pld459666
Registered User
can't contend with secondary and tertiary players playing front line roles.
Holes all over
no chance of contending with this group
Larry Brooks: Sather must decide: Is dealing Girardi best for Rangers?
- Thread starter RangerBoy
- 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
- Status
can't contend with secondary and tertiary players playing front line roles.
Holes all over
no chance of contending with this group
The whole cycle is akin to alcoholism. Just one more drink before I go off to rehab.
I love the argument that we should be proud that the Rangers dont accept failure and try to compete every year when, in actuality, they have failed by their own GM's standards for almost a generation now.
We all know the New York Rangers are going to be around for a long time, so I dont see the point in operating in a limited season to season view.
I love the argument that we should be proud that the Rangers dont accept failure and try to compete every year when, in actuality, they have failed by their own GM's standards for almost a generation now.
We all know the New York Rangers are going to be around for a long time, so I dont see the point in operating in a limited season to season view.
Last edited:
He has had 3 solid seasons, yeah had injuries this year but has played really well since coming back from this recent injury. He is a heart and soul player, can score goals, kill penalities, has good hands in front of the net, creates plays, blocks shots, and leads the team almost every night in hits. He has a .74 PPG average over the last 3 seasons.
To give him 5 years and 5 million dollars is not paying too much for him. I'd say not more than 5 years because of his injuries, because as he gets older it's going to be harder to get back quicker like he usually does.
Just to add, after they lost Brandon Dubinsky and he is having an excellent season, they might want to think twice about letting Callahan go, who has been more productive than Dubinsky over the last several seasons.
This season should not be and will not be the only season they look at when they offer him an extension.
Is that a better arguement?
SingnBluesOnBroadway
Retired
It's a good description of Callahan. It doesn't, however address the question, "You do not think that they could be just as mediocre without him?"
It's less about Callahan and more about the state of this franchise.
I think Callahan gives them the energy when he is on his game, just one example, When Boyle scored that goal, Cally took charge and was agressive and was a big part of that tying goal. He also has had a bunch of clutch goals all season. I think this team would be worse without him.
SingnBluesOnBroadway
Retired
Ail
Based and Rangerspilled.
A team that is a.) sans Callahan and b.) worse is not necessarily a bad thing moving forward depending on how you arrived at both.
How much worse can they possibly be? What is worse?
Are you under the impression that the trade talk is being driven based on his performance this year?
Last edited:
Hunter Gathers
The Crown
Worse is what we had in the late 90s and early 2000s. This is a cakewalk compared to that. This is pure mediocrity. Not pure terrible.
Lets look at that for a second. Last two seasons they made the playoffs got past the first round both time, that is not a mediocre team. Now look at this season, Callahan has been on and off the ice, and coming into this season with multiple injuries and has not had the chance to get his game back. He has played only 20 something games, and yet he is considered part of this mediocre team?
My point is, Callahan has not seen enough action to be pointed out as a problem this season like some rabid fans here are claiming. Players like Stepan, Nash, Lundqvist, and Richards have been the leaders of leading this team this season to a medicore season.
After losing Dubinksy I doubt they want to lose another heart and soul player who can also score goals.
Are you insinuating that this team hasn't regressed over the last 2 seasons?
I'm sure 99% of Ranger fans would love to keep Callahan, but thats without looking at the contract situation, the type of player is he, and what he projects to be in his mid-30's
Anything but a Stanley Cup is mediocrity. I don't care about winning one or two rounds consistently. I don't like **** teases.
SingnBluesOnBroadway
Retired
We're talking about this year's team.
Look at their record. Look at their record against good teams.
Again, it's not about Callahan. It's about the state of this team.
And I'd listen to offer for all of them. Richards is gone next year. I don't think that simply getting rid of Richards means the team won't be mediocre.
Dubinsky has 10 career goals as a Blue Jacket.
But the thing is: it's not about Callahan, it's about the state of this franchise. Take a step back, look at this team for what it really is and take emotion out of the decisions you make — you know, all the things this GM can't and doesn't do.
- Sep 17, 2007
- 24,926
- 22,848
We weren't even pure terrible. I wish we had been pure terrible. It would have resulted in higher draft picks and (hopefully) better players. Granted, a lot of those drafts were really weak outside of 2003, but I wouldn't have minded a 1st overall pick or 2.
That is because we have not yet fully descended into UFA hell. I, for one, am pretty good and tired of almost always being mediocre.
SingnBluesOnBroadway
Retired
See, that's why I think a rebuild wouldn't take as long as some may think. Unlike the late 90s and early 00s there is young talent on this team and some decent pieces to build around. Plus, this team could wind up with a ton of capspace moving forward.
Ice Hockey
Registered User
I would probably offer a different answer IF staal stayed healthy and continued to develop over the last few seasons and/or del zotto developed into what we'd hoped.
being that BOTH of those things aren't/didn't happen... dealing girardi would concern me.
he plays huge minutes against huge players. he hits, blocks shots and is a good hockey player given a heavy workload. he rarely makes a mistake and (as someone mentioned before) IS ALMOST NEVER INJURED. that is sooooooooo hard to come by.
that said, i'd hear out some offers if I was the gm. I wouldn't just hang up the phone-- but I doubt anyone will offer us something that won't sap our blue line in return.
without G our blue line would be hurting.
being that BOTH of those things aren't/didn't happen... dealing girardi would concern me.
he plays huge minutes against huge players. he hits, blocks shots and is a good hockey player given a heavy workload. he rarely makes a mistake and (as someone mentioned before) IS ALMOST NEVER INJURED. that is sooooooooo hard to come by.
that said, i'd hear out some offers if I was the gm. I wouldn't just hang up the phone-- but I doubt anyone will offer us something that won't sap our blue line in return.
without G our blue line would be hurting.
eco's bones
Registered User
Personally I'd like to sign Girardi to say 5 years and $5 mil +--keep an eye on him and if he starts to fade too much then deal him away--more or less kick the can down the road. Not sure he's got other things in mind. I think he can do better than that in May, June and July. If the Rangers trade him he's probably going to a legit contender and will have a real shot at a Stanley Cup this spring and then he can cash in in July. He's not like Callahan--an injury waiting to happen so you hold on to him in any case until the final deadline--create a bidding war and get the best deal possible. Dumping him now for whatever you can get right now just does not make sense to me. Doing it this early is just like pulling the plug on the season. The Rangers aren't ready for that yet.
SML
Registered User
- Mar 13, 2002
- 3,939
- 5
Girardi is going to get offered alot more than 5yrs@5m. He's going to get a Prust contract. A deal where he gets paid way too much for what he really is. A deal that there's no way you can match unless you're just admitting that there is no long term structure and you're rewarding him for being a loyal soldier. We can't do that. This is like dating a girl and you are pretty damn sure that she's got her mind elsewhere. You may dig the hell out of her, but the writing is on the wall. Dump her ass now and get on with your life. Except here, it would be like being able to trade her away for two or three hot chicks in the future. Now, does that sound like a deal you can walk away from?
- Sep 17, 2007
- 24,926
- 22,848
If Girardi would take that kind of deal, I think it would already be done. If he starts to fade too much, what will he value be then? How many teams will want him? We don't need to turn him into another MDZ. A year ago MDZ's value was sky high. A lot of people were saying he would get 4+ mil per year. Now look at him.
When are they ever? Sather is never willing to admit that what he is doing isn't working. He's never willing to take a step back.
HatTrick Swayze
Just Be Nice
And now there are many people who would prefer to have just signed Prust and kept a good thing going. Yea maybe it's an "overpayment." But how is Sather going to fill in the hole? What is the plan? With Prust they are still trying to figure it out. Asham signing. Clowe trade. Adding Dorsett. Carcillo trade. Harder than he thought.
When Sather instead gives $6Mx5 to Dan Boyle on July 1st, will the trade off be worth it? Maybe if Girardi returns good value. Which I think he obviously can. But this is the type of real world grounding that can get lost in the shuffle. They will have a hole on defense. They will have Sather attempting to fill it. They will attempt to fill it, as much as we all may feel it would be better to just take some lumps. I am uncomfortable with that.
- Jul 20, 2005
- 4,923
- 2,329
The flip side of that coin is that those decent pieces (especially Lundqvist and McDonagh) will likely keep the team from getting a top 5 or even top 10 pick. And that is where you look to get home grown, cost controlled, high impact talent.
The question then becomes is it worth it to miss the playoffs and get say the 12th-15th pick versus making the playoffs and getting say the 18th-21st pick?
How much would it increase the chance of drafting a needed impact player? Would Dolan even allow it?
A quick rebuild/retool really just means getting a young elite/franchise forward to compliment the Stepan/Kreider/Hagelin's of the team and build around the offense around. The goaltending and defense should be fine going forward, at least IMO. But those strengths might hinder the teams ability to fill its greatest (and oldest) weakness.
The bolded is more frightening than reassuring. Assuming Sather is still at the helm.
eco's bones
Registered User
- Status
