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

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

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.

Pragmatic is the word Id use to describe my stance. One eye right in front of you and one eye down the road.

I dont think closing your eyes and jumping head first into the playoffs, long-term consequences be damned (with a team thats not all that special), is moderate in any way.

 

[Brooklyn Rangers Fan]

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.

What are you talking about?!?

Scenario 1: "Well, unfortunately, we felt that Callahan's demands were inordinately out of line with his role on the team, so we traded him for player X and two picks which we will use to draft other players. We realize that nothing we got in exchange can come close to replacing Callahan, but we like the player and hope to draft well and eventually replace him from within our organization."

Scenario 2: "We caved in to Callahan's demands and gave him a $7x7MM deal. Unfortunately, we are now pressed up against the cap and unable to improve other key positions of greater need like first line center and second line LW."

Scenario 3: "We couldn't come to terms with Callahan and so we let him walk for nothing."

Scenario 1 is INFINITELY easier to sell to the fanbase, especially when compared to #3. And besides, this is the same guy who traded Brian Leetch - you think he'll have trouble with the fallout from fans? And the F.O.? He'll be making this decision in consultation with the F.O. (And in fact, I hope it's Gorton who's doing most of the work these days.) Who does he have to sell there?

 

[Brooklyn Rangers Fan]

Pragmatic is the word Id use to describe my stance. One eye right in front of you and one eye down the road.

I dont think closing your eyes and jumping head first into the playoffs, long-term consequences be damned (with a team thats not all that special), is moderate in any way.

Very well said.

In fact, it's the exact opposite of moderation. It's stacking all your chips on 00 and giving the wheel a spin.

 

[BarbaraAlphanse]

Pragmatic is the word Id use to describe my stance. One eye right in front of you and one eye down the road.

I dont think closing your eyes and jumping head first into the playoffs, long-term consequences be damned (with a team thats not all that special), is moderate in any way.

You refuse to associate risk with trading for prospects or risks associated with trading the players you want traded. You are an idealistic conservative. In a vacuum your ideas should work.

You certainly don't like theoretical and hypothetical plans, but you don't seem to understand that everything is theoretical in the world of sports. Cinderella stories happen, injuries happen, players you expect to regress don't, others you don't expect to regress do.

There's a risk associated with trading vets for picks. Hypothetically that should benefit your team in the long run... and those prospects could never develop and it could cripple your team in the long run. That's not practical, that's conservative.

There are risks associated with keeping Cally, risks associated with trading him. You're now electing to trade him for a player whose ceiling is average, at best. That's again not practical, but conservative.

 

[BarbaraAlphanse]

Very well said.

In fact, it's the exact opposite of moderation. It's stacking all your chips on 00 and giving the wheel a spin.

To be clear I'm not dead set on keeping Cally. I've said you either get fair value for him or you keep him. That's moderation.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

You refuse to associate risk with trading for prospects or risks associated with trading the players you want traded. You are an idealistic conservative. In a vacuum your ideas should work.

You certainly don't like theoretical and hypothetical plans, but you don't seem to understand that everything is theoretical in the world of sports. Cinderella stories happen, injuries happen, players you expect to regress don't, others you don't expect to regress do.

There's a risk associated with trading vets for picks. Hypothetically that should benefit your team in the long run... and those prospects could never develop and it could cripple your team in the long run. That's not practical, that's conservative.

There are risks associated with keeping Cally, risks associated with trading him. You're now electing to trade him for a player whose ceiling is average, at best. That's again not practical, but conservative.

In my opinion, the risks pile up exponentially by keeping Callahan.

I certainly recognize theres a risk associated with trading him, and I think anyone with half a brain would realize the Rangers have to make a choice, and the choice with less risk should win out.

I recognize your point. I just think its a poor one.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

To be clear I'm not dead set on keeping Cally. I've said you either get fair value for him or you keep him. That's moderation.

Its being moderately confused.

 

[BarbaraAlphanse]

Its being moderately confused.

How is it being confused? You establish an intrinsic value of the player to the team. If another team wants it, they must match that value.

You allow him to extend with them. If they don't match the value, you keep him, and you continue on your way - with the end goal of winning a cup.

 

[Brooklyn Rangers Fan]

To be clear I'm not dead set on keeping Cally. I've said you either get fair value for him or you keep him. That's moderation.

Then our disagreement is over your threshold for keeping him. If you think letting him walk is superior to getting a 4th round pick, then fine, I take your point.

But if you think letting him walk is superior to getting a pick in the 20s and a useful player/prospect (likely with more upside contingent on him re-signing with the other team and/or advancing to the finals), then I think you're paying lip service to the idea of trading him and really are trying to justify keeping him under almost any scenario.

 

[BarbaraAlphanse]

Then our disagreement is over your threshold for keeping him. If you think letting him walk is superior to getting a 4th round pick, then fine, I take your point.

But if you think letting him walk is superior to getting a pick in the 20s and a useful player/prospect (likely with more upside contingent on him re-signing with the other team and/or advancing to the finals), then I think you're paying lip service to the idea of trading him and really are trying to justify keeping him under almost any scenario.

I'm defining fair value as a top prospect and a 1st.

There is a high rate of failure for even "top prospects". You absolutely can not justify trading your captain in the middle of a playoff race - a guy who on most nights has carried this lackluster effort team on his back - for a late first round pick and an average player. That can not be afforded.

If you get that value, by all means, trade him. He's being unfair, in my opinion, with his demands - at least for this team.

But if the best you can do is Chris Stewart and a 1st or 2nd from the Blues? Unacceptable.

If we don't trade him its not the end of the world. We lose out on an average player that we can probably find in our farm and a 1st round pick that's located at the end of the round which will likely fail.

 

[iamitter]

I'm defining fair value as a top prospect and a 1st.

There is a high rate of failure for even "top prospects". You absolutely can not justify trading your captain in the middle of a playoff race - a guy who on most nights has carried this lackluster effort team on his back - for a late first round pick and an average player. That can not be afforded.

If you get that value, by all means, trade him. He's being unfair, in my opinion, with his demands - at least for this team.

But if the best you can do is Chris Stewart and a 1st or 2nd from the Blues? Unacceptable.

If we don't trade him its not the end of the world. We lose out on an average player that we can probably find in our farm and a 1st round pick that's located at the end of the round which will likely fail.

That doesn't sound at all like the Callahan of this year. If we had Stewart all year instead of Callahan how many more games would we lose? If any?

 

[Brooklyn Rangers Fan]

I'm defining fair value as a top prospect and a 1st.

There is a high rate of failure for even "top prospects". You absolutely can not justify trading your captain in the middle of a playoff race - a guy who on most nights has carried this lackluster effort team on his back - for a late first round pick and an average player. That can not be afforded.

If you get that value, by all means, trade him. He's being unfair, in my opinion, with his demands - at least for this team.

But if the best you can do is Chris Stewart and a 1st or 2nd from the Blues? Unacceptable.

If we don't trade him its not the end of the world. We lose out on an average player that we can probably find in our farm and a 1st round pick that's located at the end of the round which will likely fail.

I'm sorry, then I think you're paying lip service. I read that as you want to keep Cally, you're angry that you're in this situation and so you want the price that would have been required to pry him away from the team under "normal" circumstances or else you're content to let him walk out of spite.

Would I like your price? Of course.

Would I like more than Chris Stewart plus a first round pick? Also of course.

Would I let him leave for nothing rather than take an enigmatic 26 year old power forward wing who is 6'2" 228, can throw down and has twice scored in excess of 25 goals plus the chance to draft another Brady Skjei or Michael Del Zotto, because I'm pissed I didn't get more? HELL no.

 

[NYR Viper]

I'm defining fair value as a top prospect and a 1st.

There is a high rate of failure for even "top prospects". You absolutely can not justify trading your captain in the middle of a playoff race - a guy who on most nights has carried this lackluster effort team on his back - for a late first round pick and an average player. That can not be afforded.

If you get that value, by all means, trade him. He's being unfair, in my opinion, with his demands - at least for this team.

But if the best you can do is Chris Stewart and a 1st or 2nd from the Blues? Unacceptable.

If we don't trade him its not the end of the world. We lose out on an average player that we can probably find in our farm and a 1st round pick that's located at the end of the round which will likely fail.

What would you put the Rangers odds of winning The Cup this's season?

I also disagree on it not being the end of the world. That's a great way to start the decline of any organization. As you said, not all of the prospects or picks turn out. The ones that do, need to eventually be turned into more assets to increase your chances of finding more players. Especially in a situation like this where the player is in his prime and asking for too much.

Stewart + 1st is a decent package actually. 26 year old 20-25 goal scoring tough RWer? If he doesn't work out, a team will easily move a 1st + for him next year at the deadline.

Letting him walk at years end is the worst case scenario by far. Odds are this team is not winning The Cup.

 

[NYR Viper]

That doesn't sound at all like the Callahan of this year. If we had Stewart all year instead of Callahan how many more games would we lose? If any?

Might be more considering how many games Callahan missed with injuries.

 

[Trxjw]

I'm having a hard time imagining a team paying the Rangers a price for Callahan based on his emotional value to the Rangers fan base, and that's exactly what a lot of people here are expecting. It's also odd to see people trying to justify that nothing is better than something.

 

[SlingshotVv]

What are you talking about?!?

Scenario 1: "Well, unfortunately, we felt that Callahan's demands were inordinately out of line with his role on the team, so we traded him for player X and two picks which we will use to draft other players. We realize that nothing we got in exchange can come close to replacing Callahan, but we like the player and hope to draft well and eventually replace him from within our organization."

Scenario 2: "We caved in to Callahan's demands and gave him a $7x7MM deal. Unfortunately, we are now pressed up against the cap and unable to improve other key positions of greater need like first line center and second line LW."

Scenario 3: "We couldn't come to terms with Callahan and so we let him walk for nothing."

Scenario 1 is INFINITELY easier to sell to the fanbase, especially when compared to #3. And besides, this is the same guy who traded Brian Leetch - you think he'll have trouble with the fallout from fans? And the F.O.? He'll be making this decision in consultation with the F.O. (And in fact, I hope it's Gorton who's doing most of the work these days.) Who does he have to sell there?

I haven't been impressed with the returns most rentals have received the last few years. Scenario 3 with a deep playoff run is definitely preferable than cutting ties with Cally just because we can't lose him for nothing, and winding up with garbage. Look at the rewards from the last few seasons of rentals, nothing there would make me prefer that to maintaining chemistry IF this team comes out if the Ilympics looking great and healthy.

I get that people don't feel this team is anything special. But there's only one team I worry about in the east. That's about as good as it gets for a path to the Cup.

 

[Brooklyn Rangers Fan]

I haven't been impressed with the returns most rentals have received the last few years. Scenario 3 with a deep playoff run is definitely preferable than cutting ties with Cally just because we can't lose him for nothing, and winding up with garbage. Look at the rewards from the last few seasons of rentals, nothing there would make me prefer that to maintaining chemistry IF this team comes out if the Ilympics looking great and healthy.

I get that people don't feel this team is anything special. But there's only one team I worry about in the east. That's about as good as it gets for a path to the Cup.

To be clear, I think we can do better than SJ did for Clowe last year (2nd, very high 3rd, 5th that converts into a 2nd upon re-signing/making the conf. finals).

But IF that was my only option, I'd still take it over letting him walk for nothing.

I see the Rangers as being a solid step below the elite. And in order to win the cup, I think they'd have to beat Boston, Pittsburgh and a team like Anaheim - and that's presuming that THEY don't get upset in the first round. I don't like those odds at all. Give me three shots at a Stepan/Hagelin/Anisimov/Sauer/Dubinsky/Callahan/etc. instead.

 

[BarbaraAlphanse]

I'm sorry, then I think you're paying lip service. I read that as you want to keep Cally, you're angry that you're in this situation and so you want the price that would have been required to pry him away from the team under "normal" circumstances or else you're content to let him walk out of spite.

Would I like your price? Of course.

Would I like more than Chris Stewart plus a first round pick? Also of course.

Would I let him leave for nothing rather than take an enigmatic 26 year old power forward wing who is 6'2" 228, can throw down and has twice scored in excess of 25 goals plus the chance to draft another Brady Skjei or Michael Del Zotto, because I'm pissed I didn't get more? HELL no.

Here's where I don't get where you and BRB are coming from:

Your whole argument about trading Callahan for any return is that it will somehow help us sustain dominance in the future.

So we trade Callahan, and we don't become any more legitimate than we are now - which according to you guys is already a lost cause.

Ok. Moving on.

How does Stewart or a late 1st round pick help us sustain ANY type of dominance moving forward? We have 3rd line wingers already ready to come up. He's gone after next year too or we have to give him the raise that we refused to give Callahan.

So do we trade him for a draft pick too? What if he doesn't fit in this system. What if he gets hurt? What if all we can get for him is a 2nd or 3rd next deadline?

So we're trading Callahan for a late 1st and a 2nd or 3rd, in that scenario... and we've give up on our best hope we've had for a cup birth in a very long while to do so.

That seems like the worst risk of all.

Give up this season, and you get little value to do so. Even moving forward that looks unattractive.

 

[BarbaraAlphanse]

What would you put the Rangers odds of winning The Cup this's season?

I also disagree on it not being the end of the world. That's a great way to start the decline of any organization. As you said, not all of the prospects or picks turn out. The ones that do, need to eventually be turned into more assets to increase your chances of finding more players. Especially in a situation like this where the player is in his prime and asking for too much.

Stewart + 1st is a decent package actually. 26 year old 20-25 goal scoring tough RWer? If he doesn't work out, a team will easily move a 1st + for him next year at the deadline.

Letting him walk at years end is the worst case scenario by far. Odds are this team is not winning The Cup.

1st plus? Is he even worth that now?

Rangers have the 9th highest chance of winning the cup, according to Vegas Odds. 22-1 as of right now.

The Sharks are 9-1. I'd list the Rangers shots at 9-1. Probably put them behind the Bruins, the Blackhawks, the Penguins, and the Blues. That's it.

Ducks have great goaltending but Boudreau is a choke job and his scoring suddenly has disappeared. What's happened?

SJ are perennial choke jobs. Bruins didn't view Thornton as a guy who could take them to the cup. He hasn't taken anyone to the cup yet. They also have problems scoring now.

Avalanche defense is swiss cheese. Teams are finally beginning to exploit it.

Kings are having the same scoring problems as Ana and SJ.

Wouldn't list another team above us after them.

 

[Brooklyn Rangers Fan]

Here's where I don't get where you and BRB are coming from:

Your whole argument about trading Callahan for any return is that it will somehow help us sustain dominance in the future.

So we trade Callahan, and we don't become any more legitimate than we are now - which according to you guys is already a lost cause.

Ok. Moving on.

How does Stewart or a late 1st round pick help us sustain ANY type of dominance moving forward? We have 3rd line wingers already ready to come up. He's gone after next year too or we have to give him the raise that we refused to give Callahan.

So do we trade him for a draft pick too? What if he doesn't fit in this system. What if he gets hurt? What if all we can get for him is a 2nd or 3rd next deadline?

So we're trading Callahan for a late 1st and a 2nd or 3rd, in that scenario... and we've give up on our best hope we've had for a cup birth in a very long while to do so.

That seems like the worst risk of all.

Give up this season, and you get little value to do so. Even moving forward that looks unattractive.

I find it ironic that someone who is so optimistic about a one-shot chance to run the table against the odds this year is so pessimistic about multiple opportunities to grow from within, add to an existing solid core of talent and win 1, 2 or 3 years (depending on what you get back and whether you then have to build further on those assets) down the road.

You make it sound like we've got an opportunity to rent Wayne Gretzky in his prime for a stretch run against relatively equal opponents and we're declining that option in favor of a handful of 7th round picks.

 

[Brooklyn Rangers Fan]

1st plus? Is he even worth that now?

Rangers have the 9th highest chance of winning the cup, according to Vegas Odds. 22-1 as of right now.

The Sharks are 9-1. I'd list the Rangers shots at 9-1. Probably put them behind the Bruins, the Blackhawks, the Penguins, and the Blues. That's it.

Ducks have great goaltending but Boudreau is a choke job and his scoring suddenly has disappeared. What's happened?

SJ are perennial choke jobs. Bruins didn't view Thornton as a guy who could take them to the cup. He hasn't taken anyone to the cup yet. They also have problems scoring now.

Avalanche defense is swiss cheese. Teams are finally beginning to exploit it.

Kings are having the same scoring problems as Ana and SJ.

Wouldn't list another team above us after them.

So, in other words - even taking your odds above Vegas's - you're saying we likely need to defend our own favored status in round one and then beat Boston, Pittsburgh and Chicago in order to win.

I don't understand why you don't share my point of view!

 

[BarbaraAlphanse]

I find it ironic that someone who is so optimistic about a one-shot chance to run the table against the odds this year is so pessimistic about multiple opportunities to grow from within, add to an existing solid core of talent and win 1, 2 or 3 years (depending on what you get back and whether you then have to build further on those assets) down the road.

You make it sound like we've got an opportunity to rent Wayne Gretzky in his prime for a stretch run against relatively equal opponents and we're declining that option in favor of a handful of 7th round picks.

I'm asking you how that package does anything for us?

Neither Stewart nor the low first has any type of high probability of paying dividends for us after next year.

The argument to trade Callahan and give up this season is given so that we have a brighter future. Stewart and a low first is that bright future?

********. We have trouble finding a successful player in the top 10 picks of the first round. You're gonna tell me we have a decent shot of finding that in 24-29?

And Stewart? He's supposed to be adequate replacement for Callahan? He'll want the same pay raise next year, 5.5-6 mill. So same problem with him too. With raises coming up for several of our players we'll be willing to give Stewart the raise when we aren't willing to give fan favorite Callahan that raise?

Please.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

I'm asking you how that package does anything for us?

Neither Stewart nor the low first has any type of high probability of paying dividends for us after next year.

The argument to trade Callahan and give up this season is given so that we have a brighter future. Stewart and a low first is that bright future?

********. We have trouble finding a successful player in the top 10 picks of the first round. You're gonna tell me we have a decent shot of finding that in 24-29?

And Stewart? He's supposed to be adequate replacement for Callahan? He'll want the same pay raise next year, 5.5-6 mill. So same problem with him too. With raises coming up for several of our players we'll be willing to give Stewart the raise when we aren't willing to give fan favorite Callahan that raise?

Please.

The bolded is a farce.

And its a big reason why your argument lacks substance.

 

[BarbaraAlphanse]

So, in other words - even taking your odds above Vegas's - you're saying we likely need to defend our own favored status in round one and then beat Boston, Pittsburgh and Chicago in order to win.

I don't understand why you don't share my point of view!

My point has, and will remain, that we have a legitimate shot to win the cup.

We'll have a legitimate chance, and that's all you can hope for in the playoffs.

 

[BarbaraAlphanse]

The bolded is a farce.

And its a big reason why your argument lacks substance.

Please tell me any team that has traded their captain in the middle of a playoff run and not suffered.