Larry Brooks: Sather must decide: Is dealing Girardi best for Rangers?

[eco's bones]

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.

You're the one that doesn't 'think' it will have a big impact--but your 'even if it does' turns it into an I'm not sure. I expect it will have an impact for at least the rest of this year and next year--beyond that I'm not sure--so it's just a guessing game what either of us think. Theory and practice and then the reality of what theory and practice eventually equal is ?. I'm sure you're aware though that a lot of teams when they get in the habit of missing the playoffs have a very hard time making them again. Just saying--it can be like falling down a hole--you just don't know where you'll end up.

You get talented guys from picking early in a draft--but winning teams have to have more elements than just talent--they have to have a positive collective mindset for one. Our own lineup is dotted with very early 1st round picks--Nash, Pouiot, Brassard--these are also some of our least determined game in and game out guys. McDonagh was drafted pretty early but by a Montreal team but there are always expectations from that organization.

 

[GAGLine]

You're the one that doesn't 'think' it will have a big impact--but your 'even if it does' turns it into an I'm not sure. I expect it will have an impact for at least the rest of this year and next year--beyond that I'm not sure--so it's just a guessing game what either of us think. Theory and practice and then the reality of what theory and practice eventually equal is ?. I'm sure you're aware though that a lot of teams when they get in the habit of missing the playoffs have a very hard time making them again. Just saying--it can be like falling down a hole--you just don't know where you'll end up.

You get talented guys from picking early in a draft--but winning teams have to have more elements than just talent--they have to have a positive collective mindset for one. Our own lineup is dotted with very early 1st round picks--Nash, Pouiot, Brassard--these are also some of our least determined game in and game out guys. McDonagh was drafted pretty early but by a Montreal team but there are always expectations from that organization.

You're right, I'm not sure because I don't know what we would get back in trade. I'm not sure because I can't predict the future. That's not in my job description. That's what Sather gets paid to do. He gets paid to predict which players will help this team in the future and which won't. And he gets paid to be right about it. Unfortunately for us, he is more often than not wrong.

Is trading Girardi a risk? Of course it is. But re-signing him is also a risk. Not having a replacement ready to step in is a failure on management's part, but should not be the reason we keep him. If we keep him, it should be because we think he will be worth more to us for the length of the contract than whatever we can get back in trade.

 

[RangerBoy]

Some people don't want to take a step back but the team is not winning anything significant right now as currently built. I like Girardi but he isn't worth $6M because he's the only legit D in the free agent market and the cap is going up by $7M. He's not becoming a better player as he gets older. Clarkson and Weiss were the two free agent prizes last summer. Which player has been worse? Its always about the present but the present is more of the same. The players on the team know its a business. The Rangers had to sign Lundqvist. They don't have to sign Callahan and Girardi. Some Rangers fans really love Callahan. Maybe they have his sweater and feel an attachment to him. Maybe they're younger and these guys(including Girardi) are the first players they identify with the Rangers. There will be other players.

 

[Pizza]

Some people don't want to take a step back but the team is not winning anything significant right now as currently built. I like Girardi but he isn't worth $6M because he's the only legit D in the free agent market and the cap is going up by $7M. He's not becoming a better player as he gets older. Clarkson and Weiss were the two free agent prizes last summer. Which player has been worse? Its always about the present but the present is more of the same. The players on the team know its a business. The Rangers had to sign Lundqvist. They don't have to sign Callahan and Girardi. Some Rangers fans really love Callahan. Maybe they have his sweater and feel an attachment to him. Maybe they're younger and these guys(including Girardi) are the first players they identify with the Rangers. There will be other players.

Two things that nobody can speculate on as fact.

If the Rangers pull together as team and play with passion, they can beat anybody. Disagree if you want, but the above is at least as factual as your statement.

Nobody knows the kind of contract Girardi might accept from the organization that gave him a chance when he went undrafted. Again, speculation, but equally as valid. We really don't know what it will take for him to stay in New York.

We do know that it will be very expensive to replace/find the guy that plays 1st pair next to McD.

 

[CharlieCharleschuk]

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...

Yeah, it's pretty much the safest assumption.

The best case scenario is that if Callahan or Girardi are thinking of going UFA, that the relationship with the team is open and frank enough that their intentions would be made known. If so notified, management could indeed trade them for whatever assets are made available.

Watching these guys play, though, it looks like their hearts are here and here to stay.

 

[Chief]

The thing that gets me the most about the idea of trading Callahan and Girardi is the underlying idea some people have that the current Ranger team/franchise is in some bad place and needs to be rebooted.

The Rangers aren't some ancient team of washed up vets and draft busts. What they are is a team that has a lot of homegrown talent, that has worked it's way up into prominent roles on the team. Some of that talent still hasn't proven to be up for the task on a consistent basis but that's part of working with developing players. The whole idea of trading for picks and prospects is to wind up where we already are with the likes of Callahan, Kreider, Stepan, Hagelin, MacD, Girardi, Staal, etc...Of course, that doesn't mean you have to keep every homegrown player but the idea, to me at least, is to build your team into a PO contender and then improve without screwing up your franchise's future. K. Russel and M. Perreault were acquired over the summer by their current teams for a 2014 5th rounder and John Mitchell + a 2014 4th rounder, respectively. Both players have had a positive impact on their current teams and could have helped the Rangers as well - and they costs peanuts. You don't have to mortgage the future or tear down the team to make the current team better.

 

[Pizza]

The thing that gets me the most about the idea of trading Callahan and Girardi is the underlying idea some people have that the current Ranger team/franchise is in some bad place and needs to be rebooted.

The Rangers aren't some ancient team of washed up vets and draft busts. What they are is a team that has a lot of homegrown talent, that has worked it's way up into prominent roles on the team. Some of that talent still hasn't proven to be up for the task on a consistent basis but that's part of working with developing players. The whole idea of trading for picks and prospects is to wind up where we already are with the likes of Callahan, Kreider, Stepan, Hagelin, MacD, Girardi, Staal, etc...Of course, that doesn't mean you have to keep every homegrown player but the idea, to me at least, is to build your team into a PO contender and then improve without screwing up your franchise's future. K. Russel and M. Perreault were acquired over the summer by their current teams for a 2014 5th rounder and John Mitchell + a 2014 4th rounder, respectively. Both players have had a positive impact on their current teams and could have helped the Rangers as well - and they costs peanuts. You don't have to mortgage the future or tear down the team to make the current team better.

The post I wish I'd written. Thanks for that.

 

[pld459666]

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

That's a deal we would regret after 4 years.

He's already starting to show shigns of fading, he's not going to reverse ship and be the Girardi he was of 2 years ago.

We have to stop hitching our wagon's to the wrong TYPES of players.

we are completely screwed on the Nash contract regardless of if we gave it to him or not. We were willing to acquire it and now that you see the Mona Lisa up close you see how much of a mess it actually is.

Girardi is NOT a defenceman that should be at the top of the food chart financially for thsi Rangers team and paying him 28 million over the first 4 years of the deal is lunacy

He's a solid defensive defenceman with marginal offensive capabilities.

Cap could be 100 Million next season and Girardi is STILL not worth 7 per for any stretch of a contract regardless of the back end years diving.

 

[Tawnos]

Chief: that's a good post and a good point.

The problem is that your asset management choices are a) resign the player, b) lose the player for nothing, c) trade the player.

If 'a' isn't going to happen, then you have to consider 'c' in order to avoid 'b'. In terms of this team now, 'b' might still be the best option. It all depends on how the team is playing at the deadline, as opposed to at this moment. After all, the Penguins lost Scuderi for nothing immediately after winning the Cup. If they had traded him, they would have been far less likely to even get that far. There are some who might say that letting him go was a big part of why the team hasn't gotten back to the SCF. I'm not saying that the Rangers are on the level of that Penguins team, but I'm saying that there's precedent for keeping a player in order to keep your team at the competitive level they're at. In other words, why bring in a rental when you already have on for free on your team?

I like Dan Girardi a lot. I consider him to be the leader of the defensive group. Management has a really difficult decision to make here and I really don't think any of the 3 possibilities are a mistake. Personally, I hope they just resign him... even if it's for 6 years.

 

[eco's bones]

The Rangers can come up with a plan where the next year or two they'll go more with youth and not worry so much about the playoffs--get back in say around 15-16 and be a contender again by 17-18 and I think a lot of people would be on board--if those projections seemed reasonable expectations with whatever moves they made. There's a couple problems left with that scenario though--Henrik will be 35-36 years old--and what about Sather? If he's already near the end he's not going to want to go out like a mouse--he'll want to go out like a lion. It's a legacy thing. IMO he'll be hitting free agency hard if he's left in charge. He might be talked into more prospects and draft picks but there are going to be tons of vets around in the meantime--just maybe not as good ones as we have now.

To me if we're going to retool--1. Sather's got to go. 2. guys who are too comfortable with their games have to go--whether they're stars like Nash, Richards or lesser players which could mean any of Brassard, Del Zotto, J. Moore, Pouliot with the current team. The competitive nature of the team has to be ratcheted up a notch or two.

 

[GAGLine]

You don't have to mortgage the future or tear down the team to make the current team better.

Would trading Girardi for younger players be mortgaging the future? Some would argue that signing him to a big money, long term deal would be mortgaging the future. I'm not saying either one is right, but to completely dismiss the idea of trading him is silly.

You do what needs to be done to improve the team. Gabby was a 40 goal scorer. Whatever you think of Brassard, Moore and Dorsett, the trade improved our team.

 

[Trxjw]

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.

I don't think the Lundqvist deal is related to anything. If they were blowing it up and prepping for a 5 or 6 year rebuild, then sure, they might deal Lundqvist. However, he has his deal and therefore he isn't going anywhere. The risk was that if the Rangers deliberately stepped back this year he could then refuse to sign and leave for nothing at the end of the season. That's no longer an option.

Carcillo is a minor roster addition. Teams need gritty players regardless of if they're competing or rebuilding. You don't want your kids getting pushed around anymore than you want your stars to be pushed around.

 

[Off Sides]

The thing that gets me the most about the idea of trading Callahan and Girardi is the underlying idea some people have that the current Ranger team/franchise is in some bad place and needs to be rebooted.

The Rangers aren't some ancient team of washed up vets and draft busts. What they are is a team that has a lot of homegrown talent, that has worked it's way up into prominent roles on the team. Some of that talent still hasn't proven to be up for the task on a consistent basis but that's part of working with developing players. The whole idea of trading for picks and prospects is to wind up where we already are with the likes of Callahan, Kreider, Stepan, Hagelin, MacD, Girardi, Staal, etc...Of course, that doesn't mean you have to keep every homegrown player but the idea, to me at least, is to build your team into a PO contender and then improve without screwing up your franchise's future. K. Russel and M. Perreault were acquired over the summer by their current teams for a 2014 5th rounder and John Mitchell + a 2014 4th rounder, respectively. Both players have had a positive impact on their current teams and could have helped the Rangers as well - and they costs peanuts. You don't have to mortgage the future or tear down the team to make the current team better.

I somewhat agree, but I still don't really see how moves like that turn them into true contenders.

They beat Chicago last night, but how about over a 7 game series even if they added players like Russel or Perreault?

So while I do think they could improve the team, I still don't think that really makes them a true contender that can beat teams who have really rebuilt, who have real top end talents, and also have already added in those Russel and Perreault type players to fill out the team.

 

[Off Sides]

I don't think the Lundqvist deal is related to anything. If they were blowing it up and prepping for a 5 or 6 year rebuild, then sure, they might deal Lundqvist. However, he has his deal and therefore he isn't going anywhere. The risk was that if the Rangers deliberately stepped back this year he could then refuse to sign and leave for nothing at the end of the season. That's no longer an option.

Carcillo is a minor roster addition. Teams need gritty players regardless of if they're competing or rebuilding. You don't want your kids getting pushed around anymore than you want your stars

Maybe not just Lundqvist and Carcillo, but looking at the larger picture

They just spent a ton on renovations
Their franchise value is going up at unprecedented percentages
They are involved with Chase
Their ticket sales are perfect, they can raise prices every year
They traded for Nash who is not getting any younger
They traded for Clowe last year
They started their draft in the 3rd last draft
They signed Lundqvist as a 31/32 year old next season going forward
They added a vet over playing a rookie

To me that all adds up to them not taking any step back here regardless if the UFA to be players sign or not pre-deadline, I think they keep all of them for the playoffs.

 

[Trxjw]

Maybe not just Lundqvist and Carcillo, but looking at the larger picture

They just spent a ton on renovations
Their franchise value is going up at unprecedented percentages
They are involved with Chase
Their ticket sales are perfect, they can raise prices every year
They traded for Nash who is not getting any younger
They traded for Clowe last year
They started their draft in the 3rd last draft
They signed Lundqvist as a 31/32 year old next season going forward
They added a vet over playing a rookie

To me that all adds up to them not taking any step back here regardless if the UFA to be players sign or not pre-deadline, I think they keep all of them for the playoffs.

Well to me, the bolded lines have nothing to do with the direction of the team. MSG was renovated because it needed to be, regardless of how the teams who play there were performing. The Rangers have always made a boat load of money and have been one of the highest valued franchises in the league, even in the dark ages. Sponsors and ticket sales will always be there.

What they did last year isn't relevant to this season. Last year they were a few months removed from a run to the ECF. Then Sather messed up the team and at the deadline they made a desperate attempt to right everything wrong with the roster. It got them into the playoffs, but that was it. This year, the team has toiled in mediocrity, had trouble giving 100% effort on a nightly basis, and has a huge number of expiring contracts on the roster. Not to mention the coach flat out questioned whether or not he had the players to play the system he wants to play.

The Carcillo thing is simple. We don't have a rookie in the organization who can play how he plays. We have Dorsett who is injured, Haley who is a total headcase, and Beach who doesn't seem to have a future in the NHL.

 

[DelZottoHitTheNetJK]

We just need to resign him for this:

 

[Off Sides]

We''ll have to agree to disagree. There is a much larger scope here than just what is good or bad for the on ice team.

 

[Don Chytil]

Maybe not just Lundqvist and Carcillo, but looking at the larger picture

They just spent a ton on renovations
Their franchise value is going up at unprecedented percentages
They are involved with Chase
Their ticket sales are perfect, they can raise prices every year
They traded for Nash who is not getting any younger
They traded for Clowe last year
They started their draft in the 3rd last draft
They signed Lundqvist as a 31/32 year old next season going forward
They added a vet over playing a rookie

To me that all adds up to them not taking any step back here regardless if the UFA to be players sign or not pre-deadline, I think they keep all of them for the playoffs.

That's the key word, obviously. Will we be there? There are 14 games left until the Olympic break. If the team goes .500 or worse during that stretch, dealing Girardi is probable and Callahan is not out of the question either. However, if the team goes 10-3-1, obviously there are tougher decisions to make. In that case I would probably keep the team together and hope to resign at least one of the two after the season.

Keep in mind that after a 2-6 start, we've put together a stretch that would be good for about the 4th or 5th seed in the conference. Was the 2-6 start just an adjustment period to AV's system? I think we'll get an answer over the next 14 games before the break, and making a decision before then would not be the smart thing to do IMO.

 

[Chief]

Would trading Girardi for younger players be mortgaging the future? Some would argue that signing him to a big money, long term deal would be mortgaging the future.

I would consider trading Girardi part of tearing down the team, especially if you are also wanting to trade Callahan. I don't think Girardi is worth the $7M/7 yr deal Phaneuf got but if he got a deal paying him $6M per year for 5 or 6 years, I don't think I'd be opposed to it. With the cap increasing, $6M per year in 2 or 3 years will be like $4.5M now (and I admit to saying that without any financial expertise but more of a gut feeling).

I'm not saying either one is right, but to completely dismiss the idea of trading him is silly.

I'm not dismissing the possibility of trading Girardi but I'm not for doing it in order to weaken the team this season and next (and maybe longer).

You do what needs to be done to improve the team. Gabby was a 40 goal scorer. Whatever you think of Brassard, Moore and Dorsett, the trade improved our team.

No Gaborik was a 9 goal scorer and was nothing more than a 2nd line or 3rd line option for Torts, who had Nash as his top line RW. And that's the difference, Girardi hasn't lost icetime because of a severe drop off in his play. His coach still plays him on the top pair.

As for the trade "improving the team". Are we a better team now than when Gaborik was here??? None of Brassard, Moore or Dorsett has proven that they're going to be a key player in the Rangers' future success. Until you can say that, then you haven't gotten a good return for Gabby.

 

[Off Sides]

That's the key word, obviously. Will we be there? There are 14 games left until the Olympic break. If the team goes .500 or worse during that stretch, dealing Girardi is probable and Callahan is not out of the question either. However, if the team goes 10-3-1, obviously there are tougher decisions to make. In that case I would probably keep the team together and hope to resign at least one of the two after the season.

Keep in mind that after a 2-6 start, we've put together a stretch that would be good for about the 4th or 5th seed in the conference. Was the 2-6 start just an adjustment period to AV's system? I think we'll get an answer over the next 14 games before the break, and making a decision before then would not be the smart thing to do IMO.

I think if the team looks to be out of or waning out of playoff position nearer to the deadline they are more likely to add in another vet player somewhere than to start selling.

I believe Carcillo was not added because he is tough although that was a bonus, I think it was more about a wake up call(especially after that Pitt game) to get the other players going so they'd make the playoffs.

I think the same idea would apply in a couple weeks as well.

 

[SingnBluesOnBroadway]

I think if the team looks to be out of or waning out of playoff position nearer to the deadline they are more likely to add in another vet player somewhere than to start selling.

That's certainly been the pattern.

I believe Carcillo was not added because he is tough although that was a bonus, I think it was more about a wake up call(especially after that Pitt game) to get the other players going so they'd make the playoffs.

He was added because Dorsett went down.

I think the same idea would apply in a couple weeks as well.

Of course. The FO lacks any clear vision for the team.

 

[Chief]

I somewhat agree, but I still don't really see how moves like that turn them into true contenders.

They beat Chicago last night, but how about over a 7 game series even if they added players like Russel or Perreault?

So while I do think they could improve the team, I still don't think that really makes them a true contender that can beat teams who have really rebuilt, who have real top end talents, and also have already added in those Russel and Perreault type players to fill out the team.

Players like Russel and Perrault aren't going to turn the team into contenders...but they can fill specific needs. Russell can provide offense from the blueline and Perrault can win faceoffs (he's 54% this season). The Rangers base is set and I think can be succesful - although Nash's concussions (as well as Staal's) concern me greatly. For the Rangers to be contenders, they need their best players to be their best players. The King can't be outplayed by his rookie backup. Nash and Callahan (and Hags too) have to be in the lineup. MacD and Girardi have to play like a shutdown top pair. I don't think those things are crazy to expect and from there you need other players like Stepan, Kreider, etc...to pull their weight.

 

[Off Sides]

Players like Russel and Perrault aren't going to turn the team into contenders...but they can fill specific needs. Russell can provide offense from the blueline and Perrault can win faceoffs (he's 54% this season). The Rangers base is set and I think can be succesful - although Nash's concussions (as well as Staal's) concern me greatly. For the Rangers to be contenders, they need their best players to be their best players. The King can't be outplayed by his rookie backup. Nash and Callahan (and Hags too) have to be in the lineup. MacD and Girardi have to play like a shutdown top pair. I don't think those things are crazy to expect and from there you need other players like Stepan, Kreider, etc...to pull their weight.

I am not saying they'd be bad, but compared to these other rosters over a 7 game series later in the playoffs?

I guess we just differ in opinion about the Rangers roster with some additions like those compared to the core of the Chicago, Pitt, Boston, Anaheim, LA, etc cores with some of those similar additions.

Lundqvist is probably the key, Nash, McD okay, but really from there the Rangers are mostly talking about what would be 2nd tier players on some of those teams.

 

[Pizza]

I'm not dismissing the possibility of trading Girardi but I'm not for doing it in order to weaken the team this season and next (and maybe longer).

Totally on point.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

I'm not dismissing the possibility of trading Girardi but I'm not for doing it in order to weaken the team this season and next (and maybe longer).

So, you're not willing to do it then.

Thats why people sell at the deadline, for a longterm outlook. Thats what many of us here are begging for.

What you said right here -- thats what the Rangers have been doing for decades.