Sam Rosen was right (Historical impact of Rangers' roster moves)

[haohmaru]

How is he an asset when he has a NMC and he's now on the only team he would go to?

How is he not an asset to the NYR being a top 10 player with a year and a half to go on his contract? That's reg. season + playoffs + reg. season + playoffs having one of the best players in the world on their team.

as·set
ˈaset/Submit
noun
1.
a useful or valuable thing, person, or quality.

Of course he's an asset. That's why we traded for him.

 

[SingnBluesOnBroadway]

And would you say that makes him more likely or less likely to stay beyond his current deal?

Honestly, neither.

Who knows if Glen Sather finds a way to disrespects MSL—say by buying out his good friend #19 (which would be the smart hockey move). Maybe Mrs. MSL gets a hankering to live elsewhere.

The fact is MSL chose to leave a better situation for non-hockey related reasons.

And lastly, who's to say he re-signs here cheap? (which is seems some people are seeing as a foregone conclusion just because he forced his way here). A lot can happen between now and the end of next season.

 

[Hi ImHFNYR]

MSL is going to decline rapidly soon. We are only getting 1 and a half years of MSL. These are good arguments for why this very well could have been a real bad move. Otoh he could play at this level for 3 or 4 years. Our window with hank, Nash, staal, girardi may only b another 2 or 3 years. The pocks could have busted or amount to players who arent anymore than 40 pt guys. This trade may have been the best, smartest use of Callahan and those picks as assets.

Lastly the team as constructed has a legitamate shot at the cup and we will be playing meaningful hockey imo for the next 4 seasons. I can be wrong of course I don't pretend I can see the future.

But I will say this. Out of the picks we gave up in the recent trades if we had turned out another 2 40 pt two way tweeners than the picks would have done nothing more than helped this team spin its wheels as a mid - 2nd tier PO team. I would prefer going for some talent right now and if we fail then we start to lose with all the major major vets starting to decline like hank and the aforementioned.

 

[kovazub94]

Below is a possible but hardly plausible look at next years lineup

Richards will most likely be bought out - opening up a whole new can of worms regarding the roster. The cap ceiling may however be lower than what is illustrated below:

FORWARDS
Rick Nash ($7.800m) / Brad Richards ($6.667m) / Martin St. Louis ($5.625m)
Chris Kreider ($2.500m) / Derek Stepan ($3.075m) / Jesper Fast ($0.805m)
Carl Hagelin ($2.250m) / Derick Brassard ($3.700m) / Mats Zuccarello ($3.500m)
Daniel Carcillo ($1.000m) / J.T. Miller ($0.894m) / Derek Dorsett ($1.633m)
Oscar Lindberg ($0.675m)

DEFENSEMEN
Ryan McDonagh ($4.700m) / Dan Girardi ($5.500m)
Marc Staal ($3.975m) / Dylan McIlrath ($0.703m)
John Moore ($1.700m) / Kevin Klein ($2.900m)
Conor Allen ($0.925m)

GOALTENDERS
Henrik Lundqvist ($8.500m)
Cameron Talbot ($0.563m)

------
CAPGEEK.COM TOTALS (follow @capgeek on Twitter)
(estimations for 2014-15)
SALARY CAP: $71,100,000; CAP PAYROLL: $69,590,000; BONUSES: $1,971,667
CAP SPACE (22-man roster): $1,510,000

When did the thinking about Richards buyout after this season has changed? It is still the most prudent way to go regardless of the form Richards got himself into after last season's disaster. The punishing clauses in the new CBA left the Rangers management without an option (other options are too risky). Unless Richards slotted at 2C implies a FA or a trade filling the position at this salary level against the cap.

 

[True Blue]

What is this supposed to mean?

It means that there are no surprises when it comes to 39 year olds or 40 year olds. And also when resigning a player is based on pure hope and dream. NOTHING substantial.

 

[True Blue]

No, it's based on what better pending UFA's brought back in trades. Pay attention.

This is a rather simple question. How did you derive that Callahan's worth is a 3rd & 5th? Take me through the math.

Jagr at 42 is having a better year than he did at 41. And 40. And St. Louis is generally considered to be in better shape despite Jagr being a beast about conditioning.

Let's try this a slightly different way. In the entire history of the NHL, how many players got better at 39? And then at 40?

If you don't view St. Louis as an "asset" then you're simply being dishonest.

I never said that he was not an asset. However, it is a depreciating asset.

I named one that got better at 42. But, again, you're missing the point. St. Louis is hardly the typical 38 year old player and because it isn't commonplace doesn't mean it won't happen. You need to look at the player, not the stats.

See the history question above.

That draft pick "asset" you're whining about might never see an NHL game. Ever. I'll take a year and a half of MSL production over a 20-30 1st round pick and a 2nd in a really weak draft any day of the week.

First of all, this thread is not about "whining" about the pick that was given up. Second of all, how simple must life appear when each moment is evaluated in a pure vacuum without thought of the bigger picture. You will take 1.5 years of enjoyment in watching a 40 year old. Unless that 40 year old brings a Cup, it was all for naught. I will take the assets and wise management of them over a 40 year old any day of the week.

 

[haohmaru]

This is a rather simple question. How did you derive that Callahan's worth is a 3rd & 5th? Take me through the math.

Vanek, a much MUCH better player brought back a middling prospect and a *possible* 2nd.

Let's try this a slightly different way. In the entire history of the NHL, how many players got better at 39? And then at 40?

Let's try this an even different way: how many players in the history of the NHL at age 37 have lead the league in scoring? It's meaningless when applied to a specific history-defying player. Just like Jagr.

I never said that he was not an asset. However, it is a depreciating asset.

Absolute speculation and certainly not supported by his play this season or last.

See the history question above.

See answer above.

First of all, this thread is not about "whining" about the pick that was given up. Second of all, how simple must life appear when each moment is evaluated in a pure vacuum without thought of the bigger picture. You will take 1.5 years of enjoyment in watching a 40 year old. Unless that 40 year old brings a Cup, it was all for naught. I will take the assets and wise management of them over a 40 year old any day of the week.

Well, we agree to disagree. I don't look at Martin St. Louis as "watching a 40 year old". I look at it as making this team better by significantly upgrading on the wing for a player that didn't want to sign here for a reasonable contract. You can't prove (and will never be able to, because you won't know who the NYR would've chosen) that either draft pick that was lost will have amounted to anything and, furthermore, you really can't even evaluate the trade fairly (by your own admission) because we haven't played this or next year's playoffs yet.

I have thought about the bigger picture. I take a top 10 player in the world over a couple of draft picks every day of the week. Draft picks are a crapshoot. *Especially* in 2014.

 

[haohmaru]

And, from Larry Brooks (about Callahan deal): "Sather had only two credible offers, the one from the Lightning and one from the Sharks that contained an only mildly appetizing helping of futures."

"Mildly appetizing helping of futures" doesn't really sound like anything better than a 2nd/3rd and a 5th. Does it to you?

 

[aufheben]

How is he not an asset to the NYR being a top 10 player with a year and a half to go on his contract? That's reg. season + playoffs + reg. season + playoffs having one of the best players in the world on their team.

as·set
ˈaset/Submit
noun
1.
a useful or valuable thing, person, or quality.

Of course he's an asset. That's why we traded for him.

Oh, well yeah, obviously he's a good player. I thought you mean asset as in trade value, usually how people use the word around here.

 

[haohmaru]

Oh, well yeah, obviously he's a good player. I thought you mean asset as in trade value, usually how people use the word around here.

Ah, gotchya. I view any signed player as an asset along with draft picks. Guys get traded with NMC's all the time and while that might diminish options for the club it usually gets worked out.

 

[Islanderfan17]

God bless you Ranger fans of HF, you guys get it. I talk to so many Ranger fans who have this attitude of superiority (I mean, you guys definitely are to us) that don't realize that Sather is a pretty clueless GM overall. Sure, he'll buy the shiniest toys out on the market or trade for them, and then maybe the Rangers will get a playoff spot and make a little bit of noise in the playoffs, but that's about as far as it goes. Even when, in my opinion, you guys had it all together a couple of years ago with that ECF final Torts team, Sather decided to trade for Rick Nash and ruin what was a very good chemistry team just because they lost to the Devils and because Rick Nash was the shiniest thing on the market. As an Islander fan, it's just impossible for me to have a serious conversation with a Ranger fan who is too blind to see this pattern like a lot of you guys do. I like having intelligent and objective conversations about Hockey with ANY kind of fan, including the Rangers, but a lot of them I run across on Long Island are way too proud to admit the shortcomings of their own franchise.

 

[JESSEWENEEDTOCOOK]

God bless you Ranger fans of HF, you guys get it. I talk to so many Ranger fans who have this attitude of superiority (I mean, you guys definitely are to us) that don't realize that Sather is a pretty clueless GM overall. Sure, he'll buy the shiniest toys out on the market or trade for them, and then maybe the Rangers will get a playoff spot and make a little bit of noise in the playoffs, but that's about as far as it goes. Even when, in my opinion, you guys had it all together a couple of years ago with that ECF final Torts team, Sather decided to trade for Rick Nash and ruin what was a very good chemistry team just because they lost to the Devils and because Rick Nash was the shiniest thing on the market. As an Islander fan, it's just impossible for me to have a serious conversation with a Ranger fan who is too blind to see this pattern like a lot of you guys do. I like having intelligent and objective conversations about Hockey with ANY kind of fan, including the Rangers, but a lot of them I run across on Long Island are way too proud to admit the shortcomings of their own franchise.

Well that's nice, and Sather is an idiot, but it's not as if there isn't a clear plan in place as to what kind of style/players we'll have. I think what the FO is going for is pretty obvious, and a good way to build a franchise (in theory).

 

[haohmaru]

God bless you Ranger fans of HF, you guys get it. I talk to so many Ranger fans who have this attitude of superiority (I mean, you guys definitely are to us) that don't realize that Sather is a pretty clueless GM overall. Sure, he'll buy the shiniest toys out on the market or trade for them, and then maybe the Rangers will get a playoff spot and make a little bit of noise in the playoffs, but that's about as far as it goes. Even when, in my opinion, you guys had it all together a couple of years ago with that ECF final Torts team, Sather decided to trade for Rick Nash and ruin what was a very good chemistry team just because they lost to the Devils and because Rick Nash was the shiniest thing on the market. As an Islander fan, it's just impossible for me to have a serious conversation with a Ranger fan who is too blind to see this pattern like a lot of you guys do. I like having intelligent and objective conversations about Hockey with ANY kind of fan, including the Rangers, but a lot of them I run across on Long Island are way too proud to admit the shortcomings of their own franchise.

I wasn't thrilled about the Rick Nash trade, to be sure, but that ECF-bound team went as far as it could, I think. If they kept the same roster I don't think they would've made the same run the next year.

 

[haveandare]

Misguided is a very light way to describe someone whose tenure has consisted of throwing bad money after bad money at free agents, making poor trades, wasting draft picks and someone who has no conception of how important chemistry is to a winning team or an entire organization.

Traded almost nothing for McD. Signed a completely cast aside Stralman who became a solid top 4 d-man. Signed an FA in Zucc who is now one of the best players on the team. Signed UFA Gaborik who ended up living up to his contract and contributing 100+ goals.

The past few years haven't been this nightmare people like to pretend they have been.

 

[True Blue]

Vanek, a much MUCH better player brought back a middling prospect and a *possible* 2nd.

So in the end, you cannot take me through the math? In fact there is absolutely NOTHING that you can point to as backup for the claim of what Callahan is worth?

Let's try this an even different way: how many players in the history of the NHL at age 37 have lead the league in scoring? It's meaningless when applied to a specific history-defying player. Just like Jagr.

Answer the question. How many players in the history of the entire NHL have improved their play at 39? And then again at 40?

Absolute speculation and certainly not supported by his play this season or last.

I have historical support. What do you have?

See answer above.

Ditto

Well, we agree to disagree. I don't look at Martin St. Louis as "watching a 40 year old".

Is he closer to that or to 35?

I look at it as making this team better by significantly upgrading on the wing for a player that didn't want to sign here for a reasonable contract.

AND giving away valuable assets in the process. And in all that, still be inferior to Boston and Pittsburgh. And quite possibly Tampa and Ottawa.

You can't prove (and will never be able to, because you won't know who the NYR would've chosen) that either draft pick that was lost will have amounted to anything and, furthermore, you really can't even evaluate the trade fairly (by your own admission) because we haven't played this or next year's playoffs yet.

I can prove that having more assets than less is a good thing. And if the only way that a trade is successful is if it lands a Cup, then it is already a failure.

I have thought about the bigger picture. I take a top 10 player in the world over a couple of draft picks every day of the week. Draft picks are a crapshoot. *Especially* in 2014.

In the entire history of the NHL, how may players were a top-10 at the age of 39? Can you disprove that having more picks than less is a bad thing? THAT is the bigger picture. Especially with all of the picks that have been squandered in recent years and in the future.

 

[True Blue]

"Mildly appetizing helping of futures" doesn't really sound like anything better than a 2nd/3rd and a 5th. Does it to you?

Funny how Brooks is dismissed when the argument is appropriate and embarrassed when the argument is appropriate.

 

[stan the caddy]

The rental market was **** and the Islanders got next to nothing for Vanek. Stop trying to convince yourself that a great package was offered for Callahan.

 

[True Blue]

Traded almost nothing for McD.

You view the giving away of draft picks as nothing (especially when Sather was only bidding against himself). Others view the picks as valuable.

Signed a completely cast aside Stralman who became a solid top 4 d-man. Signed an FA in Zucc who is now one of the best players on the team. Signed UFA Gaborik who ended up living up to his contract and contributing 100+ goals.

Do you REALLY want to play this game? Ask this of yourself, before we start make a list comparing Sather's "successes" as opposed to his "failures"?

The past few years haven't been this nightmare people like to pretend they have been.

This is not about one trade or one year. This is not about looking at things in a vacuum. This is about looking at overall picture. If you can categorize Sather's stay in office as anything but a failure, I would like to see how the good outweighs the bad.

 

[True Blue]

TStop trying to convince yourself that a great package was offered for Callahan.

The question and the point is that I want to see how one can claim that the value for Callahan is a 3rd and a 5th. Show me the math.

 

[stan the caddy]

The question and the point is that I want to see how one can claim that the value for Callahan is a 3rd and a 5th. Show me the math.

It's a moot point. Either way the value wasn't there. I didn't only direct that at you, I've heard a lot of Rangers fans pretend like they would have gotten something significant for Callahan. Apparently Brooks wrote an article and said they would have gotten something nice, I didn't read it but that's what one of the zombies told me.

 

[haohmaru]

So in the end, you cannot take me through the math? In fact there is absolutely NOTHING that you can point to as backup for the claim of what Callahan is worth?

There is no "math". The better player got a 2nd and a weak prospect. If you can't do the correlation there then I can't help you much.

Answer the question. How many players in the history of the entire NHL have improved their play at 39? And then again at 40?

It's an irrelevant question.

I have historical support. What do you have?

You really don't. Jagr is an all time great that improved at age 42 from his seasons at 41 and 40. St. Louis is also a Hall of Fame player that's shown no signs of deteriorating. It doesn't matter what Joe Blow did at age 38.

Is he closer to that or to 35?

Again, irrelevant. Evaluate the player and his play. Not his age.

AND giving away valuable assets in the process. And in all that, still be inferior to Boston and Pittsburgh. And quite possibly Tampa and Ottawa.

All IYHO. Pittsburgh has to prove that they can do something in the playoffs with their playoff-challenged goaltending. Ottawa and TB? Dunno about that. Tampa has won 3 of its last 10 games and their hold on a playoff spot is slipping. Ottawa isn't in the playoffs and is 7 points behind the Rangers.

I can prove that having more assets than less is a good thing. And if the only way that a trade is successful is if it lands a Cup, then it is already a failure.

You can't, however, prove that your "assets" will ever turn out to be better than St. Louis over the next two seasons. It's something you can't, and won't, ever be able to prove.

In the entire history of the NHL, how may players were a top-10 at the age of 39? Can you disprove that having more picks than less is a bad thing? THAT is the bigger picture. Especially with all of the picks that have been squandered in recent years and in the future.

Marty is, so I'm not sure what your point is.

And, we aren't arguing less picks vs. more picks. That's not an argument that I've made. You can't ignore St. Louis' contributions over the next two seasons as something that isn't worth anything and could quite possibly turn out to be a lot more than whatever those picks might've been.

It's complete conjecture at this point.

But, I think you and I have taken this as far as it can go and I'm not going to take it any further. I think I've made my points and backed them up. Feel free to disagree with them, but I'm not going to reiterate everything for a third time.

 

[stan the caddy]

Rangers fans have been burned so many times they can't accept St. Louis for what he is, a really good player.

 

[Islanderfan17]

I wasn't thrilled about the Rick Nash trade, to be sure, but that ECF-bound team went as far as it could, I think. If they kept the same roster I don't think they would've made the same run the next year.

I think that team could have gone farther, but they ran into a Devils team that got hot at the right time. That was the only year since I've been a fan of Hockey that I was legitimately scared the Rangers were going to have a shot at the cup. Every other year I basically feel like "Well, they may win a round or two, but no way they get past *insert Bruins, Pens or Western powerhouse here*". I thought that team had as good a chance as anyone that year, but they were very unfortunate that the Devils heated up big time and took a lot of people by surprise only to be killed by LA.

 

[haveandare]

You view the giving away of draft picks as nothing (especially when Sather was only bidding against himself). Others view the picks as valuable.

Do you REALLY want to play this game? Ask this of yourself, before we start make a list comparing Sather's "successes" as opposed to his "failures"?

This is not about one trade or one year. This is not about looking at things in a vacuum. This is about looking at overall picture. If you can categorize Sather's stay in office as anything but a failure, I would like to see how the good outweighs the bad.

What picks are you talking about for McD? There were no picks exchanged there.

No, I don't want to play the game. I think that whole game is a lazy reduction that people make because they can't or don't want to admit that Sather's entire term overall can't be labeled with a binary great/worst ever distinction.

Is this really so hard to see? Overall, his work has been just awful because he's made many, many bad decisions, almost all of which are pretty far in the past now in my opinion. The past few years, he's had some level of a hand in building a good team. That doesn't means he's great or a genius or anything, but it does mean that these lazy arguments that he just sucks because of things that happened a decade or more ago and theres' nothing else to say about it are exactly that, lazy.

You say that somehow is "looking at things in a vacuum," I disagree. It's looking at something with context and trying to see something more than a simplistic binary distinction.

Are all the deals I mentioned in that post not example of good GM work over the past few years? Where have been the huge disasters over that time? Nash? Hardly. MSL? What, three games after the trade?

As much as Sather has sucked overall, and as much as he was just embarrassingly terrible in the past, he hasn't been that bad in a number of years, and he's actually done quite a bit of good recently. I'm so sick of reading about people who are just so unpleased that a team they voluntarily choose to follow is only good and not hands down the best. God forbid.

 

[Cake or Death]

i don't like how people defend the trade by saying "oh well sather doesn't draft good players in the first round anyways." ok lets just get rid of all our draft picks then. incredibly shortsighted move by sather once again.

Actually, the statistical reality is that beyond very high round one picks no one drafts that well in the first round as most mid to late first rounders don't generally amount to much of anything at all. If I remember numbers compiled, 15-30 overall picks have about a 50 percent chance of becoming 3rd and 4th liners, the other 50 percent don't make it in the NHL at all. I think I recall of the 15-30 picks who make it to playing on a 1st or 2nd line or top D pairings it was like 3 percent or something. And all those numbers drops significantly in round 2 and later draft picks.

No team is generally going to build anything significant through season after season of late picks. We don't have the ultra high picks that Chicago, LA or Pitt did, and that being the case, you have to manage to your circumstances. Choosing late round one picks that likely amount to nothing over the guy who, in the last three combined seasons, has more points than Kane, Ovechkin and Tavares seems a poor decision.

People love to say nonsense like we're not a Marty St. Louis away from winning a Cup. Who cares if that's the case or not? Whatever we are away from a Cup, we are a playoff team and I think one of the elite scorers in the league, and last season's Art Ross winner, certainly brings us a step closer. Even if we are two excellent pieces away, why not bring one of those pieces in and bridge the gap?