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

[Tawnos]

Let's see what happens this second half.

Careful with that. The element that you are mostly arguing against can't stand the thought of waiting, as if it really makes a difference on this season either way.

There's quite a lot of pie in the sky thinking on these boards... really from both sides. On one side, we have the people who wants to "stay the course" by resigning Girardi and Callahan, because we can't replace them, and tweak the team in minor or major ways for next season. On the other side, there's people who want to blow the whole thing up and rebuild.

The truth is somewhere in the middle, as usual.

There are major flaws to this organization. Girardi and Callahan represent assets that can be used to try to address some of those major flaws. They are assets that are aging, maybe have played their best hockey, and are potentially leaving anyway. If one, or both, has stated his intention with you to test the UFA waters, they should be dealt. It's good asset management. That's the problem with the stay the course. It doesn't make a ton of sense from a roster-building standpoint.

On the other hand, the "blow it up" crowd is mostly just railing at the mandate that comes with running the Rangers, which is to be competitive and bring the owner playoff revenue every season, and generally he'll leave you alone. The sacrifice of playoff games now for more playoff games one year or another isn't ever going to be in the cards. Given the nature of the NHL and how hard it is to win it all in a 30 team league, I totally get the idea that, from a risk management standpoint, the competition mandate is a good play to call when your goal, as the owner, is to make money.

The puzzle is how to balance the two sides and find some ultimate success. It's hard. Harder than a lot of people on here want to admit.

 

[Boruto]

Vinny Viola bought the Panthers. He is a New Yorker. I think he was a Rangers season ticket holder. He put his own Travis into a management role with that team. VP of Hockey Operations.

Viola put his Manhattan home on the market recently for $114M

http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/real-estate/buy-expensive-home-article-1.1551818

You can see those guys going for Callahan this July.

No state income tax in Florida. $6M in Florida is more than $6M in New York.

The state of Washington has no state income tax either. Cano will be benefiting from that.

Want to three way that $114M house between you me and -31-?

I make great waffles.

 

[Boruto]

Dan Girardi is worth more on the trade deadline market than he is with us. The trouble of RHD can be solved through alternative measures. I would post a hoard of stats that blueblooded has posted but I can't find it. The years of playin with Marc Staal at his prime and McDonagh at his dominance really makes him look like gold to outside buyers. It'd be silly if Glen doesn't see that he is going to be overvalued and Glen can deal the "#2" d man for something worth more. Teams are aware that we have the ability to resign both players so we won't be leveraged against that. Just on value wise, I don't think the valuation of Girardi and Callahan are the same. Both are looking at same money and term. Girardi's lack of puck handling, out letting, transition game is evident and his defensive game which can be prone to bone headed mistakes is not worth the money or the term.

 

[BobMarleyNYR]

YUP. Time for a change. Both g Save now, benefit not much later. I'd stake my life on Sather's trading record.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

Careful with that. The element that you are mostly arguing against can't stand the thought of waiting

I dont know if you are being purposely obtuse with this. Most of us have slogged through Sather's 14 years. How much longer should we be waiting? We know how this movie ends -- with an early round exit and more questions than answers in the off-season. After all this time Im not at all interested in hitting the re-set button every season just to "see what happens."

This season in particular, with all of the free agents, makes it even more imperative to act pragmatically very very soon.

 

[SingnBluesOnBroadway]

This is where I stand, again: if Girardi would deign to resign here I would hope we resign him. If he tells Glen he's not interested I would expect that they trade him.

Tough to understand, eh?

Nope. Pretty easy to understand. Wishy-washy, but certainly easy to understand.

 

[Ail]

This is where I stand, again: if Girardi would deign to resign here I would hope we resign him. If he tells Glen he's not interested I would expect that they trade him.

Tough to understand, eh?

Okay, we get that, but what is your stance for the identity and plan for this team's long-term success going forward?

What do they do after they re-sign Girardi and Callahan to albatross contracts? Do they trade young assets for rentals to have yet another exercise in futility this post-season?

What about next year, and every year going forward that those two are signed?

Can you please just admit that you're okay with the status-quo as a whole, because that's what the re-signing of Girardi and Callahan represent. Tough to understand, eh?

 

[Ail]

Careful with that. The element that you are mostly arguing against can't stand the thought of waiting, as if it really makes a difference on this season either way.

There's quite a lot of pie in the sky thinking on these boards... really from both sides. On one side, we have the people who wants to "stay the course" by resigning Girardi and Callahan, because we can't replace them, and tweak the team in minor or major ways for next season. On the other side, there's people who want to blow the whole thing up and rebuild.

The truth is somewhere in the middle, as usual.

There are major flaws to this organization. Girardi and Callahan represent assets that can be used to try to address some of those major flaws. They are assets that are aging, maybe have played their best hockey, and are potentially leaving anyway. If one, or both, has stated his intention with you to test the UFA waters, they should be dealt. It's good asset management. That's the problem with the stay the course. It doesn't make a ton of sense from a roster-building standpoint.

On the other hand, the "blow it up" crowd is mostly just railing at the mandate that comes with running the Rangers, which is to be competitive and bring the owner playoff revenue every season, and generally he'll leave you alone. The sacrifice of playoff games now for more playoff games one year or another isn't ever going to be in the cards. Given the nature of the NHL and how hard it is to win it all in a 30 team league, I totally get the idea that, from a risk management standpoint, the competition mandate is a good play to call when your goal, as the owner, is to make money.

The puzzle is how to balance the two sides and find some ultimate success. It's hard. Harder than a lot of people on here want to admit.

It's harder than re-signing Girardi and Callahan, trading for rentals and hoping this team goes in to god mode for a month and 1/2. Which is exactly why Glen Sather won't do it. He doesn't like hard.

 

[NGgator60]

Careful with that. The element that you are mostly arguing against can't stand the thought of waiting, as if it really makes a difference on this season either way.

There's quite a lot of pie in the sky thinking on these boards... really from both sides. On one side, we have the people who wants to "stay the course" by resigning Girardi and Callahan, because we can't replace them, and tweak the team in minor or major ways for next season. On the other side, there's people who want to blow the whole thing up and rebuild.

The truth is somewhere in the middle, as usual.

There are major flaws to this organization. Girardi and Callahan represent assets that can be used to try to address some of those major flaws. They are assets that are aging, maybe have played their best hockey, and are potentially leaving anyway. If one, or both, has stated his intention with you to test the UFA waters, they should be dealt. It's good asset management. That's the problem with the stay the course. It doesn't make a ton of sense from a roster-building standpoint.

On the other hand, the "blow it up" crowd is mostly just railing at the mandate that comes with running the Rangers, which is to be competitive and bring the owner playoff revenue every season, and generally he'll leave you alone. The sacrifice of playoff games now for more playoff games one year or another isn't ever going to be in the cards. Given the nature of the NHL and how hard it is to win it all in a 30 team league, I totally get the idea that, from a risk management standpoint, the competition mandate is a good play to call when your goal, as the owner, is to make money.

The puzzle is how to balance the two sides and find some ultimate success. It's hard. Harder than a lot of people on here want to admit.

There is a dichotomy of discussion here; some folks are discussing what they fell should happen and some folks seem to be responding to what they feel will happen. I understand that the action plan will most likely lay somewhere in the middle, that is the path of lesser resistance of course and jobs infrequently are lost by erring on the side of safety, however I'd like for management to "blow it up".

In my opinion, doing much of anything half-heartedly out of caution leads to failure at both ends of the spectrum, both the short and long-term consequences. Making major moves now:

A) addresses the issues more immediately rather than allowing short-term team performance to cloud the reality of the holistic long-term trajectory of the team

B) allows the new core of the Rangers more opportunity to understand and develop within their new role within the organization going forward

C) leverages the reality of the situation by securing what should be a higher collection of draft picks as a result of what we'd presume to be a worse position in this season's standings after losing mature talent

I'd argue that all of the above has the ability of adding value to the long-term direction of the Rangers in contrast to waiting it out but I really do want to emphazise that many of us share a greatest fear of having the Rangers roll off a semi-impressive run which convinces management of holding course (or worse yet, buying) only to make the playoffs and get eliminated within the first round or so. The fear of that possibility is reinforced each game and every day of inaction.

 

[Tawnos]

I dont know if you are being purposely obtuse with this. Most of us have slogged through Sather's 14 years. How much longer should we be waiting? We know how this movie ends -- with an early round exit and more questions than answers in the off-season. After all this time Im not at all interested in hitting the re-set button every season just to "see what happens."

This season in particular, with all of the free agents, makes it even more imperative to act pragmatically very very soon.

I meant for the few weeks until the deadline, and I was poking fun at you guys. I meant it in good humor... should've put a smiley.

It's harder than re-signing Girardi and Callahan, trading for rentals and hoping this team goes in to god mode for a month and 1/2. Which is exactly why Glen Sather won't do it. He doesn't like hard.

Like I said...

 

[Orr Nightmare]

Trade away...Moore, Boyle, Cally, Giradi, Stralman and DZ, you would get a Kings ransom...we haven't won **** in 20 years and are no closer.

Fire Sather and his entire staff. I always thought Groton was responsible for Lucic and Chara but then I read he was following the current GM orders which makes 100% sense, I was drinking the kool aid I guess.

Enough with taking a risk on the 5'9 players and take risks on the 6'3 tough as nails and hard to play against players.

25 years of watching the same type of player rolling in and out is sickening.

I would raid Ducks, Sharks, Hawks, Kings, Blues, Bruins, Pens front office and offer them more money than the are currently making to take over.

Players talk about the Rangers as a "storied" franchise..that is a ****ing joke...4 cups in 90 years is pathetic...

Stan Bowman changed the culture in Chicago and made them into powerhouse.

You know what will happen...we will trade draft picks for some ******** rental..make playoffs and then lose...like we always do.

7 years of no playoffs has created a culture in New York that if you make the playoffs now it is a productive year.

The biggest issue...we have a owner that could careless about hockey...Sather has lost millions upon millions of dollars but Dolan is so ****ing dumb he doesn't care.

 

[Tawnos]

There is a dichotomy of discussion here; some folks are discussing what they fell should happen and some folks seem to be responding to what they feel will happen. I understand that the action plan will most likely lay somewhere in the middle, that is the path of lesser resistance of course and jobs infrequently are lost by erring on the side of safety, however I'd like for management to "blow it up".

In my opinion, doing much of anything half-heartedly out of caution leads to failure at both ends of the spectrum, both the short and long-term consequences. Making major moves now:

A) addresses the issues more immediately rather than allowing short-term team performance to cloud the reality of the holistic long-term trajectory of the team

B) allows the new core of the Rangers more opportunity to understand and develop within their new role within the organization going forward

C) leverages the reality of the situation by securing what should be a higher collection of draft picks as a result of what we'd presume to be a worse position in this season's standings after losing mature talent

I'd argue that all of the above has the ability of adding value to the long-term direction of the Rangers in contrast to waiting it out but I really do want to emphazise that many of us share a greatest fear of having the Rangers roll off a semi-impressive run which convinces management of holding course (or worse yet, buying) only to make the playoffs and get eliminated within the first round or so. The fear of that possibility is reinforced each game and every day of inaction.

I have no problem with the idea of blowing up for a rebuild. The misconception, though, is that when an organization doesn't blow up a team with flaws, that they're somehow making a mistake or "erring on the side of caution" as you put it. Management doesn't blow it up because they're, or he is, still beholden to the mandate from the top. That is the reality that Sather has to work in. Would I prefer someone else to be working in that framework? Yes, of course I would. Sather has had his chance to strike the balance and he's failed. Repeatedly. I'd like to see him fired, but I wouldn't expect, or really even ask, the new GM to try to strike a difference balance. He'd be trying to strike the same one. Maybe he'd be better at it, maybe he wouldn't. I do believe that that balance exists though. It isn't the path of least resistance. In my view, it's a tightrope walk.

Making major moves now might do everything you're saying it would. Or it might not. People would be more comfortable with us trying... but I, for one, never live in fear of my team winning hockey games.

 

[ArPanet]

Trade Callahan, keep Girard, trade Staal in the summer.

 

[ltrangerfan]

There is a dichotomy of discussion here; some folks are discussing what they fell should happen and some folks seem to be responding to what they feel will happen. I understand that the action plan will most likely lay somewhere in the middle, that is the path of lesser resistance of course and jobs infrequently are lost by erring on the side of safety, however I'd like for management to "blow it up".

In my opinion, doing much of anything half-heartedly out of caution leads to failure at both ends of the spectrum, both the short and long-term consequences. Making major moves now:

A) addresses the issues more immediately rather than allowing short-term team performance to cloud the reality of the holistic long-term trajectory of the team

B) allows the new core of the Rangers more opportunity to understand and develop within their new role within the organization going forward

C) leverages the reality of the situation by securing what should be a higher collection of draft picks as a result of what we'd presume to be a worse position in this season's standings after losing mature talent

I'd argue that all of the above has the ability of adding value to the long-term direction of the Rangers in contrast to waiting it out but I really do want to emphazise that many of us share a greatest fear of having the Rangers roll off a semi-impressive run which convinces management of holding course (or worse yet, buying) only to make the playoffs and get eliminated within the first round or so. The fear of that possibility is reinforced each game and every day of inaction.

"Blow it up"? Sure. Why not?

I've been a tix holder for over 20 years. I paid $19 per seat my first season. My total bill was around $1600 for the season. Selling seats was no problem at that price point. A father could take his child for $38/game with my tix. I saw the cup but also saw many poor teams that followed. I never thought twice about the cost of the tix.

Fast forward to today. I now pay $100 / per seat or almost $9000 per year. Of course, the bulk of the increase has come over the past few years. I now carry the seats with an eye on the exit. I'm barely hanging onto the subscription. Next year if prices stay the same add another 10% onto the price when exhibition games are factored in. I am really considering dropping the seats for the first time since I've had them. I stay since the team is somewhat competitive. Blow the team up so I can pay to watch AHL hockey for a number of years before the team builds a foundation and prospers? Sure, go ahead. I receive a very good cable feed so I can still enjoy the games. I'll surely drop my subscription but I'm sure one of the other 20,000 fans in NY will be happy to replace me.

IMO the tix are no longer priced to spend years on a rebuild. What level will the merchandise and ratings play to?

Is my thought unique?

 

[alkurtz]

Like many of the more sane fans here on the boards, I'm ambivalent about what to do about Girardi. I understand the long term implications of trading him as well as the desire and need, to keep him.

It's not going to be an easy call for Sather. If the Rangers are in the position there are now, a bubble playoff team, I don't think Sather will move him. Not making the playoffs is the definition of a non-successful year. I can't see us making any moves that will make us weaker and possibly cost us the playoffs.

I like Dan Girardi. Teams try for years to develop players like him: smart, experienced, ice-time leader, never hurt. Although he will likely never have a season as he had a few years ago when he was an all-star, likely his peak year, he is still a legit, first pair, right side D. Sure he makes mistakes, all defensemen do, but I feel too many here undervalue what he is and what he brings to the table. I know some here feel that he has benefited by playing with other D who are more talented (Staal, McD). My feeling is not that they have made him better, but that he has made them better.

Although I'm not completely convinced that keeping him is the way to go, a case can be made that signing him to say, a five year, 6 million dollar a year contract, is a wise decision. Certainly, with the cap going up substantially (worries about the Canadian dollar not withstanding) we can afford it.

Here's why and it's something I noticed with free agents in baseball this winter. Teams are willing to sign mid-level, non-elite players around the age of 30, is medium length contracts of 4-6 years. The teams know that they will not get full worth over the entire length of the contract and are willing to live with declining production in the final two years of a contract on the gamble that they will get 3-4 good years. in a market where talent is by definition scarce, "eating" the last few years of a contract is the cost of maximizing performance in the short term. We could sign Girardi for five years, expecting that we will get three good years from him. Girardi is just the kind of intelligent D that can still be successful as his skills erode. Some might say that this is a piss-poor way of doing business, but nothing about the sports landscape and player acquisition is logical.

Also: with the cap going up yearly, a player that you can get for 6 million now, will likely cost 6.5 million in a year, 7 million in two years, and 7.5 in three. So signing guys to these mid-term length contracts is a good investment. In the long term it keeps payroll down. If we trade Girardi and then feel the need to sign a top UFA defensemen in a few years, the cost will be higher than we can pay now.

If I'm Sather, I approach Girardi's agents and explore signing him to a mid-length contract at about 6 million a year. At the same time, I listen to offers from other teams. I would need to be blown away by an offer that will see my #1 pair right side D leave and hinder our making the playoffs for not only this year but the next also,

It's a tough call.

 

[Staxgod90]

The Rangers are telling teams that they are not going to move Dan Girardi and are focused on signing him to a contract extension. (Pierre LeBrun on TSN)

LeBrun says that the Rangers are confident at this point that their negotiations will lead to a new contract. (LeBrun)

On Ryan Callahan, LeBrun says that those negotiations are maybe not as far done the road as Girardi’s and he isn’t sure that the team can get both players signed but Girardi seems more likely.

 

[Raspewtin]

The Rangers are telling teams that they are not going to move Dan Girardi and are focused on signing him to a contract extension. (Pierre LeBrun on TSN)

LeBrun says that the Rangers are confident at this point that their negotiations will lead to a new contract. (LeBrun)

On Ryan Callahan, LeBrun says that those negotiations are maybe not as far done the road as Girardi’s and he isn’t sure that the team can get both players signed but Girardi seems more likely.

Link here : http://snyrangersblog.com/2013-14/2...hey-wont-trade-dan-girardi-and-will-sign-him/

Ugh.

 

[Ail]

Link here : http://snyrangersblog.com/2013-14/2...hey-wont-trade-dan-girardi-and-will-sign-him/

Ugh.

Puke.

 

[Staxgod90]

I'm really upset about this not gonna lie, we are stuck in the past

 

[Raspewtin]

I'm really upset about this not gonna lie, we are stuck in the past

This move just screams to me "Girardi wants more than were willing to give, so we're confident we can overpay for him before he hits the UFA market".

I expect a 6 x 7 contract to be announced right around the Olympic Break.

 

[Nightshift]

Hopefully Pierre has some bad info

 

[The Gloaming]

Oh Rongos. Never change.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

Link here : http://snyrangersblog.com/2013-14/2...hey-wont-trade-dan-girardi-and-will-sign-him/

Ugh.

Incidentally, it also tells Dan Girardi he better sign a ****ing contract soon.

 

[nsvoyageurs]

This would be doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.

Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

 

[GAGLine]

Hopefully it's either a ploy to drive the price up, or if it's true, the terms aren't too bad.