he'll convert me when I get to see him on a more regular basis.
In retrospect, the Glass signing is the only "bad" thing the team did yesterday - thankfully, there were no Gomez/Drury/Richards/Redden signings. The moves for Hartford are PHENOMENAL. So far, they've kept a lot of cap and roster flexibility for this year and next. There's lots of room for kids to step up. These are all good things.
As far as the team turnover goes:
D. Boyle = Stralman (or at least that's the theory - the former does different things on a much more flexible contract).
Glass < B. Boyle.
Pouliot =>< ? (we haven't seen his replacement yet IMO).
So, depending on who else we add, the team maybe equal to last year's squad or even better (especially if the kids progress). And, we should be in good shape going into next offseason. Thinking longer term, this may all work out just fine. Any major changes will come through trades or in next offseason's FA class.
I just do. not. get. why we had to pay Tanner Glass an extra $500K and give him an extra 2 years over any other goon. And that sticks in my craw, despite the fact that it's a relatively minor issue under our cap.
The only thing I don't get at this point is the Glass signing. Granted, I don't know the player well, but my limited viewings have left me unimpressed and those who have seen him are evaluating him as your basic facepuncher. Why did we have to give this guy $500K over the min and THREE years? Aren't there a ton of guys still out there who do the same thing that could be had for the min for one year? Hopefully I'm missing something and he'll convert me when I get to see him on a more regular basis.
In retrospect, the Glass signing is the only "bad" thing the team did yesterday - thankfully, there were no Gomez/Drury/Richards/Redden signings. The moves for Hartford are PHENOMENAL. So far, they've kept a lot of cap and roster flexibility for this year and next. There's lots of room for kids to step up. These are all good things.
As far as the team turnover goes:
D. Boyle = Stralman (or at least that's the theory - the former does different things on a much more flexible contract).
Glass < B. Boyle.
Pouliot =>< ? (we haven't seen his replacement yet IMO).
So, depending on who else we add, the team maybe equal to last year's squad or even better (especially if the kids progress). And, we should be in good shape going into next offseason. Thinking longer term, this may all work out just fine. Any major changes will come through trades or in next offseason's FA class.
I just do. not. get. why we had to pay Tanner Glass an extra $500K and give him an extra 2 years over any other goon. And that sticks in my craw, despite the fact that it's a relatively minor issue under our cap.
SingnBluesOnBroadway
Retired
Brooklyn Rangers Fan
Change is good.
I came to a similar conclusion based on the 4-6 (depending on who gets carried as a 7th D and 13th F) moves for HFD. Not only do the Bourque, Dejardin, Kampfer, Hunwick, Mueller and Kostka signings mean the Wolfpack squad is going to be good, it means that it can survive promotions - and in fact, that there will actually be some pressure from below for kids to move up based on the number of spots available in HFD for the existing prospects plus the college kids they signed last year.
Ian
Mike York fan club
Nature of a salary capped sport. There are very few teams that are experiencing little turnover this season.
Even so, I don't think Sather's hands were as tied as your post suggests. True, he could not have brought back the exact same team as last year, but letting a player leave via FA is as much as personnel decision as trading guys (or even keeping those that they could have traded).
It's not surprising to me that they decided to keep someone like Klein or Girardi, as opposed to trading them and resigning Stralman, which I think becomes more obvious when you take a look at the makeup of the farm and proximity of players to making an impact (hopefully).
