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

[Gardner McKay]

Yeah, $6M per is the number a few writers have tossed around.

Id give Girardi 5 - 5.5M x 5 years. I don't think is play will decline in the first 2-3 years. The remainder of the contract will be a smaller % of the cap if he starts to decline.

Callahan on the other hand...

 

[RangerBoy]

Where are the Rangers getting the players needed to win? Their system is barren. They have some nice players but none of them are top 6 forwards(except for Miller who can be a second line center on a winning team) or a top 3 D(a D who can add offense is a #1-#3). Buchnevich seems to be the new glamour boy of the organization. This team has a major problem. The Rangers have 74 goals in 48 games at even strength.

 

[Paulie Walnutz]

Where are the Rangers getting the players needed to win? Their system is barren. They have some nice players but none of them are top 6 forwards(except for Miller who can be a second line center on a winning team) or a top 3 D(a D who can add offense is a #1-#3). Buchnevich seems to be the new glamour boy of the organization. This team has a major problem. The Rangers have 74 goals in 48 games at even strength.

Don't even bother RB I said the same thing and got chewed out for it.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

Don't even bother RB I said the same thing and got chewed out for it.

Complainers! We should be happy there are 20 guys willing to try to play hockey for us every night

 

[TheRightWay]

Complainers! We should be happy there are 20 guys willing to try to play hockey for us every night

More like 19 because Rick Nash doesn't care though remember?

 

[haohmaru]

Where are the Rangers getting the players needed to win? Their system is barren. They have some nice players but none of them are top 6 forwards(except for Miller who can be a second line center on a winning team) or a top 3 D(a D who can add offense is a #1-#3). Buchnevich seems to be the new glamour boy of the organization. This team has a major problem. The Rangers have 74 goals in 48 games at even strength.

I don't disagree with this but trading Girardi for a pick doesn't help this.

A.) It creates a hole at 1st pairing right D which is a LOT harder to fill than a top 6 forward.
B.) It gives us, more than likely, a 1st round draft pick which guarantees absolutely nothing. Unless we're getting a top 5 pick, which isn't happening, it's a shot in the dark.

 

[eco's bones]

HF got blasted by a lot of Rangers posters here for the Rangers being so low on the prospect rankings. No goalies in the system. No real power forwards except for maybe Miller who has good size and a bit of orneriness but not great size. No pwp qb defenseman on the way. Best prospect outside the pros may be Brady Skjei who is a stay at home left side D--one of our strongest areas. Kristo is a smallish skilled player--maybe a 2nd liner some day--may be a bust because he sure doesn't fit the profile of well rounded grinder. Lindberg and Fast are more rounded players but have not set the world on fire in the AHL either. Allen looks like he's about ready and McIlrath less so. Hrivik and Yogan have just disappeared this year. Rounding out the amateur end--Buchnevich has had a good year but is signed to his KHL team next year and it may be a while if he comes over at all. Duclair--lots of speed, lots of skill, not a lot of size--plays in the Q--IMO the most suspect of the CHL leagues and Nieves who's done very little this year.

The cupboard is kind of bare. We need more draft picks for sure but IMO we need more legit young prospects at the AHL level even worse. Our Hartford team is just about dead last in the AHL standings. Not a good environment for your best prospects to be playing in.

 

[eco's bones]

I don't disagree with this but trading Girardi for a pick doesn't help this.

A.) It creates a hole at 1st pairing right D which is a LOT harder to fill than a top 6 forward.
B.) It gives us, more than likely, a 1st round draft pick which guarantees absolutely nothing. Unless we're getting a top 5 pick, which isn't happening, it's a shot in the dark.

Which is true as well. Girardi would more likely be traded to a legit contending team--any 1st rounder he brought back would be at the back end of the round with a decent chance of busting. IMO if you trade him you still have the right side hole which GM GS will probably look to fill when free agent season opens in July and is likely to be as costly in terms of money and term to replace Girardi with someone probably not as good. So the asset you get back had better be really good.

IMO if we dealt Girardi the Rangers would need at least one of the acquiring team's 3 best prospects back + something else. And if the Rangers dealt Girardi--no team including the Penguins should be off the table. Same deal with Callahan.

Personally I think this is going to be strung out until March. Where the Rangers sit in the standings at that point is going to determine whether the Rangers move the upcoming UFA's or not.

 

[GAGLine]

I don't disagree with this but trading Girardi for a pick doesn't help this.

A.) It creates a hole at 1st pairing right D which is a LOT harder to fill than a top 6 forward.
B.) It gives us, more than likely, a 1st round draft pick which guarantees absolutely nothing. Unless we're getting a top 5 pick, which isn't happening, it's a shot in the dark.

That's why you don't trade him for just picks. The target should be young roster players who have yet to break out and/or prospects who are ready to break into the NHL.

Stop gaps can be signed to fill holes until younger players are ready to fill those spots, but we need to add more young talent.

 

[True Blue]

Careful, you're coming awfully close to having a long-term vision.

Funny that

 

[CharlieCharleschuk]

I don't disagree with this but trading Girardi for a pick doesn't help this.

A.) It creates a hole at 1st pairing right D which is a LOT harder to fill than a top 6 forward.
B.) It gives us, more than likely, a 1st round draft pick which guarantees absolutely nothing. Unless we're getting a top 5 pick, which isn't happening, it's a shot in the dark.

You get it. Thank you.

 

[CharlieCharleschuk]

That's why you don't trade him for just picks. The target should be young roster players who have yet to break out and/or prospects who are ready to break into the NHL.

Stop gaps can be signed to fill holes until younger players are ready to fill those spots, but we need to add more young talent.

Then you should probably use fungible talent like any of our 2C level centers or right wingers to accomplish that. We only have one Girardi.

 

[SingnBluesOnBroadway]

I'm pretty sure that "having long-term vision" doesn't guarantee that any players coming back will develop into what you already have, never mind hoping that they'll be better.

And then there's the cap space issue. If you're concerned about Girardi's potential cap hit, what's going to replace it? Surely it gets spent on something else that amuses and disgusts over the next few seasons until the young prospect can get a chance to prove himself.

You know, in the 20+ years I've been watching this team, I've seen only a handful of really talented kids come up and develop in the system and stay with the team. I'm a bird-in-the-hand kind of guy after watching prospect after prospect flame out. Ryan McDonagh is not a typical outcome.

Having a long-term vision means:

- Looking at this team as it's currently constructed and asking a hard questions and answering them honestly (without puffery, no sound bites, no propaganda). Questions such as,

• "How does this team stack up against the top teams in the league?"
• "As currently constructed will we be able to truly compete for a Cup in the next two years?"
• "Are we really that much better with Dan Girardi and Ryan Callahan than we would be without him?"
• "What is the real upside of players such as Dan Girardi and Ryan Callahan?"
• "If you choose to re-sign these two players, are you paying them for what they've done or what they will give you moving forward?"
• "If you choose to re-sign these two players, are you really getting value from those cap hits?"

Unfortunately, to truly answer those questions you need to look beyond the season right in front of you. And this front office has shown no ability, desire or willingness to do that.

Is there a guarantee that any return for Girardi would develop into a player like Girardi? Of course not. But I'm not sure that's the goal. Instead, the goal is to add players who will be adding value to this team for the next 5+ years as they enter their prime. And you do that by stockpile picks and prospects to give yourself a better chance to find the next crop of core players or can be traded to add missing pieces at the NHL level. Build a team that can be viewed as a true contender not this nonsense, revolving door of UFAs that ultimately leads to a middle of the road team that might be able to steal a round on the play offer. BUT, IN ORDER TO DO THAT, THEY MUST..

- Put in the hard work and find talent, dammit. Find the players you try to acquire; players you target in the draft, players you think are hidden gems in other organizations players you sign as Free Agents.

- Creating a team philosophy and identity and then making moves around that ethos.

You can talk about how many prospects have flamed out. How much success have you seen in spending big money on UFAs?

 

[CharlieCharleschuk]

Having a long-term vision means:

- Looking at this team as it's currently constructed and asking a hard questions and answering them honestly (without puffery, no sound bites, no propaganda). Questions such as,

• "How does this team stack up against the top teams in the league?"
• "As currently constructed will we be able to truly compete for a Cup in the next two years?"
• "Are we really that much better with Dan Girardi and Ryan Callahan than we would be without him?"
• "What is the real upside of players such as Dan Girardi and Ryan Callahan?"
• "If you choose to re-sign these two players, are you paying them for what they've done or what they will give you moving forward?"
• "If you choose to re-sign these two players, are you really getting value from those cap hits?"

Unfortunately, to truly answer those questions you need to look beyond the season right in front of you. And this front office has shown no ability, desire or willingness to do that.

Is there a guarantee that any return for Girardi would develop into a player like Girardi? Of course not. But I'm not sure that's the goal. Instead, the goal is to add players who will be adding value to this team for the next 5+ years as they enter their prime. And you do that by stockpile picks and prospects to give yourself a better chance to find the next crop of core players or can be traded to add missing pieces at the NHL level. Build a team that can be viewed as a true contender not this nonsense, revolving door of UFAs that ultimately leads to a middle of the road team that might be able to steal a round on the play offer. BUT, IN ORDER TO DO THAT, THEY MUST..

- Put in the hard work and find talent, dammit. Find the players you try to acquire; players you target in the draft, players you think are hidden gems in other organizations players you sign as Free Agents.

- Creating a team philosophy and identity and then making moves around that ethos.

You can talk about how many prospects have flamed out. How much success have you seen in spending big money on UFAs?

I don't think your evaluation of the front office (FO) is correct, to start with. Your evaluation of their performance really doesn't look past their long-term record to see what they've done recently with an eye to the future; this is something I've noted about posters in threads like this before, actually.

The signing of Henrik Lundqvist to a long-term contract is the most recent indication that this front office has a pretty long-term plan based on certain players and a certain philosophy. It meshes with the signings of Richards and McDonagh and the trade for Nash. It means they're pursuing a goal which remains unnoticed on this message board by many - it means they don't want to tank and it means they don't want to stock up on prospects and cellar-dwell.

You can easily find fault with any one of these moves. But whatever your feelings about them it shows that the FO is not of the opinion that our team is not a contender and that it should be ripped apart. It is not a FO that is looking for future talent outside of the organization, it's looking at established players.

Even the hiring of AV indicates that the FO feels that the team was just on the wrong footing, maybe embracing the wrong philosophy, rather than truly a bad team. You know what? Maybe they were right. Despite early-season growing pains, if the recent good play continues, we'll all be singing their praises in a month or two. Maybe you're just missing what's already happened right in front of you?

Knowing this, I feel it's even kind of worthless to have this discussion, because all the signs about what the FO will do are already there.

Is your (general) idea better than the FO's? Maybe. Probably not. I certainly wouldn't institute a "two-year" rule to win the Cup. It's unachievable and would result in biannual roster churn that would leave us looking like Edmonton and the Islanders.

And are we that much better with Callahan and Girardi, you ask? Depends what you substitute for them. If you swap them with Ovechkin and Webber than no. But if you swap them for two prospects who haven't played in the NHL you won't know how good they are for probably more than two years, and the answer may still be no. Oh, and Girardi and Callahan would probably still be playing at fine levels. Lastly, if we do trade Girardi to the Pens, say, then three years from now, after we've given up on another prospect because of the two-year rule, he'll probably have a SC ring on his finger or two.

Like I said, it's not about a hard and fast rule. Girardi brings more to our team as a whole with his presence than I think Callahan does. The appearance in our lineup of Miller and Zuccarello make Callahan more expendable.

Now, of course, if Girardi and Sather can't reach an agreement on terms, then he should be traded for the best available offer. But this would really hurt our team, unfortunately. Give them a chance to hash it out.

(And I've always despised UFAs. I don't like the inverse money/effort thing they do. But if you can't ice a team because you've only got prospects in your pipeline, you need to sign them...unfortunately.)

 

[SingnBluesOnBroadway]

I don't think your evaluation of the front office (FO) is correct, to start with. Your evaluation of their performance really doesn't look past their long-term record to see what they've done recently with an eye to the future; this is something I've noted about posters in threads like this before, actually.

The signing of Henrik Lundqvist to a long-term contract is the most recent indication that this front office has a pretty long-term plan based on certain players and a certain philosophy. It meshes with the signings of Richards and McDonagh and the trade for Nash. It means they're pursuing a goal which remains unnoticed on this message board by many - it means they don't want to tank and it means they don't want to stock up on prospects and cellar-dwell.

You can easily find fault with any one of these moves. But whatever your feelings about them it shows that the FO is not of the opinion that our team is not a contender and that it should be ripped apart. It is not a FO that is looking for future talent outside of the organization, it's looking at established players.

Even the hiring of AV indicates that the FO feels that the team was just on the wrong footing, maybe embracing the wrong philosophy, rather than truly a bad team. You know what? Maybe they were right. Despite early-season growing pains, if the recent good play continues, we'll all be singing their praises in a month or two. Maybe you're just missing what's already happened right in front of you?

Knowing this, I feel it's even kind of worthless to have this discussion, because all the signs about what the FO will do are already there.

Is your (general) idea better than the FO's? Maybe. Probably not. I certainly wouldn't institute a "two-year" rule to win the Cup. It's unachievable and would result in biannual roster churn that would leave us looking like Edmonton and the Islanders.

And are we that much better with Callahan and Girardi, you ask? Depends what you substitute for them. If you swap them with Ovechkin and Webber than no. But if you swap them for two prospects who haven't played in the NHL you won't know how good they are for probably more than two years, and the answer may still be no. Oh, and Girardi and Callahan would probably still be playing at fine levels. Lastly, if we do trade Girardi to the Pens, say, then three years from now, after we've given up on another prospect because of the two-year rule, he'll probably have a SC ring on his finger or two.

Like I said, it's not about a hard and fast rule. Girardi brings more to our team as a whole with his presence than I think Callahan does. The appearance in our lineup of Miller and Zuccarello make Callahan more expendable.

Now, of course, if Girardi and Sather can't reach an agreement on terms, then he should be traded for the best available offer. But this would really hurt our team, unfortunately. Give them a chance to hash it out.

(And I've always despised UFAs. I don't like the inverse money/effort thing they do. But if you can't ice a team because you've only got prospects in your pipeline, you need to sign them...unfortunately.)

I understand the FO doesn't share my opinion. I'm saying they're wrong. I'll gladly eat crow should they win the Cup in the next two years.

 

[Ail]

I don't think your evaluation of the front office (FO) is correct, to start with. Your evaluation of their performance really doesn't look past their long-term record to see what they've done recently with an eye to the future; this is something I've noted about posters in threads like this before, actually.

The signing of Henrik Lundqvist to a long-term contract is the most recent indication that this front office has a pretty long-term plan based on certain players and a certain philosophy. It meshes with the signings of Richards and McDonagh and the trade for Nash. It means they're pursuing a goal which remains unnoticed on this message board by many - it means they don't want to tank and it means they don't want to stock up on prospects and cellar-dwell.

You can easily find fault with any one of these moves. But whatever your feelings about them it shows that the FO is not of the opinion that our team is not a contender and that it should be ripped apart. It is not a FO that is looking for future talent outside of the organization, it's looking at established players.

Even the hiring of AV indicates that the FO feels that the team was just on the wrong footing, maybe embracing the wrong philosophy, rather than truly a bad team. You know what? Maybe they were right. Despite early-season growing pains, if the recent good play continues, we'll all be singing their praises in a month or two. Maybe you're just missing what's already happened right in front of you?

Knowing this, I feel it's even kind of worthless to have this discussion, because all the signs about what the FO will do are already there.

Is your (general) idea better than the FO's? Maybe. Probably not. I certainly wouldn't institute a "two-year" rule to win the Cup. It's unachievable and would result in biannual roster churn that would leave us looking like Edmonton and the Islanders.

And are we that much better with Callahan and Girardi, you ask? Depends what you substitute for them. If you swap them with Ovechkin and Webber than no. But if you swap them for two prospects who haven't played in the NHL you won't know how good they are for probably more than two years, and the answer may still be no. Oh, and Girardi and Callahan would probably still be playing at fine levels. Lastly, if we do trade Girardi to the Pens, say, then three years from now, after we've given up on another prospect because of the two-year rule, he'll probably have a SC ring on his finger or two.

Like I said, it's not about a hard and fast rule. Girardi brings more to our team as a whole with his presence than I think Callahan does. The appearance in our lineup of Miller and Zuccarello make Callahan more expendable.

Now, of course, if Girardi and Sather can't reach an agreement on terms, then he should be traded for the best available offer. But this would really hurt our team, unfortunately. Give them a chance to hash it out.

(And I've always despised UFAs. I don't like the inverse money/effort thing they do. But if you can't ice a team because you've only got prospects in your pipeline, you need to sign them...unfortunately.)

I can't take you seriously if you believe with any sincerity that a.) Glen Sather has some kind of long-term plan of success and b.) that the team is emerging from growing pains (lol) and we'll be sing their praises soon because surely they will be Cup contenders.

I won't be singing the praises of this roster anytime soon.

You seem to have trouble accepting the idea that maybe, just maybe Sather and co. just aren't as smart as you think they might be. Also the opinion we harbor is not some wild fanatical idea that over-zealous fans concocted to bring their team to the promised land. It is a recipe for success that has been used post lock-out by winning teams.

You're right abourt one thing. Management doesn't want to go that road to win and the goal they are persuing is short-sighted as well as self-destructive. That is not on lost on many people here at all. In fact it is the elephant in the room. I'm not sure how you could mistake this goal as a long-term vision for the franchise.

 

[Ail]

I understand the FO doesn't share my opinion. I'm saying they're wrong. I'll gladly eat crow should they win the Cup in the next two years.

I'll set the table if BRB does the dishes after.

 

[CharlieCharleschuk]

I understand the FO doesn't share my opinion. I'm saying they're wrong. I'll gladly eat crow should they win the Cup in the next two years.

I think that's entirely unrealistic and would the FO share your opinion, the hockey at MSG will be consistently much worse than we've been accustomed to.

 

[CharlieCharleschuk]

I can't take you seriously if you believe with any sincerity that a.) Glen Sather has some kind of long-term plan of success and b.) that the team is emerging from growing pains (lol) and we'll be sing their praises soon because surely they will be Cup contenders.

I won't be singing the praises of this roster anytime soon.

You seem to have trouble accepting the idea that maybe, just maybe Sather and co. just aren't as smart as you think they might be. Also the opinion we harbor is not some wild fanatical idea that over-zealous fans concocted to bring their team to the promised land. It is a recipe for success that has been used post lock-out by winning teams.

You're right abourt one thing. Management doesn't want to go that road to win and the goal they are persuing is short-sighted as well as self-destructive. That is not on lost on many people here at all. In fact it is the elephant in the room. I'm not sure how you could mistake this goal as a long-term vision for the franchise.

You just keep dreaming then. There are several players signed to long-term contracts that instruct you as to the intention of the FO.

They will continue to build this team to compete on a yearly basis. That's all.

So much for your conspiracy-theory tainted elephant.

 

[Ail]

I think that's entirely unrealistic and would the FO share your opinion, the hockey at MSG will be consistently much worse than we've been accustomed to.

It might be but for how long?

See, that's the difference here. Some of us are willing to take the plunge for a season or two if it means getting out of this endless loop of mediocrity. It's clear you and Sather are kindred spirits.

 

[Ola]

I understand the FO doesn't share my opinion. I'm saying they're wrong. I'll gladly eat crow should they win the Cup in the next two years.

And if we make the deals and don't win a cup in two years?

 

[Ail]

You just keep dreaming then. There are several players signed to long-term contracts that instruct you as to the intention of the FO.

They will continue to build this team to compete on a yearly basis. That's all.

So much for your conspiracy-theory tainted elephant.

I will keep dreaming since it is all I have left with this team.

Conspiracy theory? You just said yourself they will continue to build this team on a year to year basis.

 

[BarbaraAlphanse]

I will keep dreaming since it is all I have left with this team.

Conspiracy theory? You just said yourself they will continue to build this team on a year to year basis.

I'll just call you "de la lune" from now on.

Ailurophile Pouloit.

 

[Ail]

And if we make the deals and don't win a cup in two years?

Are we any worse off than we are now? I sincerely doubt it.

Also, they don't have to win the Cup in two years as long as they are progressing towards that goal and building towards something.

 

[Ail]

I'll just call you "de la lune" from now on.

Ailurophile Pouloit.

Konjots pls

Wat?