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

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

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.

Good points. Everytime I think of this situation, and the competency of the organization, I feel like things arent happening in conjunction with one another.

In other words, the best offers should have already been made to Callahan and Girardi. They obviously haven't accepted, so the scouting team should be targeting their desired returns as we speak. Is that happening? Or is Sather telling his underlings that the Callahan/Girardi situations will sort themselves out in the summer, and they should concentrate on adding to the current roster for a playoff push?

Given his history, I know what I think is going on, and it sucks.

 

[Blue Blooded]

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

The fact that the Caps and Flyers are getting outplayed 5v5 on a nightly basis. The Caps are falling back to earth and the Flyers are having a temporary surge. These outcomes falls well into the norm over small samples, but they won't sustain over a season.

Look at Toronto who has been playing absolutely abysmal hockey since the start of the 12-13 season, yet people seem to just have figured out that they are a dreadful team as it took a while for their W-L-OTL record to reflect it. They were being buoyed by unsustainable percentages that are now falling back to earth. See the 11-12 Minnesota Wild, the 09-10 Colorado Avalanche. Or for the opposite effect see the 11-12 Los Angeles Kings, who were a great team that finished as an #8 seed because of bad shooting luck - much like the 12-13 and 13-14 Rangers (although the Rangers aren't quite as good as the Kings were).

If we look at all situations, the Rangers outshoot the opposition more than any other team in the East. The problem is that while we get on average 90.9% goaltending, our opposition gets 92.5%. Those numbers shouldn't be sustainable with our roster.

 

[Trxjw]

Good points. Everytime I think of this situation, and the competency of the organization, I feel like things arent happening in conjunction with one another.

In other words, the best offers should have already been made to Callahan and Girardi. They obviously haven't accepted, so the scouting team should be targeting their desired returns as we speak. Is that happening? Or is Sather telling his underlings that the Callahan/Girardi situations will sort themselves out in the summer, and they should concentrate on adding to the current roster for a playoff push?

Given his history, I know what I think is going on, and it sucks.

The Rangers have a habit of letting the end result of the season dictate their strategy. Most successful teams do not do that. They know where they stand every single day, and how each move they make fits into their plan. This team never seems to have a plan, or if they do, it never seems to extend beyond one calendar year.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

I love the "Rangers are currently underachieving" argument. Player performance varies greatly on the Rangers for a lot of reasons, but the biggest one is that this team, under Sather's leadership, tries to play a different brand of hockey each season -- and the acquisitions that may have looked OK a few years ago no longer fit. Thats a major reason why a lot of us are calling for a committed long-term plan.

 

[Trxjw]

Yeah, it seems like we've seen the "underachieving" argument a lot over the last few years. How long can you keep turning a blind eye to the fact that the team might have simply overachieved when it made an ECF push?

Every year around February, I read the same posts saying, "We're much better than this. If we can pull it together and if several teams take a dump in the standings, we could make the playoffs! Then anything can happen!" It's madness.

 

[Cliffy1814]

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.

If you could guarantee me that I'll expand the "window of winning" I'd be all for a trade. The issue is that no matter what you get in return, you have no idea if they will help form a core and how long it will take. (assuming you are not getting established NHL players).
Porspects and draft picks can fail or underachieve very easily.
The more of them you have, the better chance to hit big obviously, but I don't think the equation is that easy. Tons of risk in trading these two (arguably more risk than reward).

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

If you could guarantee me that I'll expand the "window of winning" I'd be all for a trade. The issue is that no matter what you get in return, you have no idea if they will help form a core and how long it will take. (assuming you are not getting established NHL players).
Porspects and draft picks can fail or underachieve very easily.
The more of them you have, the better chance to hit big obviously, but I don't think the equation is that easy. Tons of risk in trading these two (arguably more risk than reward).

I think this team moved out of a "window for winning" pretty quickly after the Nash trade. Not overpaying players about to hit free agency and trying to load up for another window seems like a good idea.

 

[RangerBoy]

Trades happen closer to the trading deadline. Any trades won't be made for a little while more. Del Zotto has been on the block for three months and he is still here. That Olympic break is four weeks away. Kovalchuk was traded before the break in 2010. The Rangers play 3 games between the NHL playing again and the deadline on March 5. Does Gorton want to re-sign these two players? If Gorton is going to be the guy,he should have more input than he already has. Sather will be long gone to Banff and the next GM will be stuck with the long term contracts. Then Dolan will be blaming Goron for decisions made by Slats. Kyper did report last month that there is talk about the Rangers making front office changes with Slats no longer being in charge. Kyper had reported the opposite last season. Its not like the Rangers have had zero discussions with both of these players and there is a significant gap. The Rangers will need to bend again like they did with Lundqvist if they're signing one or both of those players. They shouldn't.

 

[Blue Blooded]

Yeah, it seems like we've seen the "underachieving" argument a lot over the last few years. How long can you keep turning a blind eye to the fact that the team might have simply overachieved when it made an ECF push?

Every year around February, I read the same posts saying, "We're much better than this. If we can pull it together and if several teams take a dump in the standings, we could make the playoffs! Then anything can happen!" It's madness.

Oh, we massively overachieved in 11-12. That was a flawed team that was carried by Lundqvist and somehow added a first liner from nothing (Hagelin). Both Gaborik and Richards saw huge upticks in production when they were playing with Hags.

But after the Nash trade and Strålman breaking out as one of the better puck-movers in the league in 12-13 we have been outplaying our opposition on a nightly basis. Unfortunately we have struggled with conversion, especially when the games are close or tied which has had a very adverse effect on our record.

If we had even a below average Sh% and above average Sv% (what should be expected when looking at our roster) we'd challenge for 1st in the East.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

Oh, we massively overachieved in 11-12. That was a flawed team that was carried by Lundqvist and somehow added a first liner from nothing (Hagelin). Both Gaborik and Richards saw huge upticks in production when they were playing with Hags.

But after the Nash trade and Strålman breaking out as one of the better puck-movers in the league in 12-13 we have been outplaying our opposition on a nightly basis. Unfortunately we have struggled with conversion, especially when the games are close or tied which has had a very adverse effect on our record.

If we had even a below average Sh% and above average Sv% (what should be expected when looking at our roster) we'd challenge for 1st in the East.

I dont think any advanced stats can account for the relatively low-grade shots/scoring chances produced by the Rangers on a nightly basis vs. the Grade A opportunities given up by the shoddy man to man defense.

 

[HatTrick Swayze]

I don't know how anyone can watch the Rangers for an extended period of years, and essentially attribute their inability to finish as "luck". As just bad conversion percentages that should regress to a mean. It isn't luck when it occurs for a decade.

And lastly shot totals is such a flawed statistic. We could outshoot the Ducks 40-30 from bad angles but if they still are able to use the strengths of their roster to get 5 uncontested attempts in the slot, they will easily score 3-4 goals.

 

[free0717]

Trades happen closer to the trading deadline. Any trades won't be made for a little while more. Del Zotto has been on the block for three months and he is still here. That Olympic break is four weeks away. Kovalchuk was traded before the break in 2010. The Rangers play 3 games between the NHL playing again and the deadline on March 5. Does Gorton want to re-sign these two players? If Gorton is going to be the guy,he should have more input than he already has. Sather will be long gone to Banff and the next GM will be stuck with the long term contracts. Then Dolan will be blaming Goron for decisions made by Slats. Kyper did report last month that there is talk about the Rangers making front office changes with Slats no longer being in charge. Kyper had reported the opposite last season. Its not like the Rangers have had zero discussions with both of these players and there is a significant gap. The Rangers will need to bend again like they did with Lundqvist if they're signing one or both of those players. They shouldn't.

I would consider trading Girardi or Callahan. Girardi is a top commodity because he is a RH defenseman who can shut down the other teams top LWs. There are a shortage in the league of this type of player. Trading him will depend on two items, 1. How much can we get back in return and 2. What will it take to sign him. If Girardi is asking for 7 years 42 million dollars and we can get a real good return say Emerson Etem and a first round pick from the Ducks, then I have to make this trade. If Girardi will sign for 5 years and somewhere south of 25 million dollars, then I really have to keep him because he will be real hard to replace. Its these variables that will ultimately decide if we keep or trade Girardi.

As far as Callahan goes, a lot of teams would love to have his combination of Grit, Goal scoring ability and leadership on the RW. He could fetch a real good package at the deadline. The Clarkson contract really drove up Callahans price. With Callahans injury history and the way he plays, I could not give him a 7 year deal. 5 year maximum at 5.5 million dollars per year. If we have to go north of that and longer than 5 years and the right trade package comes along, I would be on board for trading him.

The next month will decide if we trade these players. If the win against the Hawks was a stepping stone and if we gain enough traction to believe that we can contend, I hold on to these players and take my chances in Free Agency. If we continue the win one, lose one trend and both these players are asking for the moon then I would be on board to getting what we can get.

 

[tjs252]

The defensive depth we've built in the system makes dealing Girardi fairly palatable. I also think he's miscast as a top pairing D man, even if he can log the minutes.

Trading Callahan is probably a bad idea. While he may not be a top-6 forward (I think he is but that's a different debate) whatever we replace him with will definitely not be a top-6 forward. Combine that with the difficulties we've had drafting and developing elite top end talent and I think that's a major no-no.

If Lundqvist were still a pending FA, I'd be all for the blow it up rebuild, but as we've locked in with Henrik, tanking just isn't an option. He's too skilled for that to happen.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

The defensive depth we've built in the system makes dealing Girardi fairly palatable. I also think he's miscast as a top pairing D man, even if he can log the minutes.

Trading Callahan is probably a bad idea. While he may not be a top-6 forward (I think he is but that's a different debate) whatever we replace him with will definitely not be a top-6 forward. Combine that with the difficulties we've had drafting and developing elite top end talent and I think that's a major no-no.

If Lundqvist were still a pending FA, I'd be all for the blow it up rebuild, but as we've locked in with Henrik, tanking just isn't an option. He's too skilled for that to happen.

I think this 'riches on defense' stuff is a complete fallacy, and has been for a while -- that said I'd still trade Girardi, and Callahan, and Del Zotto, and Brassard, and Boyle, and D Moore.

 

[BarbaraAlphanse]

I think you can swallow trading Girardi if Staal commits to resigning.

 

[BarbaraAlphanse]

I think this 'riches on defense' stuff is a complete fallacy, and has been for a while -- that said I'd still trade Girardi, and Callahan, and Del Zotto, and Brassard, and Boyle, and D Moore.

I'm definitely not in favor of trading Boyle and I'm still on the fence about Cally.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

I'm definitely not in favor of trading Boyle and I'm still on the fence about Cally.

I like Boyle - doesnt change the fact hes an overpaid 3/4th liner. God forbid the organization focuses on drafting and developing those types of players.

 

[free0717]

The defensive depth we've built in the system makes dealing Girardi fairly palatable. I also think he's miscast as a top pairing D man, even if he can log the minutes.

Trading Callahan is probably a bad idea. While he may not be a top-6 forward (I think he is but that's a different debate) whatever we replace him with will definitely not be a top-6 forward. Combine that with the difficulties we've had drafting and developing elite top end talent and I think that's a major no-no.

If Lundqvist were still a pending FA, I'd be all for the blow it up rebuild, but as we've locked in with Henrik, tanking just isn't an option. He's too skilled for that to happen.

We have little depth on the RH side. Just McIlrath. After that its taking lefties and forcing them to play the right side.

 

[BarbaraAlphanse]

I like Boyle - doesnt change the fact hes an overpaid 3/4th liner. God forbid the organization focuses on drafting and developing those types of players.

1.7 for a decent 4th liner isn't crazy.

I can't see him getting much more than 3 mill a year after this year either.

He's a good heart and soul guy. I wish we could develop them too though.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

1.7 for a decent 4th liner isn't crazy.

I can't see him getting much more than 3 mill a year after this year either.

He's a good heart and soul guy. I wish we could develop them too though.

I cant advocate giving Boyle, Callahan, and Girardi about $15M combined annually mostly because of their "heart and soul" credentials, partly because the team hasn't won jack squat with them

 

[BarbaraAlphanse]

I cant advocate giving Boyle, Callahan, and Girardi about $15M combined annually mostly because of their "heart and soul" credentials, partly because the team hasn't won jack squat with them

I think I can advocate giving 8-9 for both Cally and Boyle. Girardi I see regressing fast. Would love to see him moved for some real talent (Etem or Silfverberg along with a first).

A committed Staal to this organization makes trading Girardi a lot easier to swallow.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

I think I can advocate giving 8-9 for both Cally and Boyle. Girardi I see regressing fast. Would love to see him moved for some real talent (Etem or Silfverberg along with a first).

A committed Staal to this organization makes trading Girardi a lot easier to swallow.

Funny, I think Girardi will be the better longterm player. Callahan has Drury-esque decline written all over him. And Boyle has regressed quite significantly already.

 

[BarbaraAlphanse]

Funny, I think Girardi will be the better longterm player. Callahan has Drury-esque decline written all over him. And Boyle has regressed quite significantly already.

Regardless. I don't think any answer is easy.

We're looking at a big time overhaul with high risk and uncertainty around prospects, picks, and young players coming back.

Or.

We're looking at keeping part of the core, the same core that hasn't been able to put us over the top, and the risks and uncertainties surrounding their regression and health moving forward (and subsequently their higher salary demands that will only magnify the risk).

So... do you want the red pill or the blue one?

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

Regardless. I don't think any answer is easy.

We're looking at a big time overhaul with high risk and uncertainty around prospects, picks, and young players coming back.

Or.

We're looking at keeping part of the core, the same core that hasn't been able to put us over the top, and the risks and uncertainties surrounding their regression and health moving forward (and subsequently their higher salary demands that will only magnify the risk).

So... do you want the red pill or the blue one?

Option #1 for sure -- having an imbecile like Sather at the helm is the only thing holding me back from being 100% sure.

 

[RangerBoy]

The Rangers haven't won anything with any of these guys. Its paying players because there is no else to pay. Boyle is living off his 10-11 season. Its his 5th year as a Ranger. One really good year. That's it. The Rangers can't find another player to play on the 4th line and PK. Girardi will be 30 soon. Is it really necessary to pay him until he is 37? Callahan is a small player. All of the injuries. Do you want to pay him until he is 36? Both players will command 7 years. They can get 7 as free agents. You have to figure Callahan wants at least $6M or more. Brooks mentioned $7M for Callahan if he gets to free agency. Is Callahan is worth $6M-$7M? 7 years at $42M-$49M. Really? Clarkson got $5.25M for 7 and he turned down more from Edmonton with the cap going down. Clarkson couldn't skate a 40 second shift without falling down until a few years ago and now he has a $5.25M cap hit. All of the Leaf people are asking themselves "why is Clarkson struggling?". Should they be surprised? Weiss with the Wings is another bad signing. Brown got 8 years and $47M from LA and that was viewed as a discount. He has 9 goals and 15 points in 44 games and the 8 years don't begin until next season. Good luck to them.