Dude... Come on. Read the **** you're responding to. Don't make up ****. And don't make up arguments that people aren't making and decide to respond to those instead. Contributes nothing.
Please explain how offering Stepan 3.2 mil is a "haircut" from what was offered to Kadri and co. Basic math would indicate 3.2 is more than 2.9. Stepan's value may be slightly more than Kadri's, but it is not more than double his value - as you seem to be implying by saying he has been offered half of what he is "worth." Stepan was never in the entire process being offered anywhere near half of what Kadri or other comparables got. Where the hell did you even pull this crap out of?
I disagree that Sather is offering 3.5, I think if he was a deal would be done.
He did not say that Sather was offering 3.5. He just said that Sather could afford it. And he demonstrated that by showing you Capgeek numbers. The point of this was disproving your nonsensical assumption that the Rangers can't afford to pay 3.5 mil per year. They can if they want to. Sather clearly hasn't wanted to. Pay attention.
I disagree that the Richards contract doesn't effect the situation. We'd have more cap space.
But more cap space does not mean Sather wants to give Stepan more money. Which is the point everyone you have responded to is making. More than enough cap room is available for Sather to make the offer he wants to make (and, if he wanted, to make the offer that Stepan's camp has been reported as willing to accept). So no, Richie's ****** contract has no bearing on this situation.
I disagree in operating in a system where you are so tight on the cap you rely on younger players with no NHL experience to outperform roster players because you have to burry them in the AHL. You should not be restricted by the cap in which you can't at any given time during the season put your best players on the ice.
No one made this argument. The point of even mentioning sending down roster players wasn't that it was needed to make more cap room (though it could achieve that goal); it was that IF they don't make the team, it would make even more cap room above and beyond what they already have - which is as much as is needed. It was a point being made to drive the point home to you that cap room is not an issue. Not a point to say that the team should be burying players in the minors who they want to use but can't because of cap room. Reading. Is. Hard.
I disagree that the Richards contracts and many other similar contracts to old declining players hasn't effected the team negatively where we are forced to trade or giver up younger and cheaper cap hit talent over the years.
No one is disagreeing with you on this generally. Just that it doesn't impact this particular situation you are complaining about.