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

[JESSEWENEEDTOCOOK]

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.

The signing doesn't affect our draft position, so I don't see how that means nothing was accomplished.

Am obviously against a "stupid" signing, though. I'd rather not venture if FA this year.

 

[BlueshirtBlitz]

The signing doesn't affect our draft position, so I don't see how that means nothing was accomplished.

Am obviously against a "stupid" signing, though. I'd rather not venture if FA this year.

I disagree. If you go out and sign a decent player for a bad contract, that will more than likely hurt our draft position.

If we're going to try and maintain this "stay competitive while rebuilding" i'd rather keep Callahan. Finishing with the 15th pick with Cally will be more enjoyable for me, personally, than finishing with the 15th without Cally.

I'm all for sucking for 2 years to get some impact talent, though.

edit- Just realized you're talking about "tanking" this year specifically. That makes sense, too. I just don't think a one year tankjob would be enough, and you either go for it and really set yourself up for the future or not.

 

[HatTrick Swayze]

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?

Without seeing a ton of Ekblad, that sounds like an obviously good tradeoff.

My point is that the odds suggest they are more likely to land a package like Nieto and a 1st. Trading Girardi for essentially another team's version of Hagelin + Skjei, while better than nothing, does not make this team "more of a contender" than just keeping Girardi.

Not that keeping him makes them a contender, either! But the argument that "they are not a contender with them, dump them, profit" is faulty to me. Far from even close to a guarentee.

 

[Trxjw]

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...

I think those are all valid concerns. However, I'm not advocating moving Girardi and Callahan to increase the likelihood of a better draft pick -- though that's certainly a possible effect of such. I'm advocating moving them to add at least two very good prospects between them, and then in turn handing over the leadership of the team to the "new core" of the team which includes players like Stepan and McDonagh. There isn't anything wrong with adding complimentary pieces as long as the team has a cohesive direction. Move the team towards a fresh start.

There will be challenges, and there will be growing pains, but I think the team has every bit as good of a chance to be successful after a couple of intelligent trades as it does if they were to simply re-sign what they have. Neither is a guarantee, but if there's one thing I have some semblance of faith in when it comes to this team, it's the amateur scouting.

 

[Brooklyn Rangers Fan]

I think those are all valid concerns. However, I'm not advocating moving Girardi and Callahan to increase the likelihood of a better draft pick -- though that's certainly a possible effect of such. I'm advocating moving them to add at least two very good prospects between them, and then in turn handing over the leadership of the team to the "new core" of the team which includes players like Stepan and McDonagh. There isn't anything wrong with adding complimentary pieces as long as the team has a cohesive direction. Move the team towards a fresh start.

There will be challenges, and there will be growing pains, but I think the team has every bit as good of a chance to be successful after a couple of intelligent trades as it does if they were to simply re-sign what they have. Neither is a guarantee, but if there's one thing I have some semblance of faith in when it comes to this team, it's the amateur scouting.

Exactly.

 

[Emptyvoid]

What I've always wondered is why aren't we even better at Scouting? We are one of the richest teams in the league, in arguable the most desirable city in the world. How is it that we don't have the very best scouts working for us, scouting all players all over the world.

Since there's a salary cap, we should be using our money on every other facet of our organization. Trainers, scouts, etc. I just don't understand, maybe I'm underselling us.

 

[DutchShamrock]

What I've always wondered is why aren't we even better at Scouting? We are one of the richest teams in the league, in arguable the most desirable city in the world. How is it that we don't have the very best scouts working for us, scouting all players all over the world.

Since there's a salary cap, we should be using our money on every other facet of our organization. Trainers, scouts, etc. I just don't understand, maybe I'm underselling us.

I think they get bang for their buck on scouts. Late round gems are probably only rivaled by the wings.

Our glaring issue is first round picks. Too many "gut" decisions or splashes in the headlines. So many overachieving ranger fans like jessiman and sanguinetti. The Montoya pick that would capture the Latin culture of NYC. They buy into hype and can't sort out the BS. They gamble way too much on the high risk/high reward types. That's just poor decision making and asset management.

 

[Emptyvoid]

I think they get bang for their buck on scouts. Late round gems are probably only rivaled by the wings.

Our glaring issue is first round picks. Too many "gut" decisions or splashes in the headlines. So many overachieving ranger fans like jessiman and sanguinetti. The Montoya pick that would capture the Latin culture of NYC. They buy into hype and can't sort out the BS. They gamble way too much on the high risk/high reward types. That's just poor decision making and asset management.

That's true early 2000, not anymore. Recent time the 1st round we've done pretty well for ourselves.

I just feel we aren't our resources to our full advantage. Look at Dallas, look at all those talented power forward prospects they develop. Why can't we do that? Why don't we have their scouts?

 

[Baby Punisher]

I understand the emotional attachment, but it's still a business.

This is a great statement. if as a fan you can separate that emotional attachment to the players you become a more knowledgeable fan & by extension a better fan.

You have to ask yourself this. Do you want a bubble team that may make the playoffs to give you a few exciting weeks in the spring only to be let down again & lose the UFA's for nothing & not be a better team, or re-sign them to horrible constricting contracts & still be a bubble team for a couple of more years with questionable talent in the farm system. Or would you rather trade them for assets, still be a bubble team for a year or two but know that the window of winning will be bigger as the new core & role players come together.

These teams happen in 5 year cycles. Right now we are nearing the end of our current cycle & it's time to re-tool a bit.

The new core of this team is going to be Zuke, Kreider, McD, Lundqvist & Possibly Staal as well as Stepan. That's not a bad start off point.

That's pretty much your top line & defensive pairing moving forward.

 

[Ola]

You have to ask yourself this. Do you want a bubble team that may make the playoffs to give you a few exciting weeks in the spring only to be let down again & lose the UFA's for nothing & not be a better team, or re-sign them to horrible constricting contracts & still be a bubble team for a couple of more years with questionable talent in the farm system. Or would you rather trade them for assets, still be a bubble team for a year or two but know that the window of winning will be bigger as the new core & role players come together.

I've argued a lot against the idea to dump all three of Cally, Girardi and Richards, but I also think that each decision is a tough one that could go either way (well, BR must keep producing, he can't fall of the planet now, if he does the later that decision becomes easier). I have mentioned a lot of reasons for this.

One more reason to not tear things apart is that failing has become the modus operandi here in NY with this team. Every single player we get "fails". We just must fix that.

Cory Schneider is 6-9-5 in NJ, he hasn't looked that great. I would bet my right arm though on that CS failing in NJ just isn't going to be a option.

Nash is on pace to get like 58 pts for us this year, Kovalchuk scored 60 pts in around 80 games while being a healthy scratch a couple of times for NJ his first full season, his second season he scores over a PPG and carries them alone to the SCF's. Nash isn't Kova, I agree there, but he for sure is better than he has been in the PO's last year and early this year. Nash was sick for us in the regular season last year. Scored at a PPG pace and carried the team alone for a ton of games.

We just can't go on like this. Its about building an identity too. Its not a coincidence that for some teams, 5 of 5 guys turn out perfect and for others 5 of 5 always fail. On one end you got a Chicago as a great example right now, on the other you got a Florida for example that never is getting anywhere or anything out of their players. The reason for this is not that some teams always get players that has what it takes while some other teams never get players what it takes. This is obviously a delicat business. Its peer-pressure. Its expectations. Its tradition. And what not. We gotta decide what group we want to be in here and set down the foot once and for all. Even the players are aware of this, there are talk about players being frustrated about their contract-talks. I am sure this is the reason to just as big extent, being frustrated with the organization's "the grass is greener" approch. If you are Cally or Girardi, being the two core guys that have taken the organization out of the mess it was in, I am sure you are asking yourself what you could have done more to get a good contract from this team.

I think BR is the tough decision. We got a PP now and BR is playing 1.40 of every PP it seems.

Lock Cally and Girardi up.

 

[Ola]

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.

Are you telling me that the 15,954 posts I made at this place doesn't matter?

 

[Blue Blooded]

I've argued a lot against the idea to dump all three of Cally, Girardi and Richards, but I also think that each decision is a tough one that could go either way (well, BR must keep producing, he can't fall of the planet now, if he does the later that decision becomes easier). I have mentioned a lot of reasons for this.

One more reason to not tear things apart is that failing has become the modus operandi here in NY with this team. Every single player we get "fails". We just must fix that.

Cory Schneider is 6-9-5 in NJ, he hasn't looked that great. I would bet my right arm though on that CS failing in NJ just isn't going to be a option.

Nash is on pace to get like 58 pts for us this year, Kovalchuk scored 60 pts in around 80 games while being a healthy scratch a couple of times for NJ his first full season, his second season he scores over a PPG and carries them alone to the SCF's. Nash isn't Kova, I agree there, but he for sure is better than he has been in the PO's last year and early this year. Nash was sick for us in the regular season last year. Scored at a PPG pace and carried the team alone for a ton of games.

We just can't go on like this. Its about building an identity too. Its not a coincidence that for some teams, 5 of 5 guys turn out perfect and for others 5 of 5 always fail. On one end you got a Chicago as a great example right now, on the other you got a Florida for example that never is getting anywhere or anything out of their players. The reason for this is not that some teams always get players that has what it takes while some other teams never get players what it takes. This is obviously a delicat business. Its peer-pressure. Its expectations. Its tradition. And what not. We gotta decide what group we want to be in here and set down the foot once and for all. Even the players are aware of this, there are talk about players being frustrated about their contract-talks. I am sure this is the reason to just as big extent, being frustrated with the organization's "the grass is greener" approch. If you are Cally or Girardi, being the two core guys that have taken the organization out of the mess it was in, I am sure you are asking yourself what you could have done more to get a good contract from this team.

I think BR is the tough decision. We got a PP now and BR is playing 1.40 of every PP it seems.

Lock Cally and Girardi up.

Re: "Failing"

A lot of it is perception and riding linemates though, look at Bryan Bickell for example. Had a great year in Chicago last year, signed a 4 year $16M contract and is now on pace for like 17 points on the season. But that doesn't really seem to bother Chicago anyway, they keep on winning. When you have a deep team two things happen: (1) many players will get inflated points totals, and (2) if a player struggles it isn't a big deal. Point 2 is the important one as due to the inconsistent nature of Sh% and on-ice Sh% players will have up and down years in regard to scoring even while playing at the same level. For example Nash is actually creating more offense this season than he did last year, but the pucks just haven't been going in.

When you have a struggling team the spotlight is only on a few select players which makes their apparent failure all the greater. Nash and Stepan are struggling and we are annoyed, imagine if we didn't have Zuccarello, Kreider, and Hagelin! People would be shouting for their heads.

Our offense struggles, but a lot of it is just not converting chances which will sort itself out. The problem is that our surprisingly bad goaltending magnifies the offensive struggles.

And the worst part of it all: our Sh% and Sv% are for some reason at their lowest when the games are tied. We are dead last in the league in 5v5 Tied PDO (Sh% + Sv%).

 

[RangerBoy]

She also said exactly what I've said... the Rangers need to see where they are in a month.

In a month,Girardi and Callahan will be a month closer to free agency.

 

[Vitto79]

In a month,Girardi and Callahan will be a month closer to free agency.

Yes but let's be honest if they keep playing better and are in say the 5th seed they are likely not making a deal for the future regardless of whatever we think is the right thing to do is

 

[Placid]

Very difficult question. My thoughts are :

Replacing Girardi, you'd essentially need another first paired RHD, and there arnt *that* many of them out there. Chances are that whoever you pick up wont be any cheaper than the one we already have. And in terms of stability, Girardi must be leading the entire league in terms of game attendance.

While he is not ideally suited for AV's style (thats my impression at least), he isnt a total misfit for it either, so i'd probably lock him up. But its a tough call.

To follow up with Cally and Richards, i'd say trade them both.

Cally : He played an absolutely fantastic game against the Blackhawks, but he has not had many good games this season. What if he gets hurt again in a couple of weeks. I like Cally, but his style of play is wearing him down physically, so locking him up on a long term expensive contract is taking a gigantic gamble. How is the Rangers track record with those in the last decade ? Drury, Redden, Gomez, Richards, etc etc..

Richards : My impression was that his contract is an albatross.. that no matter if he were a PPG player this entire season, it would not justify his paycheck. In which case the solution should be simple.

 

[Amazing Kreiderman]

- Trade Del Zotto
- Trade Callahan
- Buy out Richards
- KEEP Girardi (First pair RHD are too hard to find)

 

[RangerBoy]

The Rangers need to make their best offer if they haven't made it already. Take it or leave it. If its the latter,the player will be traded. The Rangers can't allow the asset to leave for nothing. Callahan and Girardi aren't Brian Boyle. It doesn't matter where the Rangers are in standings. If the Rangers aren't comfortable meeting the asking price now,its not going to change in June.

 

[Ola]

Very difficult question. My thoughts are :

Replacing Girardi, you'd essentially need another first paired RHD, and there arnt *that* many of them out there. Chances are that whoever you pick up wont be any cheaper than the one we already have. And in terms of stability, Girardi must be leading the entire league in terms of game attendance.

While he is not ideally suited for AV's style (thats my impression at least), he isnt a total misfit for it either, so i'd probably lock him up. But its a tough call.

To follow up with Cally and Richards, i'd say trade them both.

Cally : He played an absolutely fantastic game against the Blackhawks, but he has not had many good games this season. What if he gets hurt again in a couple of weeks. I like Cally, but his style of play is wearing him down physically, so locking him up on a long term expensive contract is taking a gigantic gamble. How is the Rangers track record with those in the last decade ? Drury, Redden, Gomez, Richards, etc etc..

Richards : My impression was that his contract is an albatross.. that no matter if he were a PPG player this entire season, it would not justify his paycheck. In which case the solution should be simple.

I remember making a post on the state of our D in pre-season, I thought Allen was better than just about anyone. And I wonder who I thought was our worst D, McD or Girardi. Probably the later.

McD has adopted for sure and is playing like a future Norris-candidte.

But Girardi is also improving, almost on a week-to-week basis lately. When we first got Girardi, what was covered the most was Girardi's passing game. He was really poised under pressure and always executed those short passes D to D or to our centers that Renney wanted to see. After playing 3.5 years under Torts, he had a lot of adjusting to do in the transition game.

I think sometimes we feel that a player is what he is when he is 25 y/o and after that we shouldn't expect any development. But I mean, take an All-Star team or whatever, how many players can't you find that developed grately after they turned 25 y/o or 30 y/o? And if you look at D's, its even more common.

 

[Ola]

The Rangers need to make their best offer if they haven't made it already. Take it or leave it. If its the latter,the player will be traded. The Rangers can't allow the asset to leave for nothing. Callahan and Girardi aren't Brian Boyle. It doesn't matter where the Rangers are in standings. If the Rangers aren't comfortable meeting the asking price now,its not going to change in June.

The brass must sit down and figure out the terms of the contracts they are offering. If we are making the term a hill to fight for, this can't end well. We should be asking for 8 years, not the players.

 

[Ola]

Yes but let's be honest if they keep playing better and are in say the 5th seed they are likely not making a deal for the future regardless of whatever we think is the right thing to do is

The East is more or less wide-open as usual.

Before you know it Crosby is hurt again and somebody knocks Boston out in the first round, and all of a sudden its a dog-fight between teams like Philly, Tampa, Montreal, Washington, us and teams like that to get out of the East...

If we just can get to the 3rd spot in the Metropolitan we have a -- "easy" -- match up in round 1. Philly, Washington or NJ.

 

[eco's bones]

If either gets moved--and especially Girardi--it will more than likely be before the deadline--not now. The Rangers are going to see if they can pick up some steam in the meantime but the likelihood is they can up the price by creating bidding wars moving them at the deadline if they decide to move them. Personally if they don't think they can sign them then they should probably trade them.

 

[Blue Blooded]

The East is more or less wide-open as usual.

Before you know it Crosby is hurt again and somebody knocks Boston out in the first round, and all of a sudden its a dog-fight between teams like Philly, Tampa, Montreal, Washington, us and teams like that to get out of the East...

If we just can get to the 3rd spot in the Metropolitan we have a -- "easy" -- match up in round 1. Philly, Washington or NJ.

Most things point to a comfortable 2nd place finish TBH, half a season left and we have been playing better hockey than everyone but Pittsburgh in the Metro.

The Flyers and Caps have been overachieving. Caps are falling off, Flyers are having a temporary surge. I wouldn't be surprised if the Devils give us a stiffer challenge in the standings than those two.

 

[Ail]

Most things point to a comfortable 2nd place finish TBH, half a season left and we have been playing better hockey than everyone but Pittsburgh in the Metro.

The Flyers and Caps have been overachieving. Caps are falling off, Flyers are having a temporary surge. I wouldn't be surprised if the Devils give us a stiffer challenge in the standings than those two.

What makes the Rangers playing "better hockey" but other teams are overachieving? The Flyers are right about where they should be.

 

[NGgator60]

The East is more or less wide-open as usual.

Before you know it Crosby is hurt again and somebody knocks Boston out in the first round, and all of a sudden its a dog-fight between teams like Philly, Tampa, Montreal, Washington, us and teams like that to get out of the East...

If we just can get to the 3rd spot in the Metropolitan we have a -- "easy" -- match up in round 1. Philly, Washington or NJ.

Or, taking a longer-term view, before you know it we're typing to each other in 2019 with a core of players 33 years old and over staring us right in the face and only a few early-round exits to show for it. Maybe we'll be so lucky to make a trip to the ECFs.

And that is my worst fear and the most probable outcome with where I assume management will lead us.

Would anyone here feel confident putting up $100 getting 10:1 on the Rangers winning the Cup within the next three years?

 

[Trxjw]

What I've always wondered is why aren't we even better at Scouting? We are one of the richest teams in the league, in arguable the most desirable city in the world. How is it that we don't have the very best scouts working for us, scouting all players all over the world.

Since there's a salary cap, we should be using our money on every other facet of our organization. Trainers, scouts, etc. I just don't understand, maybe I'm underselling us.

Scouting is one thing, but drafting is something entirely different. Drafting is a collective effort where each scout has to argue the merits of the players they like amongst a room of people who have equally strong opinions about other prospects. I think the "finalization" process is where this team falls short. They have a habit of really targeting "their guy" no matter where they're picking, and when they do buckle and pick a slider, we've had some pretty bad luck there. Cherepanov obviously passed and would likely never have played in the NHL. Sanguinetti was a total bust, and I think there may have been some spite towards the Flyers in that selection. Del Zotto looked like he could be a real good player, but he's stalled in his development.

When it comes to trading, however, we've been pretty good at targeting amateur talent. McDonagh as a piece in the Gomez deal. Lindberg for Werek. Kristo for Thomas. Those are really good adds at the expense of very little. It's those kind of moves that lead me to believe that our scouting is quite good, but our drafting might be effected a little too much by a small group of scouts / management.