Thirty One
Safe is safe.
- Dec 28, 2003
- 28,981
- 24,357
I think there's a difference between making a trade accepting that it will make you worse in the immediate future and making a trade in order to become worse and get a higher draft pick.
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
What leads you to believe that this team can be true contenders for the Cup? I dont think anyone considers the playoffs to be a goal, as Sather himself has said as much, so I'm not interested in hearing that we can be playoff contenders. We can ask the fans of Philadelphia what the playoffs mean without culminating in any hardware at the end.
The closest this team has come to the Cup was in 2011 when it seemed that the stars were aligned and every break worked to the Rangers advantage. I am convinced that the 2011 will remain the peak capability of this Rangers core and there has been nothing to suggest otherwise. I live in a world of probabilities and to suggest that this Ranger team could be successful if for some reason every player simulataneously peaks at the same time seems exceedingly optomistic. Not to mention that even during the magical run of 2011-2012 the Rangers were still bounced prior to the final round.
This team is critically flawed from multiple perspectives and every passing day only further removes us from our ultimate goal as core players age, regress with injury, or require a much larger allocation of our cap space. Cobbling together the core from 2011 with the hopes of recreating an ECF swoon should not be our goal or direction and simply satiates current demand at the expense of future resources. Each day that we muddle in mediocrity is a day of which we've wasted developing a team that has a sustainable competitive advantage over the majority of the NHL.
Yea I think so too, but don't they both fall under the same umbrella when discussing a comment about how a person would be "unwilling to accept a trade if it makes the Rangers worse this season and next?"
Thirty One
Safe is safe.
- Dec 28, 2003
- 28,981
- 24,357
It would, if that was what he said. It isn't, though.
"but I'm not for doing it in order to weaken the team this season and next"
- Jul 20, 2005
- 4,923
- 2,329
It would, if that was what he wrote.
"unwilling to accept a trade if it makes the Rangers worse this season and next"
is not the same as
"I'm not for doing it in order to weaken the team this season and next "
edit: creepily similar posts are creepy
Whether you're looking to re-tool or rebuild, I don't think the team will get equal value for what Girardi currently provides.
In order words, if/when they trade Girardi for a young prospect and a draft pick, Im pretty sure that will "weaken the team" if you look at it that way -- despite it being the proper long term play.
Thirty One
Safe is safe.
- Dec 28, 2003
- 28,981
- 24,357
Brooklyn Rangers Fan
Change is good.
Adrian (Poland)
Hey Katie. Do the Rangers have any sort of gameplan for the upcoming months? Is there anything to report as far as negotiations with Cally, Girardi, etc. go? Are they entertaining the thought of trading them? There's so much speculation going on and there are so many key decisions to be made I'm getting really anxious
Katie Strang (3:46 PM)
And rightfully so, Adrian. In fact, we may start to see the dominoes fall a bit earlier this season, because the trade deadline comes so soon after the Olympic break. I think the Rangers have to see where they find themselves a month from now and ask: better to add a piece and/or lock up some key guys OR time to unload and re-tool a bit for the future. If the Rangers continue to hover on the cusp, they have to entertain the thought of moving Callahan or Girardi, or both. There has been no significant progress on either re: extension and the Rangers can't lose those two assets for nothing in free agency. Both players will be coveted should they become available at the deadline. The Rangers find themselves approaching a very critical juncture as an organization
http://espn.go.com/sportsnation/chat/_/id/49779
Trade.
Girardi and Callahan are looking out for their own interests as they should. The Rangers need to look after their own interests too.
I believe in taking a step back at times, but when you do it you must do it properly.
I don't believe the timing for us to do it properly is now, we have a avg age on our team that is under 27 and the 9th youngest team in the league, this while not having a bunch of rookies. Most of our players are in the same boat, from 24-29 y/o.
I don't at all believe in a half-"rebuild". On the contrary, I think its the worst option in today's NHL. You won't get the top draft picks, and you will not do a good job developing the players you have. Good teams develop good players. It seems to be really hard to take that step back in again. I am not against the principle of a rebuild, but when you do it you should do it properly.
Boston missed the PO's in 05/06 and 06/07. They lost in the 1st round in 07/08 and the 2nd round in 08/09 and 09/10. Before making it to the finals twice in three years. They got 91 pts the year before they won the cup.
Go here and check out Boston:
http://www.hockeydb.com/stte/boston-bruins-4919.html
Scan through the rosters from year to year. What puts Boston over the top? What really stands out, what really put them over the top from 09/10 to 10/11 is definitely Milan Lucic finding his way into becoming an elite PF and Brad Marchand going from scoring 1 pt in 20 games in his rookie year to 41 pts in 77 games.
Boston added Chara in 06', they went nowhere his first four years. Julien got to take that team in the right direction for four years. That paid of grately after a while.
Can JT Miller become our Marchand and Kreider our version of "Lucic"?
I am not saying that we shouldn't consider moving Girardi or Callahan, or that we shouldn't buy out BR. But I don't believe in the take a step back-thinking at all at this point. Make the decisions that you think will give you the best team.
I don't believe the timing for us to do it properly is now, we have a avg age on our team that is under 27 and the 9th youngest team in the league, this while not having a bunch of rookies. Most of our players are in the same boat, from 24-29 y/o.
I don't at all believe in a half-"rebuild". On the contrary, I think its the worst option in today's NHL. You won't get the top draft picks, and you will not do a good job developing the players you have. Good teams develop good players. It seems to be really hard to take that step back in again. I am not against the principle of a rebuild, but when you do it you should do it properly.
Boston missed the PO's in 05/06 and 06/07. They lost in the 1st round in 07/08 and the 2nd round in 08/09 and 09/10. Before making it to the finals twice in three years. They got 91 pts the year before they won the cup.
Go here and check out Boston:
http://www.hockeydb.com/stte/boston-bruins-4919.html
Scan through the rosters from year to year. What puts Boston over the top? What really stands out, what really put them over the top from 09/10 to 10/11 is definitely Milan Lucic finding his way into becoming an elite PF and Brad Marchand going from scoring 1 pt in 20 games in his rookie year to 41 pts in 77 games.
Boston added Chara in 06', they went nowhere his first four years. Julien got to take that team in the right direction for four years. That paid of grately after a while.
Can JT Miller become our Marchand and Kreider our version of "Lucic"?
I am not saying that we shouldn't consider moving Girardi or Callahan, or that we shouldn't buy out BR. But I don't believe in the take a step back-thinking at all at this point. Make the decisions that you think will give you the best team.
Terrific point(s). I'm clearly on the side of a rebuild, and as you wrote, I don't think that a "half-rebuild" would be nearly as effective. Unfortunately, I feel as if we've already half-rebuilt with the turnover from 2011-2012 to today, most notably with the Nash trade and of course to some extent with FA subtractions and additions. Key components of our most successful campaign have left, and with them along went the team identity which led us.
Boston did have a similar turnover of sorts with Savard fading away along with Kessel having been dealt and players like Sturm/Recchi serving as effective plugs. What differs between the Bruins and what we've experienced with the Rangers was that Boston allowed their turnover to further bolster their identity as a tough and responsible team built around Chara, solid goaltending, Bergeron, and later Lucic/Marchand. The Rangers used their partial-rebuild as an opportunity to bring in Rick Nash, Brassard, Moore, and Dorsett at the expense of Gabby, Anisimov, Dubi, Erixon, and a 1st. I dont really see any identity being created with this shakeup, rather I see dissary.
So perhaps the closest we can come towards completing this "total rebuild" that seems to have been in progress since we began doing business with Columbus would be to trade Girardi and/or Callahan and really begin to develop a purposeful culture around a sustainable core group of players going forward.
Because at the end of the day I dont think anyone in their right mind can tell me that they would stake anything of value on the Rangers winning anything of substance over the next 1-3 years without substantial roster turnover.
So far, I've yet to see anyone acknowledge that if we keep Girardi and Callahan, we're at best right where we are now. I.e., a bubble team that lacks talent. Say we keep both, what do we do from there? Hope we have the perfect piece in our prospect pool? Another UFA signing? Another big name added via trade? It hasn't worked for us so far, so why not try something new?
Regardless of what we do with Girardi and Callahan, this team is at a serious crossroads. So many unsigned players for next year, Richards being bought out, question marks surrounding just about everyone for one reason or another. I can't help but feel that retaining Girardi and Callahan is a desperate attempt to hang onto what was a really great core in 11-12, but in reality has returned to being a pretty average hockey club sorely lacking in elite talent.
I understand the emotional attachment, but it's still a business.
Regardless of what we do with Girardi and Callahan, this team is at a serious crossroads. So many unsigned players for next year, Richards being bought out, question marks surrounding just about everyone for one reason or another. I can't help but feel that retaining Girardi and Callahan is a desperate attempt to hang onto what was a really great core in 11-12, but in reality has returned to being a pretty average hockey club sorely lacking in elite talent.
I understand the emotional attachment, but it's still a business.
And therein lies the desparation causing what I find to be a necessity in trading one or both players. The Rangers dont really have any dry powder to make a substantial impact going forward. What we have will more than likely be what we're going with in the near future other than a FA shakeup with regards to Richards.
CharlieCharleschuk
Registered User
- Nov 26, 2013
- 214
- 0
Yes. Great post.
However it gets into the whole mindset that our opinions matter at all. The organization has a plan and it has expressed it many ways over the past season or two.
Richards, Nash, AV, Lundqvist... these moves are tangible evidence about the direction management is going. It's not like reading tea leaves. It's pretty blatantly obvious.
Restocking the AHL is not what Sather is about, now.
HatTrick Swayze
Just Be Nice
My perspective is: even if the Rangers trade them (really Girardi is who I'm speaking about), they will still be a bubble team. They are not a Callahan & Girardi loss away from a top 5 pick. And they are not getting a Barkov, Seth Jones, Galchenyuk back. At BEST they are getting a top prospect with the ability to become a good complimentary piece like Etem, Vatanen, Nieto.
And they will then spend the next however many years looking for a top flight RH dman. Signing who knows who, giving up who knows what in a trade to fix it. If they were getting a top flight prospect that could be a core piece on a SC team, or a potential top pick, it could be worth it. But that is not going to happen in realistic Girardi/Callahan deals. They will get a good piece or two, but will then spend more time chasing their tails and signing big checks to mercenaries hoping and wishing they can fill the holes they just opened.
And potentially doing it in an EVEN worse UFA pool as the cap continues to rise, which Ola has touched on a lot.
But obviously they need to make their best offer and 100% deal them if they are walking for free...
Precisely why we need to replenish the prospect pool - by trading Girardi and Callahan.
HatTrick Swayze
Just Be Nice
With prospects that still aren't likely to be core pieces on a Cup team. Which is my point. More depth sure, but really just more of the same.
That may be the case but we would be getting younger and cheaper at least. There are enough teams interested in our players to start a bidding war. We would get a solid return.
You cannot make that statement as truth. You have no idea if this is true.
nyranger61494
YNWA
Agree with these two thoughts. Plus, who knows what Rangers then do with those assets. Could trade a few in order to get that top tier player. Could acquire as many pieces as possible and hope law of averages works in our favor and a couple pan out.
- Sep 17, 2007
- 24,927
- 22,848
So how do you propose we get the core pieces we need? In addition to young roster players and prospects, could we not also get picks? Could we not use those picks and maybe some prospects to then move up in the draft and go for an impact player?
If we traded Girardi and ended up with Ekblad, would you be upset?
eco's bones
Registered User
Basically I agree with your premise if they can't get either on a reasonable deal. Both would have to accept a 5 year term--somewhere between $5-6 mil per. I could live with that. The thing is they can do oh so much better in July--can even pick teams that are going places--not stuck in a rut like ours--and they are very likely to look good doing that--for their new teams and I wouldn't be surprised to read some of the posters here so gung ho to get rid of them now *****ing about why we let them go and what an idiot Slats is for not giving them a better deal while meanwhile their replacements particularly Girardi's **** the bed. Just saying.
Tawnos
A guy with a bass
She also said exactly what I've said... the Rangers need to see where they are in a month.
BlueshirtBlitz
Foolish Samurai
If we trade both of them, it has to be because we're trying to tank.
Maybe not tank, but be comfortable with finishing in the single digits draft position. If we trade them and then go and make a stupid signing, nothing was accomplished.
Maybe not tank, but be comfortable with finishing in the single digits draft position. If we trade them and then go and make a stupid signing, nothing was accomplished.
- Status
