I agree. Gardiner is less proven than DZ, produces less, is less accurate, doesn't hit as often, blocks less shots, turns the puck more often. I don't get the love fest, except for his skating.
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
I agree. Gardiner is less proven than DZ, produces less, is less accurate, doesn't hit as often, blocks less shots, turns the puck more often. I don't get the love fest, except for his skating.
Did everyone see Dom Moore school Gardiner on his 2nd goal the TOR game? That's Jake Gardiner. Fly-by defenseman.
Very very pretty skater however. Kid looks like Brian Boytano in a Leafs jersey.
SML
Registered User
- Mar 13, 2002
- 3,939
- 5
I have always felt that leadership is a term that is used too much in hockey. The new group wikl select its own leader. That is not necessarily an older guy. If you start over with a bunch of young 20somethings, is their leader going to be the old guy doing the wife and kids thing? Just because someone is class president at one school doesnt mean they would automatically be at a different one. My point is, the group will find someone, and they will be fine. We lost Messier, we got Drury, out goes Drury, we get Callahan. It will happen again.
The longer term you give, the lower AAV you get.
It seems alot easier to sell the below contract to Girardi than 5.5m x 4 years. If you also could get a limited NTC the last 4 years, he could be an easy to sell to budget teams.
8 Years (AAV = 5.5m per)
1y - 8m
2y - 8m
3y - 6m
4y - 6m
5y - 4m
6y - 4m
7y - 4m
8y - 4m
So you want Girardi and Callahan being leaders on this team for the next 7 years? No other players will be able to emerge into leadership roles with those players on the team. The Boston Bruins traded Joe Thornton because they wanted the Bruins to become Patrice Bergeron's team. That wasn't happening with Thornton on the team. Pierre McGuire was praising the Thornton trade for SJ during the Sharks-Hawks broadcast on Sunday night. Pierre forget to mention Boston won a Cup and went to the Finals two years later with Bergeron. The Sharks haven't been to a Cup final.
No one will replace Girardi for the rest of this season. Everything can't be about this season. That type of thinking is why the Rangers have won 1 championship in 74 years.
Why haven't the Rangers re-signed Girardi? Gorton has spoken to Don Meehan. Sather has spoken to Meehan.
Answer. Meehan wants a fortune. Just like Newport wanted with Lundqvist.
Who is replacing Girardi next season then? Vaatanen? When and how do you intend to replace Girardi?
We have holes in the lineup, we open up two more by dealing Girardi and Callahan. That is 4-5 major holes that must be filled. When do you intend to compete? 5 years? 7 years? What do you do with McD, Kreider and co in the meantime?
Odds for us to win a cup isn't that high. Now is not the time to tear things apart though. Do it in 5 years instead and then do it for real.
haohmaru
boomshakalaka
Odds for anyone to win the Cup aren't high. Pittsburgh has had the best player in the world for years and routinely has one of the best lineups in the league and they've won once (with that player). Edmonton has had 1st round picks up the wazoo and can't make the playoffs. The Blues haven't won a Cup in their history and have fielded competitive teams for years - same for Vancouver, San Jose, etc...
30 teams, one winner, in a cap based league = low % chance you're going to win.
30 teams, one winner, in a cap based league = low % chance you're going to win.
Blue Blooded
Most people rejected his message
I actually think we have one of the most complete teams in the league, but we have several spots which aren't holes but the current player just doesn't really cut it.
I mean Stepan is a good-to-great top-6 C, but not really a 1C. At least this year.
Richards is a decent top-6 C, but nothing more.
Brassard is skilled but not a great fit at 3C.
Girardi is at best passable at 1RD.
Trading Girardi opens up a hole, but I don't think trading Callahan does. Nash and Zucc can easily hold down the top-6 RW spots and a 3RW isn't that difficult to find.
Pittsburgh is a team with real holes.
I'd say the only really complete team in the league are the Sharks. The Blues and Hawks are close to complete, but I'm not sold on their goaltending.
haohmaru
boomshakalaka
- Sep 17, 2007
- 24,927
- 22,848
Girardi isn't going to play forever. Sooner or later, he will need to be replaced. Should we sign Girardi for 7 years, then draft a kid in the mid 1st who might be able to replace him in 4 or 5 years? Will Girardi still be playing well by then? How is that any better of a plan?
There are young dmen around the league who we can target. Vatanen is just one of them. Hell, maybe we get a couple 1st rounders and move up to pick Ekblad. I don't have the answer to who replaces Girardi, but if we are trading him, finding a replacement for him, even if that replacement is a year or two away from reaching Girardi's level, will be part of the plan.
There's only 2 things I know for sure will happen. Girardi's price tag will go up and his value will go down.
SingnBluesOnBroadway
Retired
I posed the question earlier and it still remains one that needs answers:
At this point, are you paying Girardi for what he has done or what he will do?
At this point, are you paying Girardi for what he has done or what he will do?
Off Sides
Registered User
- Sep 8, 2008
- 9,755
- 5,585
Are you guys not worried about what they would actually do with that cap space though?
I am all for a retool and I don't see anyway having Nash, Lundqvist, Callahan and Girardi all tied up in long term expensive no trade/movement clauses is a good idea, but I do fear what they would do.
I think many of us feel they would just use those return assets to get younger and better long term but I am really not so sure that is what they would actually do.
I think the temptation to shop on UFA day would be just to great for them to overcome.
If that is the case, is it still better to sell them? I guess at least they may get some picks or prospects back in the process but I also think it would mean just different UFA being brought in on equally as bad of contracts.
From there would they actually be patient with whatever future assets they received, or would those be used to rent at the deadline to bolster the new batch of UFAs at the first sign of them making the playoffs?
I guess I just don't have any confidence that they would actually do the things we think would lead to a long term better team or continue to follow that path for long enough.
If the plan is to build a long term contender, I am all for trading these players, but if the plan is to just repeat what they have been doing, just with different players, then I would rather they just kept the players who have worked hard here.
I am all for a retool and I don't see anyway having Nash, Lundqvist, Callahan and Girardi all tied up in long term expensive no trade/movement clauses is a good idea, but I do fear what they would do.
I think many of us feel they would just use those return assets to get younger and better long term but I am really not so sure that is what they would actually do.
I think the temptation to shop on UFA day would be just to great for them to overcome.
If that is the case, is it still better to sell them? I guess at least they may get some picks or prospects back in the process but I also think it would mean just different UFA being brought in on equally as bad of contracts.
From there would they actually be patient with whatever future assets they received, or would those be used to rent at the deadline to bolster the new batch of UFAs at the first sign of them making the playoffs?
I guess I just don't have any confidence that they would actually do the things we think would lead to a long term better team or continue to follow that path for long enough.
If the plan is to build a long term contender, I am all for trading these players, but if the plan is to just repeat what they have been doing, just with different players, then I would rather they just kept the players who have worked hard here.
HatTrick Swayze
Just Be Nice
I see where your going and don't disagree in principle.
I will counter with: is there any player in the 27-29 range who you are signing purely for what they "will do"? It's impossible. And it's equally impossible to field a competitive team with no contracts signed in that age range.
It is inevitable that your veteran players are going to be some degree of overpaid, if you are signing them at the typical UFA age. The game is to make sure they are not overpaid to the point of being crippling. And that you are signing the right players - the ones you have no other way of replacing. Or that would be so expensive to replace in terms of assets that the cap savings is washed out.
Under the old CBA one could argue for the option of signing 21-24 year olds to 10 year deals to minimize this. That carries it's own risks (Tyler Myers) and is no longer an option, anyway.
HatTrick Swayze
Just Be Nice
eco's bones
Registered User
You'd be paying Girardi to help you win the Cup. Which is generally the same idea when you sign Richards, Lundqvist or McDonagh or trade for Nash's contract.
We don't know what Girardi and his agent would want to sign?--we don't have an idea what Sather and his team have offered or that they have offered anything at all or plan to make an offer. We don't know if Girardi is dead set on going to another team like Toronto--nearest his hometown or whether he intends to explore probably his only real chance as an UFA this summer and get the best deal possible or instead balance it out between the deal and a team with a legit chance to contend for the next several years. I would imagine the Rangers do have an idea and on that and this years playoff hopes hinges whether they intend to trade him or not.
What we do know is losing Girardi is going to leave a big hole on our right side defense--that losing Anton Stralman also a UFA and our 2nd pairing right side d-man would exacerbate the problem to a critical level of just who defends the right side next year. And Stralman if he decides to stay is not likely to be able to replace Girardi's minutes--so the team's competitiveness moving forward is going to center around other issues than whether we have a legit 1st line center or not. Rangers are likely then to go into the UFA season--looking for the best solution to band aid the current hole which may or may not be as costly as just signing Girardi (again--if he were willing) in the first place. Or as RB likes to point out--Rinse, cycle, repeat.
SingnBluesOnBroadway
Retired
Moves and a MO that certainly have paid off. 6 months from now, they're going to pay Brad Richards to NOT play for them.
OK, as constituted, do you see this team winning a Cup in, say, the next 6 years?
eco's bones
Registered User
No I don't. I see 5--maybe 6 guys in Hartford that might be good NHL players one day and 3 or 4 of our other prospects at most--which is less than most teams. At the moment there's not a lot of help on the way. In that sense I can see moving Girardi--he could bring back 3 very good prospects/young players.
In the meantime if the Rangers retool they are likely wasting Henrik's last years and Nash's as well. Not that if I were going younger I'd want to keep Nash around. Too complacent a player on and off the ice. Blowing things up goes against the team's MO. Sitting out multiple non-playoffs years is not fun for the fans either as I'm sure you're aware. There are more than a few that post on these pages though who have no idea.
- Sep 17, 2007
- 24,927
- 22,848
I'm not the least bit concerned about that. They get paid to play. Henrik knew the state of the team when he signed the contract. Both can be traded if they don't want to play here any more.
That being said, I don't think we are talking about a 10 year plan here. And re-tooling isn't rebuilding. We still have a lot of quality young players and we would be adding to that through trade. Free agency can be used to supplement the roster. Short term commitments.
Trading Girardi won't have as big of a negative impact on this team as some think. And even if it does, even if we end up finishing bottom 5 next year, so what? So we get a good pick in a very deep draft and maybe get the kind of talent this team hasn't had in forever. Girardi isn't the linchpin that is going to set this team back to the dark years.
Off Sides
Registered User
- Sep 8, 2008
- 9,755
- 5,585
Thanks,
I will add I think we have already seen where they are leaning, if they were going to retool with youth even if it meant a couple down years, not sure they sign Lundqvist or trade for Carcillo.
At this point I think they will try resign these players if they can even if it means they may possibly walk for nothing, if they walk they will just sign other UFAs.
While I do not agree with the thinking, I do think there is something to be said for a organization who tries to give it's current players the best chance they can at the playoffs and winning in them.
As a fan it drives me crazy as I see it as counter productive to building a long term contender, but if I were a player, like say Lundqvist, McD, I would not be too happy with the idea of selling at the deadline if I thought there was a chance the team could in fact do something like contend. From a players perspective I'm not sure they would/should feel any other way, sort of have to believe in it or else they'd just go through the motions.
- Status
