Confirmed with Link: Rangers Sign Lee Stempniak (1 year, 900K)

[Mikos87]

This implies that enforcers have actual value in the modern NHL when they really don't. The only guy you named who can actually help a team is Dorsett.

While that role has diminished in todays game, these guys are a rarer commodity and have teams bidding for their services. That's why the contracts are what they are.

It's different with players that are tweeners or play on perennial losers since they can be replaced with kids or other options. Take a look at a guy like Olli Jokinen, puts up numbers, has all of the things you want in a center, yet he's gotten one smaller contract after another.

Take a look at how many playoff games Olli Jokinen has played in 15+ years in the NHL and it's easy to see why a guy like him gets lesser contracts than his "value". Olli Jokinen has played a grand total of 6 playoff games in 15 years. 6 playoff games, and that was a year where he joined a low seeded team as a rental.

Never has Olli Jokinen played on a team that for an entire season and made the playoffs. Hell he even cost this Ranger team to miss the playoffs in 2010 by not converting on the shootout.

A similar scenario applies to Stempniak. Although not as bad.

 

[Beacon]

I don't think you ever would consider the extreme approach of shutting down an industry (in this case pro sports) just because it's wildly successful. However, the disproportionate compensation as driven by market forces deserves reflection on the values of our society.

Almost everyone (particularly people with no training in economics) say teachers should get more money than athletes. It isn't the values of the society. If our values drove the way, we'd all do something like 5 occupations that everyone decided are "good" and "valuable", and therefore "deserve" compensation, while everyone else (athletes, actors, lawyers, CEOs, business owners, etc) are viewed somewhere in the "bad" to "useless" range and would get something close to minimum wage, which would mean nobody would do these jobs (it is easier to flip burgers for minimum wage than to go to law school to become a minimum wage lawyer).

But the reality is that you get paid based on how rare your skill is and not the value we decide to place on it. You may think it's not fair that Lebron gets paid more than you do, but he is unique and you are easily replaceable, so no matter the value that you bring, in reality the value of a teacher, nurse, fireman, clerk, etc is easily replaceable and therefore not all that valuable to anyone.

 

[kovazub94]

Nah everyone forgets stempniak was on Calgary was dealt to pens around the deadline . They barely know each other I'd think

What's funny us lee at 900 k will get more minutes than glass . Free agency July 1st is nuts . This deal is a great bargain

Not directed at you personally but I am puzzled why posters are scratching their heads at the difference between Stepniak and Glass' contracts. The later wanted a (good) chance to play with Brass-Zuke as his linemates and produce enough to earn 4-5 year contract for 16-20 m. Yes, Poo's situation was clearly noticed. Glass got a UFA's contract for a 4 liner plus a little extra because AV wanted him.

Re. LA comparison discuss, I only wanted to say that the organization clearly believes that the Rangers will win based on speed and continues to built accordingly, and Richards who definitely was impacted by LA physicality is off the team and has tentatively been replaced with more physical Miller.

 

[SA16]

While that role has diminished in todays game, these guys are a rarer commodity and have teams bidding for their services. That's why the contracts are what they are.

It's different with players that are tweeners or play on perennial losers since they can be replaced with kids or other options. Take a look at a guy like Olli Jokinen, puts up numbers, has all of the things you want in a center, yet he's gotten one smaller contract after another.

Take a look at how many playoff games Olli Jokinen has played in 15+ years in the NHL and it's easy to see why a guy like him gets lesser contracts than his "value". Olli Jokinen has played a grand total of 6 playoff games in 15 years. 6 playoff games, and that was a year where he joined a low seeded team as a rental.

Never has Olli Jokinen played on a team that for an entire season and made the playoffs. Hell he even cost this Ranger team to miss the playoffs in 2010 by not converting on the shootout.

A similar scenario applies to Stempniak. Although not as bad.

How is it Jokinens fault that he was stuck on horrible Florida/Calgary teams?

 

[NYRFAN218]

Not directed at you personally but I am puzzled why posters are scratching their heads at the difference between Stepniak and Glass' contracts. The later wanted a (good) chance to play with Brass-Zuke as his linemates and produce enough to earn 4-5 year contract for 16-20 m. Yes, Poo's situation was clearly noticed. Glass got a UFA's contract for a 4 liner plus a little extra because AV wanted him.

Re. LA comparison discuss, I only wanted to say that the organization clearly believes that the Rangers will win based on speed and continues to built accordingly, and Richards who definitely was impacted by LA physicality is off the team and has tentatively been replaced with more physical Miller.

I think you mean the former as in Stempniak. The reason why Stempniak got so little was because everyone's basically capped out after everyone went crazy spending on July 1st along with RFA's still needing to be signed. That + the cap coming in lower than expected. This exact signing is the reason why giving Glass that contract is completely inexcusable. Players always come cheap after the initial day or two of free agency and if you want a player like Glass, he could be had for cheap.

This signing has me feeling a lot better about the offseason though. They've made up for the Glass debacle IMO with the past two signings. Stempniak is a solid player and Lombardi can be a solid 4th liner or 13th forward. Here's my forward lines as of now though it's all to be determined by what happens in camp obviously.

Kreider - Stepan - MSL
Stempniak - Brassard - Zuccarello (if Stemp can't play LW for whatever reason then flip him and Zucc)
Hagelin - Miller - Nash
Glass - Moore - Lombardi
Mueller as the extra forward

Thought process: Kreider and Step played well together and having a big body along with MSL to win battles along the boards will help Marty. Keep Brass and Zucc together for obvious reasons and Stemp could slide right into the Pouliot role. Hagelin and Nash have previous chemistry from when they played together with Stepan. Nash can create offense for himself and I feel like Miller could be a net front presence on that line. I've resigned myself to Glass playing full time since they handed out that contract but Moore and Lombardi could make that a quick and shifty 4th line. I hope at some point Fast or Bourque push Glass out of that spot. I have Mueller listed as the extra since he's a center, makes 600K, and is on a one way deal compared to the other players they signed. He's probably the best out of Tarnasky and Chris Bourque anyway. Don't think they'll have a Ryan Bourque or Jesper Fast sitting there as a healthy scratch.

 

[Championship*]

Only a 4th liner could carry so much clout that discussion of him can permeate EVERY thread. What a joke.

 

[pld459666]

Only a 4th liner could carry so much clout that discussion of him can permeate EVERY thread. What a joke.

who are you talking about? Brian Boyle?

 

[JESSEWENEEDTOCOOK]

who are you talking about? Brian Boyle?

Glass probably

But Boyle works too

 

[pld459666]

Love the Stempniak signing. would have preferred Ribs to Lombardi, but I get the rationale behind not wanting that type of personality in a specific room.

 

[AHB*]

While that role has diminished in todays game, these guys are a rarer commodity and have teams bidding for their services. That's why the contracts are what they are.

It's different with players that are tweeners or play on perennial losers since they can be replaced with kids or other options. Take a look at a guy like Olli Jokinen, puts up numbers, has all of the things you want in a center, yet he's gotten one smaller contract after another.

Take a look at how many playoff games Olli Jokinen has played in 15+ years in the NHL and it's easy to see why a guy like him gets lesser contracts than his "value". Olli Jokinen has played a grand total of 6 playoff games in 15 years. 6 playoff games, and that was a year where he joined a low seeded team as a rental.

Never has Olli Jokinen played on a team that for an entire season and made the playoffs. Hell he even cost this Ranger team to miss the playoffs in 2010 by not converting on the shootout.

A similar scenario applies to Stempniak. Although not as bad.

This is literally one of the worst opinions I have ever heard in regards to Jokinen. I'd go through each of your individual points and dissect them, but instead of doing that I'll just completely disagree with the entire post.

On top of that, if you blame Jokinen solely for the Rangers missing the playoffs that year, then it's quite possible you watched literally one play all season.

 

[Mikos87]

This is literally one of the worst opinions I have ever heard in regards to Jokinen. I'd go through each of your individual points and dissect them, but instead of doing that I'll just completely disagree with the entire post.

On top of that, if you blame Jokinen solely for the Rangers missing the playoffs that year, then it's quite possible you watched literally one play all season.

The Rangers didn't make the playoffs that year because the back up goalie couldn't get two points to save his life.

Feel free to disagree, but my point is that perennial losers don't garner much in terms of contract value or term, rather they yield diminishing returns for their teams and themselves.

 

[Mikos87]

How is it Jokinens fault that he was stuck on horrible Florida/Calgary teams?

He doesn't choose his teammates, but he can choose how long he stays, where he signs after hitting UFA age.

How much he contributes towards a team's success, etc etc.

The point is that the guy has played 15+ years in the NHL and only has 6 games in the playoffs. That season he was added as a rental.

It happens in sports, capable players that always end up playing for losing teams.

Brad Boyes is another guy like that. Not someone you win with.

 

[Hire Sather]

One player doesn't cause an entire team not to win.

Chatting complete ****.

 

[Rangerfan4life90]

He doesn't choose his teammates, but he can choose how long he stays, where he signs after hitting UFA age.

How much he contributes towards a team's success, etc etc.

The point is that the guy has played 15+ years in the NHL and only has 6 games in the playoffs. That season he was added as a rental.

It happens in sports, capable players that always end up playing for losing teams.

Brad Boyes is another guy like that. Not someone you win with.

Lol....

 

[n8]

This is literally one of the worst opinions I have ever heard in regards to Jokinen. I'd go through each of your individual points and dissect them, but instead of doing that I'll just completely disagree with the entire post.

On top of that, if you blame Jokinen solely for the Rangers missing the playoffs that year, then it's quite possible you watched literally one play all season.

I blame the coach more for putting Jokinen out there for that shootout. Season on the line, we had better shooters in that situation.

 

[Mikos87]

One player doesn't cause an entire team not to win.

Chatting complete ****.

Perhaps that is what you are perceiving, but not what I'm saying. I'm stating that there are players that always end up on losing teams. Good and capable players that are just losers.

Players such as that get shorter and lower term and valued contracts.

If that is beyond the level of comprehension of some then so be it.

No one is referring to some curse, or bad luck charm of a player.

 

[Hire Sather]

Perhaps that is what you are perceiving, but not what I'm saying. I'm stating that there are players that always end up on losing teams. Good and capable players that are just losers.

Players such as that get shorter and lower term and valued contracts.

If that is beyond the level of comprehension of some then so be it.

No one is referring to some curse, or bad luck charm of a player.

Sounds like thats exactly what you're saying.

"Brad Boyes is another player like that. Not someone you win with."

eh?

 

[SnowblindNYR]

Almost everyone (particularly people with no training in economics) say teachers should get more money than athletes. It isn't the values of the society. If our values drove the way, we'd all do something like 5 occupations that everyone decided are "good" and "valuable", and therefore "deserve" compensation, while everyone else (athletes, actors, lawyers, CEOs, business owners, etc) are viewed somewhere in the "bad" to "useless" range and would get something close to minimum wage, which would mean nobody would do these jobs (it is easier to flip burgers for minimum wage than to go to law school to become a minimum wage lawyer).

But the reality is that you get paid based on how rare your skill is and not the value we decide to place on it. You may think it's not fair that Lebron gets paid more than you do, but he is unique and you are easily replaceable, so no matter the value that you bring, in reality the value of a teacher, nurse, fireman, clerk, etc is easily replaceable and therefore not all that valuable to anyone.

Standing ovation

Too many people have a very childish view of the world and want everything to be fair and good, that's not how the world works.

 

[Lindberg Cheese]

Almost everyone (particularly people with no training in economics) say teachers should get more money than athletes. It isn't the values of the society. If our values drove the way, we'd all do something like 5 occupations that everyone decided are "good" and "valuable", and therefore "deserve" compensation, while everyone else (athletes, actors, lawyers, CEOs, business owners, etc) are viewed somewhere in the "bad" to "useless" range and would get something close to minimum wage, which would mean nobody would do these jobs (it is easier to flip burgers for minimum wage than to go to law school to become a minimum wage lawyer).

But the reality is that you get paid based on how rare your skill is and not the value we decide to place on it. You may think it's not fair that Lebron gets paid more than you do, but he is unique and you are easily replaceable, so no matter the value that you bring, in reality the value of a teacher, nurse, fireman, clerk, etc is easily replaceable and therefore not all that valuable to anyone.

1. Never said that teachers should get more than pro athletes, just made note of the market forces that created such a disparity.
2. There's nothing bad or useless about the law occupation and being a business owner / CEO in and of itself.
3. Never said that wages should be determined by the societal value of the position but are driven by market forces that provides insight on the relative importance our society places on said occupations
4. Very few people get paid entirely on how rare their skill is (it can be a factor) or else someone out there would be getting paid to peel bananas with their feet or providing and being the best at Hartford wolf pack analysis which you currently do for free.
5. I don't care how much Leblon makes and think it's very fair he makes a ton more than me because he generates tons more profit than what I do currently.
6. Lebron is replaceable just like Jordan was and everybody else.
7. Many places in the world including the UK need to import a lot of nurses from abroad as an example. So I think that you're applying a value concept across the board that does not fit with situational supply and demand for jobs you think replaceable.
8. I guess the replaceable jobs you mention don't hold value unless there was a teacher who may have changed you life or a fireman who saves your life. Until then, they have no value? I'm not a public servant by the way, private sector but recognize value where it might not be easily quantified.
9. I don't know any more about you than you do about me, other than you have no grasp of geo-politics, you know what they say about assuming.

 

[Zuccarello Awesome*]

Not directed at you personally but I am puzzled why posters are scratching their heads at the difference between Stepniak and Glass' contracts. The later wanted a (good) chance to play with Brass-Zuke as his linemates and produce enough to earn 4-5 year contract for 16-20 m. Yes, Poo's situation was clearly noticed. Glass got a UFA's contract for a 4 liner plus a little extra because AV wanted him.

Re. LA comparison discuss, I only wanted to say that the organization clearly believes that the Rangers will win based on speed and continues to built accordingly, and Richards who definitely was impacted by LA physicality is off the team and has tentatively been replaced with more physical Miller.

I don't think Stempniak will be with Brassard and Zuccarello (our 2nd line). He'll be with Hagelin and Miller/Lindberg.

Otherwise I agree with your post.

 

[Zil]

Or a washed up Lowe, Larmer, Matteau, Noonan, mactavish, lidster, Anderson.....

Yeah, because clearly not having a win-now attitude all the time means you can't go for it when you actually have a window of contention.

 

[Infinitum Vitae*]

I really think if Miller makes the team he needs to be with MSL. It'll help him so much like when Jagr played with Dubi

 

[Lindberg Cheese]

Yeah, because clearly not having a win-now attitude all the time means you can't go for it when you actually have a window of contention.

Maybe it's Sunday night, but the logic here fails me.

 

[Thirty One]

Nah everyone forgets stempniak was on Calgary was dealt to pens around the deadline . They barely know each other I'd think

They played two seasons together at Dartmouth.

 

[Mikos87]

Sounds like thats exactly what you're saying.

"Brad Boyes is another player like that. Not someone you win with."

eh?

Yes, and not a single player is the causation of an entire team losing as some were perceiving.