Marian Gaborik

[Crease]

And who do you plan on replacing Gaborik with? If Gaborik played for Columbus you'd be coming up with trade options to bring him here. Let it go, fickle fans.

Depends on what you can get in return for him in the trade market. If Gaborik played for Columbus I'd doubt we'd know exactly what we would be signing up by trading for him. We do right now.

 

[NYR Viper]

And who do you plan on replacing Gaborik with? If Gaborik played for Columbus you'd be coming up with trade options to bring him here. Let it go, fickle fans.

I have, on numerous occasions stated I would only trade him for a good return. Think Schenn + Simmonds + like Richards returned the Flyers.

There would be teams out there who would pay that.

Detroit:

Tatar + Kindl/Smith/______ +

 

[pld459666]

I think I've actually noticed more of an effort from Gaborik. That isn't his game though. Gaborik isn't noticeable but when you put him on a line with Richards who is playing worse than Erik Christensen did....currently, Gaborik will have less opportunity. It's hard to have opportunities when you're centre is constantly turning it over and playing like a chicken with his head cut off in the defensive zone. They need to be split up.

Nash-Stepan-GaborikHagelin-Richards-Callahan
Kreider-Miller-Pyatt
Powe-Boyle-Asham

I'd be on board with that if the Hagelin - Stepan - Nash line wasn't so good.

I would be very reluctant to split that up.

Additionally, Pyatt looked somewhat decent playing with Richards and Gabby.

Kreider - Miller - Callahan line was solid.

We need to get back to what was working and stop trying to force the issue with Richards. I trust that he will come out of his funk and I think that consistency in line-mates is the key. Not trying to force chemistry, just let it happen organically.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

This team will continue to be feast or famine because Richards and Gaborik do not have any effect on the game unless they are scoring. Neither can bring anything else to the table to change or create momentum. That's 14 million on the cap per season for 1-dimensional players.

Offense is a pretty big dimension.

Im well aware they are struggling now but, at least until the summer, the prudent move is to hope they turn it around instead of planning their ouster.

 

[pld459666]

This team will continue to be feast or famine because Richards and Gaborik do not have any effect on the game unless they are scoring. Neither can bring anything else to the table to change or create momentum. That's 14 million on the cap per season for 1-dimensional players.

That is a problem.

 

[NYR Viper]

Offense is a pretty big dimension.

Im well aware they are struggling now but, at least until the summer, the prudent move is to hope they turn it around instead of planning their ouster.

I feel like I am not undervaluing offense. Just more willing to spread the wealth figuratively and physically.

If the Rangers want to play this style, they need more players who can play this style AND create offense from defense.

ROR. Hagelin. Nash. Callahan. Players who can skate and are good 2-way players. There are others out there. Detroit has a ton of them.

They also need a defenseman who can skate the puck out of trouble. Detroit has a lot of those as well.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

If the Rangers want to play this style, they need more players who can play this style AND create offense from defense.

Its always been my opinion thats its much easier to ask a skilled player to grind it out, than vice versa.

If you want to get rid of Richards and Gaborik, thats fine. The replacements simply cannot be 2/3rd line tweeners with a limited offensive game.

 

[NYR Viper]

Its always been my opinion thats its much easier to ask a skilled player to grind it out, than vice versa.

If you want to get rid of Richards and Gaborik, thats fine. The replacements simply cannot be 2/3rd line tweeners with a limited offensive game.

If you improve the depth on this team and keep money available you can supplement that with other scoring talent who won't make as much money. Ryder? Trade for ROR? It opens up options having more young skilled pieces to work with.

I guess I just don't see Gaborik as someone you can rely heavily on and win.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

If you improve the depth on this team and keep money available you can supplement that with other scoring talent who won't make as much money. Ryder? Trade for ROR? It opens up options having more young skilled pieces to work with.

I guess I just don't see Gaborik as someone you can rely heavily on and win.

I understand that. I started the Gaborik is soft thread during the playoffs - this was before I knew he played the entire time with a torn up shoulder.

Anyway, with this latest plan, you're replacing Brad Richards and Marian Gaborik with Michael Ryder and Ryan O'Reilly (you're also making the defense weaker since it'd likely cost Del Zotto). I see what you're saying about saving some money, but hoping that Player X is available isn't really a suitable plan to build a team.

Add:
Ryan O'Reilly
Michael Ryder
Player X

Subtract:
Brad Richards
Marian Gaborik
Michael Del Zotto

I realize Richards and Gaborik are struggling right now, but even so, I fail to see how this makes the team better.

 

[McRanger]

I'd be on board with that if the Hagelin - Stepan - Nash line wasn't so good.

I would be very reluctant to split that up.

Additionally, Pyatt looked somewhat decent playing with Richards and Gabby.

Kreider - Miller - Callahan line was solid.

We need to get back to what was working and stop trying to force the issue with Richards. I trust that he will come out of his funk and I think that consistency in line-mates is the key. Not trying to force chemistry, just let it happen organically.

Not Torts strong point.

 

[NYR Viper]

I understand that. I started the Gaborik is soft thread during the playoffs - this was before I knew he played the entire time with a torn up shoulder.

Anyway, with this latest plan, you're replacing Brad Richards and Marian Gaborik with Michael Ryder and Ryan O'Reilly (you're also making the defense weaker since it'd likely cost Del Zotto). I see what you're saying about saving some money, but hoping that Player X is available isn't really a suitable plan to build a team.

Add:
Ryan O'Reilly
Michael Ryder
Player X

Subtract:
Brad Richards
Marian Gaborik
Michael Del Zotto

I realize Richards and Gaborik are struggling right now, but even so, I fail to see how this makes the team better.

The Rangers would spend money. You are also not taking into account that which wold be acquired by Gaborik's departure.

I was on the Red Wings forum and in a few minutes I got an offer of:

Filpulla + Nyquist + Kindl + 1st '14

That is without any negotiating. Change Nyquist to Tatar who is in the NHL now and that's a solid deal if they can re-sign Filpulla to be that #2 center.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

The Rangers would spend money. You are also not taking into account that which wold be acquired by Gaborik's departure.

I was on the Red Wings forum and in a few minutes I got an offer of:

Filpulla + Nyquist + Kindl + 1st '14

That is without any negotiating. Change Nyquist to Tatar who is in the NHL now and that's a solid deal if they can re-sign Filpulla to be that #2 center.

Theres a fine line between strengthening a team and making it redundant.

 

[NYR Viper]

Theres a fine line between strengthening a team and making it redundant.

I don't understand. Adding talented young players is redundant?

 

[SupersonicMonkey*]

This team will continue to be feast or famine because Richards and Gaborik do not have any effect on the game unless they are scoring. Neither can bring anything else to the table to change or create momentum. That's 14 million on the cap per season for 1-dimensional players.

It's a huge issue.

Look at Nash. Nash is a constant factor on the ice. Every shift he's doing something to contribute, even if he isn't scoring goals or creating them.

Gaborik could be an inconsistent scorer, but if he were a factor, more involved shift-to-shift he would create opportunities for his linemates.

 

[LaffyTaffyNYR]

I don't understand. Adding talented young players is redundant?

Prob redundant as in more guys who can't score goals? Hes only scored 20 once

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

I don't understand. Adding talented young players is redundant?

Adding talented young players who will all likely top out as 2nd liners? Yes, thats redundant.

I wish we lived in this utopian world where our 1-9 forwards all scored 50 points, buts its just not feasible. Every Stanley Cup team I remember had 2 or 3 guys that had to carry the load offensively in order to succeed.

 

[SupersonicMonkey*]

"every Cup team i remember"

"one or two guys carrying the team offensively"

Gee whiz, only 2 years ago.

http://espn.go.com/nhl/team/stats/_/name/bos/year/2011/boston-bruins

 

[Ola]

And who do you plan on replacing Gaborik with? If Gaborik played for Columbus you'd be coming up with trade options to bring him here. Let it go, fickle fans.

Hey, we have Rick Nash and Ryan Callahan at RW, we don't really need to "replace" him.

I would love to "replace" him with like a Zuccarello (Fasth?) and than strengthen our lineup at center or at D with whoever we can get for Gabby in a trade.

What could we get for Gabby? Who might want him?
Gabby can post a list with 8 teams that we can't trade him to pursuant to his NTC.

I would look for a center or a RD. The player we get do not necessary has to be young/mid-prime, I mean if we deal Gabby for a 5m C/RD with one or two years left our contract we free up 2m instantly and 5m in one or two years. We will have a attractive team in one/two years and those 5m could still be worth a ton just by itself.

I don't think we will find a bunch of suitors for Gabby. But I think we would gather some interest from two cathegories; 1. lower level teams that has a really hard time getting big names, and sees a rare opertunity to get one in Gabby (like Montreal with Gomez!), 2. a contender, in the west I would have to assume, who want some scoring depth.

Examples:
Vancouver has had a few goes with the team they have now. Gabby has impressed in their division for a long time. If they want a change, that is a team that could trade a "Ryan Kesler" and a 2nd roundeer for Gaborik.

We would save 2m in cap space right away, and I quite frankly, like the structure on this team more than what we have now.

Pyatt-Richards-Nash
Kreider-Kesler-"Zuccarello"
Hagelin-Stepan-Callahan
Powe-Boyle-Asham

With JT Miller in the mix down the line.

I would be interested in a Joe Pavelski in SJ. I would be interesting in a very good young center too who a team that is desperate at getting over the top might be prepared to give up.

At D's, you got guys like Eric Johnson, Brent Burns, Jack Johnson, Tyler Myers, Andrei Markov and guys like that.

 

[Fitzy]

We're not trading Gaborik this season. If it does happen, it will be in the offseason.

 

[pld459666]

We're not trading Gaborik this season. If it does happen, it will be in the offseason.

At the draft.

been saying this since before last seasons's deadline.

the Rangers were gunning for Nash to get two legit kicks at Lord Stanley's Cup before we started seeing some significant cap issues.

Now they have one and the way we are playing, we may not even get up to bat.

Gaborik is a goner at the draft for a 1st, a lesser player (defenceman) and a top prospect (forward)

That is my prediction.

 

[Section 409]

I am not here so often, but I had to swing by and ask if anyone else notices this.

On any shootout attempt I have ever seen Gaborik, he tries to go five hole every time. I think that's why he isn't so great on it, it's unbelievable. I don't hate the guy or anything, and at the end of the day, even though the shootout is a gimmick, it counts for points. If it has bearing on playoff hopes, it's important, gimmick or not. I'm tired of seeing this guy in the top three shooters, because regardless of talent, I know exactly where he is shooting every time.

Now, I have only noticed this trend dating back to last season, I do not know if anyone has pointed this out already, but I thought it was worth bringing up.

 

[Uncle Sid]

I am not here so often, but I had to swing by and ask if anyone else notices this.

On any shootout attempt I have ever seen Gaborik, he tries to go five hole every time. I think that's why he isn't so great on it, it's unbelievable. I don't hate the guy or anything, and at the end of the day, even though the shootout is a gimmick, it counts for points. If it has bearing on playoff hopes, it's important, gimmick or not. I'm tired of seeing this guy in the top three shooters, because regardless of talent, I know exactly where he is shooting every time.

Now, I have only noticed this trend dating back to last season, I do not know if anyone has pointed this out already, but I thought it was worth bringing up.

My guess, he shoots and scores every time on Birons 5-hole (who doesn't), in practice. So he thinks it will also work in a game shoot out situation.

 

[NYR Sting]

We're not trading Gaborik this season. If it does happen, it will be in the offseason.

I agree. As usual, this talk is quite premature. I don't see any major changes to the team coming this season unless a "too good to be true" deal comes together. Gaborik, like it or not, will be a major part of our successes or failures for the rest of the season.

 

[Richter Scale]

The Rangers would spend money. You are also not taking into account that which wold be acquired by Gaborik's departure.

I was on the Red Wings forum and in a few minutes I got an offer of:

Filpulla + Nyquist + Kindl + 1st '14

That is without any negotiating. Change Nyquist to Tatar who is in the NHL now and that's a solid deal if they can re-sign Filpulla to be that #2 center.

There is a reason they offered you that deal -- it is not as good as you think it is. I'm by no means a fan of Gaborik, and agree with you that I don't see this team going terribly far relying on him for its offense, but the Red Wings are the team I watch second most after the Rangers and that combination of players is not returning fair value.

Even if you sub in Tatar, that makes it closer, but not close enough. Filppula is a great player, but not good enough to be the centerpiece of a trade where you give up a 40 goal scorer (albeit a currently struggling one). Not to mention that not one of those Red Wings players plays the Rangers' style. The Wings preach two-way play, but at the end of the day they are still a team that relies much more on their skill and finesse; always have been and will be as long as Holland is there. I'm not confident that any of the players you mentioned would thrive in the Rangers' system.

Throw a younger Franzen or a Brunner in there and take out some of the other pieces and we can talk. But even then - same issue -- those guys succeed in part because of the skill that surrounds them. Either way, fat chance you see Holland even considering giving up either of those guys; they're on the Wings' list of untouchables as far as trades go.

 

[NYR Sting]

There is a reason they offered you that deal -- it is not as good as you think it is. I'm by no means a fan of Gaborik, and agree with you that I don't see this team going terribly far relying on him for its offense, but the Red Wings are the team I watch second most after the Rangers and that combination of players is not returning fair value.

Even if you sub in Tatar, that makes it closer, but not close enough. Filppula is a great player, but not good enough to be the centerpiece of a trade where you give up a 40 goal scorer (albeit a currently struggling one). Not to mention that not one of those Red Wings players plays the Rangers' style. The Wings preach two-way play, but at the end of the day they are still a team that relies much more on their skill and finesse; always have been and will be as long as Holland is there. I'm not confident that any of the players you mentioned would thrive in the Rangers' system.

Throw a younger Franzen or a Brunner in there and take out some of the other pieces and we can talk. But even then - same issue -- those guys succeed in part because of the skill that surrounds them. Either way, fat chance you see Holland even considering giving up either of those guys; they're on the Wings' list of untouchables as far as trades go.

Nyquist would be the centerpiece of the trade, IMO, not Filpulla. Moot point, though. They aren't moving Nyquist.