Rumor: Trade Rumor/Speculation Thread XIX: The Olympic Freeze

[Killem Dafoe]

I was implying that taking back Havlat would be considered a favor for San Jose. As in where they might offer Nieto for Callahan initially, if we are taking back Havlat as well then they would have to add more to the deal. Would that be worth it to us? Havlat is not nearly the player that Callahan is, but he could fill his minutes for now.

I understand that, I'm just sticking with my statement that Havlat would be a whipping boy here, and then some.

I could see Nieto being offered for Callahan, but I'm not sure how high I am personally on him. Especially if you throw in a 2nd. ( I think you said it turns into a first if SJ makes the finals or something along those lines) Unacceptable IMO.

There is no reason Callahan couldn't grab a 1st + prospect even as a rental.

He's so much more than goals. He's heart. A guy like that on the right club poised for a cup run could be beautiful. I think there's a team out there who will pay nicely for him. And like I said, if we can't get the value, let's keep him for our own potential cup run.

That's just my opinion.

 

[BarbaraAlphanse]

I'm sorry, but we've been through this round and round, and then suddenly we hit the Olympic break and mysteriously you're back to square one, going through the same arguments and asking us for the same justifications over and over. It's getting a little frustrating.

The goal is to build a consistent, perpetual contender. Contender means odds-on favorite. One of the 3-4 teams that OTHER teams talk about not wanting to have to go through to get the Cup, in the way we all talk about Boston and Pittsburgh and whichever of the Western Conf. powerhouses makes it to the finals.

Anyone else is relying on the fallacious old saw that "anything can happen" in the playoffs. This saying only applies in football where you have to win at most four games - and, in fact, the NHL playoffs are specifically designed to defeat this phenomenon, because they require you to play consistently superior hockey over an extended stretch of 16-28 games, virtually eliminating the chance to "get lucky" and beat better teams.

I believe we are not a contender based on our roster construction. We are WAY too weak down the middle and lacking offense from the blue line that I think we need. I am pleased that we appear to be a second tier team, but propping up even a second tier team by trading away assets is fool's gold. You should always build towards that true contender status until you get there. THEN you can look at win-now deals. Anything else is actually working against the best interest of the team because it's sacrificing assets that could help you get to true contender status in order to boost your 2% chance to 2.5%.

Of course there is no statistic I can give you, no proof, because I can't predict the future and having Nostradamus come here and tell you for a fact that the Rangers will lose in 6 in the 2nd round to Pittsburg on a goal by Neal appears to be the only "proof" you would accept. This is precisely the mindset of "anything can happen". I look at our roster, see holes, don't think we can stack up and think it we should therefore not make any deals that sacrifice futures for a one-time run that I believe to be ill-fated.

Does this make me a bad fan? No. It makes me a realistic one. Once the trading deadline passes and all that's left is playing the games, I'll be rooting for this team to win every single one. But when it comes to talking deals before the deadline (and then again after the season), any trade that doesn't improve the team long-term is a mistake and, in fact, counterproductive to what should be the long-term goal: building a contender.

I'm not insinuating you are a bad fan. Don't be sensitive.

I'm asking for your rationale behind saying that this year, we are not contenders.

The only reason you claimed we are not contenders is "being weak down the middle and little-no blue line offensive support".

There isn't one team build that will lead to a cup. Weak is a severe over statement. I'd say we're average. Moore is a dominant 4th line center. Boyle would be a dominant 4th line center. Brassard is below average, although on the 3rd line he's definitely closer to status-quo than he would be on the 2nd line. Richards and Stepan are pretty average with the ability to outperform other centers when they're on.

We made it to the ECF with weaker center play 2 years ago.

Our blue line will not give us much offensive support, but they support our wingers very well. Again, there is no roster formula or build up that will ensure a SCF birth.

I'm not talking about goal for next year and beyond. I'm talking about this year and ONLY this year. I asked you why we wouldn't be contenders for THIS year. That's it.

We have dominant wingers. Balanced offensive lines that match up well against any team we face. A dominant defense. A top 3 goalie. Top 10 PK and PP. Good team chemistry, finally! Resilience, finally! Consistent play, finally!

First, we're not contenders bc we play weak opponents and those aren't an indication of legit teams.

Next we're not contenders bc we're not built like the Bruins or Penguins and those teams will smoke us in a 7 game series.

Now we're not contenders bc we're weak down the middle and have no blue line offensive support.

Not convinced. Sorry.

 

[Thirty One]

I understand that, I'm just sticking with my statement that Havlat would be a whipping boy here, and then some.

MSG crowd hasn't had a whipping boy in a long time. They're getting lazy.

I could get around on the idea of Callahan at half his salary for Havlat at 2/3 his salary + lotsa picks/prospects.

 

[SauceCheese91]

How about Callahan and a mid-round pick for Antoine Vermette? I think he would fit us very well, and imo a very underrated player.

Really hoping this is a joke.

 

[Brooklyn Rangers Fan]

I'm not insinuating you are a bad fan. Don't be sensitive.

I'm asking for your rationale behind saying that this year, we are not contenders.

The only reason you claimed we are not contenders is "being weak down the middle and little-no blue line offensive support".

There isn't one team build that will lead to a cup. Weak is a severe over statement. I'd say we're average. Moore is a dominant 4th line center. Boyle would be a dominant 4th line center. Brassard is below average, although on the 3rd line he's definitely closer to status-quo than he would be on the 2nd line. Richards and Stepan are pretty average with the ability to outperform other centers when they're on.

We made it to the ECF with weaker center play 2 years ago.

Our blue line will not give us much offensive support, but they support our wingers very well. Again, there is no roster formula or build up that will ensure a SCF birth.

I'm not talking about goal for next year and beyond. I'm talking about this year and ONLY this year. I asked you why we wouldn't be contenders for THIS year. That's it.

We have dominant wingers. Balanced offensive lines that match up well against any team we face. A dominant defense. A top 3 goalie. Top 10 PK and PP. Good team chemistry, finally! Resilience, finally! Consistent play, finally!

First, we're not contenders bc we play weak opponents and those aren't an indication of legit teams.

Next we're not contenders bc we're not built like the Bruins or Penguins and those teams will smoke us in a 7 game series.

Now we're not contenders bc we're weak down the middle and have no blue line offensive support.

Not convinced. Sorry.

1) I'm not being sensitive, merely anticipating a critique often leveled at posters who aren't all-in, every year, no matter what. Please don't dismiss my post like that.

2) I believe there IS a formula. Read the post I referenced on the last post of the previous page.

3) The whole point is that you can't tell me to focus only on this year. I refuse to do so. I take the longer view. If you make trades to prop up this year's chances, you are making sacrifices against subsequent years' chances.

4) Regarding this year, I do not believe we are as good as the top 5-6 teams in the league, who I believe are a solid level ahead.


So, sum it up this way:

If you think we are just as good as Boston, Pittsburgh, Anaheim, etc., then we disagree on the talent level/construction of this squad and we can leave it there.

If you think we are not as good as those top 5-6 team, but think we should be going for it anyway, then I maintain that you are following a "anything can happen" approach and I vehemently disagree with your views on roster building and asset management. And I guess we can leave it there too.

 

[Ail]

Not convinced. Sorry.

You will be come June, so I'm not really worried about trying to convince you now.

 

[BarbaraAlphanse]

1) I'm not being sensitive, merely anticipating a critique often leveled at posters who aren't all-in, every year, no matter what. Please don't dismiss my post like that.

2) I believe there IS a formula. Read the post I referenced on the last post of the previous page.

3) The whole point is that you can't tell me to focus only on this year. I refuse to do so. I take the longer view. If you make trades to prop up this year's chances, you are making sacrifices against subsequent years' chances.

4) Regarding this year, I do not believe we are as good as the top 5-6 teams in the league, who I believe are a solid level ahead.


So, sum it up this way:

If you think we are just as good as Boston, Pittsburgh, Anaheim, etc., then we disagree on the talent level/construction of this squad and we can leave it there.

If you think we are not as good as those top 5-6 team, but think we should be going for it anyway, then I maintain that you are following a "anything can happen" approach and I vehemently disagree with your views on roster building and asset management. And I guess we can leave it there too.

I think we can respectfully agree to disagree, for the time being (we can reconvene at at the end of the year on the subject). I'll own up to being wrong if I am. There's a much higher chance i'm wrong than i'm right (1/16 chance i'm right vs the 15/16 chance i'm wrong).

I will address your first point, though. I did not dismiss your post. I respect your opinion, which is why I was asking your rationale.

I did however dismiss the part where you asked the rhetorical question of whether that made you a bad fan. I've never questioned the avidity of someone's fanship. You're a fan, we want the same end goal, just because you have a different opinion than the one that I have does not mean I consider you a bad fan - even if that means your opinion is to take 1 step back to take 2 steps forward.

That's why I did so. Sorry if that offended you.

 

[Inferno]

Really hoping this is a joke.

obviously....we should definitely be adding a first rounder.

 

[BarbaraAlphanse]

You will be come June, so I'm not really worried about trying to convince you now.

I'm arguing that we have a legitimate chance. You're arguing that we'll likely lose. We're arguing about two different things.

We could have a legitimate chance and still lose. As I said above, I have a much higher chance of being wrong 15/16 chance than right.

But we definitely have a chance. That's what this is all about, right? A chance to be the best? We have that. That's all i'm saying.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

I'm arguing that we have a legitimate chance. You're arguing that we'll likely lose. We're arguing about two different things.

We could have a legitimate chance and still lose. As I said above, I have a much higher chance of being wrong 15/16 chance than right.

But we definitely have a chance. That's what this is all about, right? A chance to be the best? We have that. That's all i'm saying.

Sure. Like Lloyd Christmas from dumb and dumber - theres a chance.

You've also been advocating keeping this team together, risking some truly terrible non-moves from an asset management perspective, and basically ignoring everything beyond that season -- all in the name of this low-probability chance.

 

[Brooklyn Rangers Fan]

I think we can respectfully agree to disagree, for the time being (we can reconvene at at the end of the year on the subject). I'll own up to being wrong if I am. There's a much higher chance i'm wrong than i'm right (1/16 chance i'm right vs the 15/16 chance i'm wrong).

I will address your first point, though. I did not dismiss your post. I respect your opinion, which is why I was asking your rationale.

I did however dismiss the part where you asked the rhetorical question of whether that made you a bad fan. I've never questioned the avidity of someone's fanship. You're a fan, we want the same end goal, just because you have a different opinion than the one that I have does not mean I consider you a bad fan - even if that means your opinion is to take 1 step back to take 2 steps forward.

That's why I did so. Sorry if that offended you.

No worries at all - I'm not offended and we can indeed respectfully agree to disagree.

 

[BarbaraAlphanse]

Sure. Like Lloyd Christmas from dumb and dumber - theres a chance.

You've also been advocating keeping this team together, risking some truly terrible non-moves from an asset management perspective, and basically ignoring everything beyond that season -- all in the name of this low-probability chance.

I am advocating a direction. You are advocating a radical change.

People want to retool by trading off 4-5 guys. That's a rebuild.

In the beginning of the season I argued to trade Girardi and keep Callahan and call it a day. I've flip flopped my stance and am arguing to keep Girardi now and to trade Cally if his demands remain that high.

But what I am absolutely unwilling to do is making a trade for trades sake. I would not trade Callahan for the likes of Stewart or McGinn. That's idiotic. Stupid. Lacks ANY type of direction. It's more bandaids. More projects. More uncertainty.

So if Callahan can't yield a useful ****ing return - for example a 1c center prospect, a 1st round pick, or our future 2c... then i'd much rather keep him and take a chance on this season.

Stewart is not a useful return. McGinn + Barrie is not a useful return.

We need value coming back. We need a difference maker. Cally isn't a "3rd line tweener". For 3-4 years he carried the team on his back game in and game out in terms of energy. Whoever comes back has to provide that type of energy in some form or another. Stewart can't, he dissapears for 10 game stretches. McGinn can't, he has a lower offensive potential and lower motor than Cally.

What you're advocating to do is set your bar low, bandaid Cally with something average.

I completely disagree, and under that pretense, yes I would rather keep Cally and lose him for absolutely nothing.

 

[Thirty One]

Sure. Like Lloyd Christmas from dumb and dumber - theres a chance.

You've also been advocating keeping this team together, risking some truly terrible non-moves from an asset management perspective, and basically ignoring everything beyond that season -- all in the name of this low-probability chance.

I'd rank this Ranger team's chances at far greater than 1 in 1,000,000, FWIW.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

I'd rank this Ranger team's chances at far greater than 1 in 1,000,000, FWIW.

Thank you. I need a #'s guy to fact check my hyperbole

 

[shoves]

Really hoping this is a joke.

Haha, i just checked his stats for the season... Yeah, that was a joke. How much you think they would want for him? Callahan + a 1st and some more? Maybe a prospect?
Ive been fanboying Vermette a couple of years now, still cant understand why the heck we didnt sign him at free agency in '12 or got him included in the Nash trade or something

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

I am advocating a direction. You are advocating a radical change.

People want to retool by trading off 4-5 guys. That's a rebuild.

In the beginning of the season I argued to trade Girardi and keep Callahan and call it a day. I've flip flopped my stance and am arguing to keep Girardi now and to trade Cally if his demands remain that high.

But what I am absolutely unwilling to do is making a trade for trades sake. I would not trade Callahan for the likes of Stewart or McGinn. That's idiotic. Stupid. Lacks ANY type of direction. It's more bandaids. More projects. More uncertainty.

So if Callahan can't yield a useful ****ing return - for example a 1c center prospect, a 1st round pick, or our future 2c... then i'd much rather keep him and take a chance on this season.

Stewart is not a useful return. McGinn + Barrie is not a useful return.

We need value coming back. We need a difference maker. Cally isn't a "3rd line tweener". For 3-4 years he carried the team on his back game in and game out in terms of energy. Whoever comes back has to provide that type of energy in some form or another. Stewart can't, he dissapears for 10 game stretches. McGinn can't, he has a lower offensive potential and lower motor than Cally.

What you're advocating to do is set your bar low, bandaid Cally with something average.

I completely disagree, and under that pretense, yes I would rather keep Cally and lose him for absolutely nothing.

Im pretty upset that you'd lump me and some other posters into the extreme video gamer types who want to make transaction after transaction because its "fun."

I am not advocating a radical change whatsoever. The Callahan situation is the one that looms much larger over the rest. Instead of going crazy over the return, I think its pretty damn important to get some sort of return instead of risking him walking for absolutely zilch in the summer, or succumbing to market forces and signing him to an insane deal.

Perhaps most importantly, I dont think this low-probability chance to make some real noise in the playoffs take a massive hit without Ryan Callahan

 

[Ail]

I am advocating a direction. You are advocating a radical change.

People want to retool by trading off 4-5 guys. That's a rebuild.

In the beginning of the season I argued to trade Girardi and keep Callahan and call it a day. I've flip flopped my stance and am arguing to keep Girardi now and to trade Cally if his demands remain that high.

But what I am absolutely unwilling to do is making a trade for trades sake. I would not trade Callahan for the likes of Stewart or McGinn. That's idiotic. Stupid. Lacks ANY type of direction. It's more bandaids. More projects. More uncertainty.

So if Callahan can't yield a useful ****ing return - for example a 1c center prospect, a 1st round pick, or our future 2c... then i'd much rather keep him and take a chance on this season.

Stewart is not a useful return. McGinn + Barrie is not a useful return.

We need value coming back. We need a difference maker. Cally isn't a "3rd line tweener". For 3-4 years he carried the team on his back game in and game out in terms of energy. Whoever comes back has to provide that type of energy in some form or another. Stewart can't, he dissapears for 10 game stretches. McGinn can't, he has a lower offensive potential and lower motor than Cally.

What you're advocating to do is set your bar low, bandaid Cally with something average.

I completely disagree, and under that pretense, yes I would rather keep Cally and lose him for absolutely nothing.

Four to five guys is not a rebuild when they are one or more of:

Square pegs in a round hole.

Pending UFA asking too much.

Replaceable from within.

Needing a change of scenery.

Worth more in a trade than on the roster.

Pending RFA who will get more than they're worth through arbitration.

DZ (traded), Callahan, Girardi, Brassard, Stralman. Those guys alone fit those descriptions. Cases could be made for others. You yourself said you think Hagelin is a bad fit (which I find highly disagreeable) and I don't think I've seen anyone else say that.

A rebuild is trading players away for several years consecutively who aren't in the plans going forward AND playing your way to lottery picks in the process.

You can turnover a roster and not be in a rebuild. I don't agree with doing it, but a rebuild isn't just trading away several players.

 

[HFsNumber1Heel]

Havlat would be the throw in. If the Rangers can get Nieto AND a 1st or 2nd for Cally and have to take Havlat back, you do it, no questions asked. You get a young asset plus a pick and take one injury prone guy back for one year at $5 million? No brainer.

Havlat and Nieto will make less than Cally next year.

Yes, Havlat would not be liked here but the dude is a throw in. He was once a very good player, but he's injury prone and warn down. Which is why next year he's be the super sub. You limit his minutes and games. It's only one season, this isn't Richards or Redden we're talking about with loooooong deals.

 

[Ola]

But what I am absolutely unwilling to do is making a trade for trades sake. I would not trade Callahan for the likes of Stewart or McGinn. That's idiotic. Stupid. Lacks ANY type of direction. It's more bandaids. More projects. More uncertainty.

So if Callahan can't yield a useful ****ing return - for example a 1c center prospect, a 1st round pick, or our future 2c... then i'd much rather keep him and take a chance on this season.

Stewart is not a useful return. McGinn + Barrie is not a useful return.

We need value coming back. We need a difference maker. Cally isn't a "3rd line tweener". For 3-4 years he carried the team on his back game in and game out in terms of energy. Whoever comes back has to provide that type of energy in some form or another. Stewart can't, he dissapears for 10 game stretches. McGinn can't, he has a lower offensive potential and lower motor than Cally.

What you're advocating to do is set your bar low, bandaid Cally with something average.

I completely disagree, and under that pretense, yes I would rather keep Cally and lose him for absolutely nothing.

I agree, and I would also point out that there is a big difference between a 26-30th first rounder and any kind of label of a A tier prospect. That group of the 1st round is not good.

I would MUCH rather keep Cally and let him walk before taking on a crappy prospect and a late 1st. I can't believe we are even discussing that?

The negative impact, the message you send to the group, the risk of providing your team with less experience from just one round of the POs more, everything together I just don't think it even remotely would be worth it. Stewert AND a 1 st, maybe. But then again why move Cally if we are going to pay someone like Stewert? I mean, sure Stewert only has 1 year left but after that we would just pay someone else the same money for an avg job.

And as far as the prospect goes, a spade is a spade. A crap prospect is a crap prospect. Fast was a star in the WJCs. We are talking about getting the kids that wasn't even close to making it.

 

[Thirty One]

Fast was a star in the WJCs.

He was?

 

[haohmaru]

He was?

6 games, 6 points, and tied for the team lead with 4 goals. Not too shabby.

 

[Brooklyn Rangers Fan]

I agree, and I would also point out that there is a big difference between a 26-30th first rounder and any kind of label of a A tier prospect. That group of the 1st round is not good.

I would MUCH rather keep Cally and let him walk before taking on a crappy prospect and a late 1st. I can't believe we are even discussing that?

The negative impact, the message you send to the group, the risk of providing your team with less experience from just one round of the POs more, everything together I just don't think it even remotely would be worth it. Stewert AND a 1 st, maybe. But then again why move Cally if we are going to pay someone like Stewert? I mean, sure Stewert only has 1 year left but after that we would just pay someone else the same money for an avg job.

And as far as the prospect goes, a spade is a spade. A crap prospect is a crap prospect. Fast was a star in the WJCs. We are talking about getting the kids that wasn't even close to making it.

And I can't believe you can't believe it!

1) You don't risk losing assets for nothing unless you think you're a Stanley Cup contender. So, as I said to kenjets, either you're telling me you think we're as good as the best teams in the league, in which case I guess we can agree to disagree, or you are advocating keeping him simply to go 2-and-out in the playoffs and then be worse next year with nothing to show for it, in which case I'm glad you're not the GM.

2) Is the 26th pick or whatever, worse than 25 other picks? Yes. It's also better than the 185 picks that follow it. I'm not even sure what your point was by bringing up Fast, but he was obviously drafted with a pick later than the top 10. As was Callahan himself. The odds of getting superstars - or even useful players - get lower the further you get from the first pick, but the more chances you have and the higher they are, the better those odds get.

3) And the message it sends to the team? The Rangers will not be held hostage and that they will pay players what they're worth. Lundqvist got paid more than any goalie in the league, but we're not paying Cally through the nose to be our 3rd best RW. It's not hard to understand and, frankly, no better or worse than the message Cally himself is sending by making the demands he's making (which he has every right to do).

4) Playoff experience. Who on this team needs playoff experience? The only way we have kids on the team who need playoff experience is if we trade players like Cally and call them up!

5) You dismiss players like Stewart too readily. Is he great? Of course not. But he might be useful. Perhaps he blossoms and you keep him. Perhaps he doesn't and you trade him. Regardless, it's still better than the big pile of empty space that Callahan will leave behind come June. (Especially if the player in question also comes with prospects/picks.)

Signing Callahan for anything close to what he is reportedly demanding would be a colossal mistake. Letting him walk for nothing would be even worse.

Man, I can't wait for the deadline.

 

[BarbaraAlphanse]

And I can't believe you can't believe it!

1) You don't risk losing assets for nothing unless you think you're a Stanley Cup contender. So, as I said to kenjets, either you're telling me you think we're as good as the best teams in the league, in which case I guess we can agree to disagree, or you are advocating keeping him simply to go 2-and-out in the playoffs and then be worse next year with nothing to show for it, in which case I'm glad you're not the GM.

2) Is the 26th pick or whatever, worse than 25 other picks? Yes. It's also better than the 185 picks that follow it. I'm not even sure what your point was by bringing up Fast, but he was obviously drafted with a pick later than the top 10. As was Callahan himself. The odds of getting superstars - or even useful players - get lower the further you get from the first pick, but the more chances you have and the higher they are, the better those odds get.

3) And the message it sends to the team? The Rangers will not be held hostage and that they will pay players what they're worth. Lundqvist got paid more than any goalie in the league, but we're not paying Cally through the nose to be our 3rd best RW. It's not hard to understand and, frankly, no better or worse than the message Cally himself is sending by making the demands he's making (which he has every right to do).

4) Playoff experience. Who on this team needs playoff experience? The only way we have kids on the team who need playoff experience is if we trade players like Cally and call them up!

5) You dismiss players like Stewart too readily. Is he great? Of course not. But he might be useful. Perhaps he blossoms and you keep him. Perhaps he doesn't and you trade him. Regardless, it's still better than the big pile of empty space that Callahan will leave behind come June. (Especially if the player in question also comes with prospects/picks.)

Signing Callahan for anything close to what he is reportedly demanding would be a colossal mistake. Letting him walk for nothing would be even worse.

Man, I can't wait for the deadline.

I agree. Damn. Just want a break from this.

 

[BarbaraAlphanse]

Im pretty upset that you'd lump me and some other posters into the extreme video gamer types who want to make transaction after transaction because its "fun."

I am not advocating a radical change whatsoever. The Callahan situation is the one that looms much larger over the rest. Instead of going crazy over the return, I think its pretty damn important to get some sort of return instead of risking him walking for absolutely zilch in the summer, or succumbing to market forces and signing him to an insane deal.

Perhaps most importantly, I dont think this low-probability chance to make some real noise in the playoffs take a massive hit without Ryan Callahan

I guess what it ultimately comes down to is difference in personality.

You are conservative. You want to mitigate risk. You want to establish something that would benefit us for the future.

Understandable.

I'm a little less conservative. More moderate.

Just difference in opinions. No point in trying to convince the other person that they're wrong.

 

[BarbaraAlphanse]

I agree, and I would also point out that there is a big difference between a 26-30th first rounder and any kind of label of a A tier prospect. That group of the 1st round is not good.

I would MUCH rather keep Cally and let him walk before taking on a crappy prospect and a late 1st. I can't believe we are even discussing that?

The negative impact, the message you send to the group, the risk of providing your team with less experience from just one round of the POs more, everything together I just don't think it even remotely would be worth it. Stewert AND a 1 st, maybe. But then again why move Cally if we are going to pay someone like Stewert? I mean, sure Stewert only has 1 year left but after that we would just pay someone else the same money for an avg job.

And as far as the prospect goes, a spade is a spade. A crap prospect is a crap prospect. Fast was a star in the WJCs. We are talking about getting the kids that wasn't even close to making it.

To justify moving such a prominent figure in our locker room, Sather absolutely can not swing and miss. He can't demand less than what he's worth - extended. Just can't justify that to the fans nor to the F.O. moving forward.