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

[BarbaraAlphanse]

C'mon.

Take something like this:



Why in the hell would you lose Cally and Klein for just a 2nd rounder when you could deal Callahan right now for a much better return and keep a solid D-man like Klein?

All because of how important this playoff run is? Its insanity.

Because we have replacements.

Allen could easily slot into Klein's spot. Easily. He didn't look out of place in the slightest during his call up.

McIlrath seems like a little bit more of a stretch for next year, but sooner or later he'll make an impact on the team and he'll force his way into the line up.

Klein will likely have to be traded regardless.

Staal we have 0 replacements for, and if he doesn't want to stay and we have to trade him, i'll be quite sad actually. He's my favorite defender. But if push comes to shove, I don't think Sather would have trouble trading him in the offseason.

Cally we have replacements for: Miller. Fast. Kristo... at least in terms of offensive production - given top 6 minutes with players that open the ice for them and find them with open chances i think all could achieve 45 points or more in a season.

I'm arguing that Sather isn't pressure to make the trade unless he gets the pieces he requires because of the readily available players in the AHL.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

Because we have replacements.

Allen could easily slot into Klein's spot. Easily. He didn't look out of place in the slightest during his call up.

McIlrath seems like a little bit more of a stretch for next year, but sooner or later he'll make an impact on the team and he'll force his way into the line up.

Klein will likely have to be traded regardless.

Staal we have 0 replacements for, and if he doesn't want to stay and we have to trade him, i'll be quite sad actually. He's my favorite defender. But if push comes to shove, I don't think Sather would have trouble trading him in the offseason.

Cally we have replacements for: Miller. Fast. Kristo... at least in terms of offensive production - given top 6 minutes with players that open the ice for them and find them with open chances i think all could achieve 45 points or more in a season.

I'm arguing that Sather isn't pressure to make the trade unless he gets the pieces he requires because of the readily available players in the AHL.

Well, looks like we disagree on just about anything because, besides Miller, I don't see a surefire NHL'er for next year in the bunch.

 

[Thirty One]

Well, looks like we disagree on just about anything because, besides Miller, I don't see a surefire NHL'er for next year in the bunch.

I think Fast is on Miller's level.

 

[BarbaraAlphanse]

Well, looks like we disagree on just about anything because, besides Miller, I don't see a surefire NHL'er for next year in the bunch.

Maybe one day there will be that one thing that we agree on...

But probably not.

 

[Trxjw]

Whether it's Callahan for roster player +, or Callahan for ++ and then + for a roster player, it doesn't matter to me.

They're, of course, not going to get a younger Callahan in the deal but I think you can still replace his even-strength scoring and still get more assets back.

I think you can as well. However, I think some fans want to replace Callahan with another Callahan who still has the emotional value to them as fans.

 

[SingnBluesOnBroadway]

Well, looks like we disagree on just about anything because, besides Miller, I don't see a surefire NHL'er for next year in the bunch.

Yeah but all that depth......

 

[aufheben]

Why are we trading Klein, who a) we just acquired, and has played like 7 games for us, and b) us a nice contract? I don't see it.

Also, assuming kids can be replacements is a dangerous line of thinking.

 

[Radek27]

I think you can as well. However, I think some fans want to replace Callahan with another Callahan who still has the emotional value to them as fans.

No fans want one of two things.

Resigned to a fair long term deal.

or

Traded for a good return of assets....including a player who can play now and a solid pick and/or prospect.

This really is just a situation as a result of poor planning by Sather and management. Why does he wait till the last minute to make important decisions regarding key players like this? Over their famous "summer meetings" things like this should have been decided......resigned or traded? Not lets just see how we do then make a decision on the spot.

 

[JESSEWENEEDTOCOOK]

Why are we trading Klein, who a) we just acquired, and has played like 7 games for us, and b) us a nice contract? I don't see it.

Also, assuming kids can be replacements is a dangerous line of thinking.

Yeah, I agree. Klein, on a contract as cheap as he's on, will be here for a lot longer than just a portion of this year, IMO.

 

[Thirty One]

Why are we trading Klein, who a) we just acquired, and has played like 7 games for us, and b) us a nice contract? I don't see it.

Also, assuming kids can be replacements is a dangerous line of thinking.

I don't see it either. I think it's wishful thinking. I wish it too, though.

 

[Brooklyn Rangers Fan]

I have no emotional attachment to Callahan.

I have emotional attachment to Zucc, Kreider, Hank, and Staal. McIlrath will likely become a 5th if he ever makes it. Love the hobbit, been rooting for him since we initially signed him. Saw Kreider at BC for 2 years at BC before he left. Hank was a Godsend. Staal is my favorite defender on the team.

Anyone else i'm either impartial about or want off this team. In Callahan's case i'm impartial.

But I do want the team to succeed. I'm unfortunate enough to root for the Rangers, the Jets, the Mets, and the Knicks. I was born in '92 and technically, I haven't seen 1 championship by any of them (and remembered it). If anything, I'm foolishly optimistic about this season because for once, this team is showing balance and dominant defensive play.

I think Callahan should be traded, but I feel like a high line of value needs to be held firm to obtain him.

Our main disagreements seem to be:
1) Whether the team will collapse this year if he is traded
2) What fair value is for Callahan
3) If we're contenders this year

Your belief on #1 is that it won't necessarily collapse this year if we trade him. Meaning that you're willing to accept a lower value as your answer to #2. Also contributing to your acceptance of a lower value is that you don't believe we are contenders (#3).

My belief is that we will collapse this year and that we are contenders this year and therefore my value for Callahan is much higher than yours.

Unfortunately for us, we have no tangible methods of proving our arguments without a Callahan trade actually occurring - and the merry go round goes around and around.

1) Yes, we disagree on the impact.

2) Fair value is what the market will bear. That just is what it is.

3) Okay, fair enough. We disagree here too.

And if you legitimately believe that this team is a true contender for the cup and losing Callahan will change that, then that's the one scenario that makes a scintilla of sense to me (although, I'd likely still trade Callahan for the long-term benefit of the team). So, this leaves me with just one last question: in regards to #3 above, you mean to tell me that you think the Rangers are in the same class as all of:

Anaheim
St. Louis
Chicago
Pittsburgh
San Jose
Colorado
Boston
Tampa Bay

Correct? Because unless you tell me that you believe that they're up at the very top of that list, then I once again maintain that your stance makes no sense.



You don't remember '93-'94. I do. Trust me when I say THAT was a contender. And I remember a whole bunch of other seasons where the team wasn't quite good enough and didn't make the right long-term move. It's precisely why I am adamant that they trade Callahan.

 

[Thirty One]

So, this leaves me with just one last question: in regards to #3 above, you mean to tell me that you think the Rangers are as good or better than all of:

Anaheim
St. Louis
Chicago
Pittsburgh
San Jose
Colorado
Boston
Tampa Bay

Correct? Because unless you tell me that you believe that they're up at the very top of that list, then I once again maintain that your stance makes no sense.

That's not what being a contender means.

 

[Brooklyn Rangers Fan]

That's not what being a contender means.

Sorry - did I need to preface that with "legitimate"? Because my definition of contender means a team with solid odds to win the cup. Not "not yet mathematically eliminated".

 

[Thirty One]

Sorry - did I need to preface that with "legitimate"? Because my definition of contender means a team with solid odds to win the cup. Not "not yet mathematically eliminated".

It appears from your last post, that your definition is the best team in the league, though.

 

[NoQuitInNewMexico]

We have good NHL depth and a handful of guys who can slot in. The overall organizational depth obviously isn't the greatest but it won't be exposed if we don't screw up the NHL depth.

I'm far more worried about us making mistakes/being cheap with Moore, Boyle, Pouliot and Brassard than I am about a bad Callahan trade. Those four guys all work well here because they're one-dimensional specialists. Trying to replace too many of those guys is dangerous, especially if we do it with more "all-around" players (which is what I see Miller and Fast as)

 

[Brooklyn Rangers Fan]

It appears from your last post, that your definition is the best team in the league, though.

As good or better than the 8 that I listed. So, in the conversation for best team in the league, yes. I guess, technically speaking, you could say that they could be marginally worse than a couple of teams and still be contenders, but that's putting a fine point on it. I would've thought the list made it pretty clear, but I'll edit to clarify.

 

[RGY]

I don't understand why people here need to compare the rangers to western teams to determine whether we are a contender or not. It's stupid thinking quite honestly. You don't see those teams until the finals, if you make it that far. And if you make it that far, this team will have a chance. Henrik at the top of his game, can win a cup in a 7 game series.

So for me you are comparing the rangers against:

Pittsburgh
Boston
Tampa

In that order. And Tampa is still a very young team with not a lot of experience, let alone playoff experience. That absolutely matters. The Rangers wouldn't see Boston or Tampa until the second round potentially. They wont see Pittsburgh in the first round either. This team has a chance to make a decent run. Time will tell what happens.

 

[BarbaraAlphanse]

1) Yes, we disagree on the impact.

2) Fair value is what the market will bear. That just is what it is.

3) Okay, fair enough. We disagree here too.

And if you legitimately believe that this team is a true contender for the cup and losing Callahan will change that, then that's the one scenario that makes a scintilla of sense to me (although, I'd likely still trade Callahan for the long-term benefit of the team). So, this leaves me with just one last question: in regards to #3 above, you mean to tell me that you think the Rangers are as good or better than all of:

Anaheim
St. Louis
Chicago
Pittsburgh
San Jose
Colorado
Boston
Tampa Bay

Correct? Because unless you tell me that you believe that they're up at the very top of that list, then I once again maintain that your stance makes no sense.



You don't remember '93-'94. I do. Trust me when I say THAT was a contender. And I remember a whole bunch of other seasons where the team wasn't quite good enough and didn't make the right long-term move. It's precisely why I am adamant that they trade Callahan.

The best team's aren't necessarily the ones that win the cup. I've said time and time again that there is a list of intangibles that need to occur for any cup team: Getting hot at the right time, a better team getting cold at the wrong time, players stepping up for whatever reason, timely scoring, momentum swings at ideal moments, resilience, etc. All of those things need to happen for any team.

As for the teams you listed:

Anaheim - Yes, I think we can beat them. No I don't think they'll make the cup. Boudreau isn't the best playoffs coach, his system is beatable. Caps were the powerhouse Ana is now in their peak years. They couldn't overcome that hump.

St. Louis - Yes, I think we can beat them. Their defense would hypothetically give us massive problems but their goaltending is unproven in pressure. I think it'll be their downfall, wherever they end up losing in the playoffs. They also lack a powerful offense. They'll play a lot of close games and rely on that spotty goaltending.

Chicago - Yes, I think we can beat them. It will have to take us hitting a hot patch and them hitting a cold one. Not out of the picture, but not likely either. They are a better team than us.

Pittsburgh - Yes, I think we can beat them. Spotty defense. Headcase goalie. If you shut down their first line they struggle for offense too.

San Jose - Yes, I think we can beat them. Perennial choke artists. Thornton hasn't led one of their teams to the cup. I don't think they can get to the cup.

Colorado - Yes, I think we can beat them. They're the easiest team that you listed to beat. If taken lightly, they can beat us... but that's only if we don't show up and play our game.

Boston - Yes, I think we can beat them. I list the same probabilities and chances of us beating them as Chicago. They are the better team, certain intangibles need to go right for us to beat them.

Tampa Bay - It's either we play TB or Boston. The 2 will have to play each other. If they get banged up, I can see us beating them too. They match up poorly for us though.

The point is, we don't have to be the best team to win the cup. We have to hit our stride, get key breaks, and be resilient. Those are the keys to the playoffs. Being the best team doesn't guarantee the cup.

 

[Thirty One]

I don't understand why people here need to compare the rangers to western teams to determine whether we are a contender or not. It's stupid thinking quite honestly. You don't see those teams until the finals, if you make it that far. And if you make it that far, this team will have a chance. Henrik at the top of his game, can win a cup in a 7 game series.

So for me you are comparing the rangers against:

Pittsburgh
Boston
Tampa

In that order. And Tampa is still a very young team with not a lot of experience, let alone playoff experience. That absolutely matters. The Rangers wouldn't see Boston or Tampa until the second round potentially. They wont see Pittsburgh in the first round either. This team has a chance to make a decent run. Time will tell what happens.

Exactly.

Boston and Pittsburgh the only teams in the East who I would consider favorites against the Rangers in a 7 game series.

The road to the Cup Finals would likely mean Pittsburgh in the second round, and maybe Boston in the third round.

 

[RGY]

Exactly.

Boston and Pittsburgh the only teams in the East who I would consider favorites against the Rangers in a 7 game series.

The road to the Cup Finals would likely mean Pittsburgh in the second round, and maybe Boston in the third round.

And I know some forget that things are not automatic. It is very possible a top team gets railroaded out in the 1st round. Look at Boston last year. Just barely got by toronto. Ended up making it to the cup finals and was on the cusp of going to game 7. Islanders had Pittsburgh nervous in the 1st round.

 

[Ola]

1) Yes, we disagree on the impact.

2) Fair value is what the market will bear. That just is what it is.

3) Okay, fair enough. We disagree here too.

And if you legitimately believe that this team is a true contender for the cup and losing Callahan will change that, then that's the one scenario that makes a scintilla of sense to me (although, I'd likely still trade Callahan for the long-term benefit of the team). So, this leaves me with just one last question: in regards to #3 above, you mean to tell me that you think the Rangers are in the same class as all of:

Anaheim
St. Louis
Chicago
Pittsburgh
San Jose
Colorado
Boston
Tampa Bay

Correct? Because unless you tell me that you believe that they're up at the very top of that list, then I once again maintain that your stance makes no sense.



You don't remember '93-'94. I do. Trust me when I say THAT was a contender. And I remember a whole bunch of other seasons where the team wasn't quite good enough and didn't make the right long-term move. It's precisely why I am adamant that they trade Callahan.

This ass-backwards thinking gotta stop. Cally is 28 y/o. Do we become better if we trade him or not? Now or in 3 years (when Cally would be 31) or in 5 years? Those are legit questions.

You could use the exact same argument you do above to argue that we should trade McDonagh? Are we a cup contender with McD on the team? Ok trade him. It's every other post in this thread lol.

I also remember the 94' team. I also remember a helluva lot of times we thought the grass was greener, every year basically. Let's do this move, let's do that move. We never iced a TEAM. Got players that had success on other teams. It's Skrudlands or Keanes or Holik and Kamenskys and what not. For over ten years we fail to hit the ice with any kind of identity. UNTILL we draft Callahan and do some other things right.

Is it a tough decision? Of course. But your question if we are a contender with him? No? OK let's dump him is ridiculous.

Maybe we should move him. Maybe we should not, I think it's clear as day that we should have kept Prust -- in hindsight. But it's not an easy decision to give him away, which is the option we have to keeping him.

 

[Thirty One]

And I know some forget that things are not automatic. It is very possible a top team gets railroaded out in the 1st round. Look at Boston last year. Just barely got by toronto. Ended up making it to the cup finals and was on the cusp of going to game 7. Islanders had Pittsburgh nervous in the 1st round.

Yeah, and in 2012 the Rangers faced the bottom three seeds in the East.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

This ass-backwards thinking gotta stop. Cally is 28 y/o. Do we become better if we trade him or not? Now or in 3 years (when Cally would be 31) or in 5 years? Those are legit questions.

You could use the exact same argument you do above to argue that we should trade McDonagh? Are we a cup contender with McD on the team? Ok trade him. It's every other post in this thread lol.

I also remember the 94' team. I also remember a helluva lot of times we thought the grass was greener, every year basically. Let's do this move, let's do that move. We never iced a TEAM. Got players that had success on other teams. It's Skrudlands or Keanes or Holik and Kamenskys and what not. For over ten years we fail to hit the ice with any kind of identity. UNTILL we draft Callahan and do some other things right.

Is it a tough decision? Of course. But your question if we are a contender with him? No? OK let's dump him is ridiculous.

Maybe we should move him. Maybe we should not, I think it's clear as day that we should have kept Prust -- in hindsight. But it's not an easy decision to give him away, which is the option we have to keeping him.

The only legit comparison I can make between Callahan and McDonagh is that they're currently on the same team.

 

[Brooklyn Rangers Fan]

This ass-backwards thinking gotta stop. Cally is 28 y/o. Do we become better if we trade him or not? Now or in 3 years (when Cally would be 31) or in 5 years? Those are legit questions.

You could use the exact same argument you do above to argue that we should trade McDonagh? Are we a cup contender with McD on the team? Ok trade him. It's every other post in this thread lol.

Bull****, bull****, BULL***. The very DEFINITION of a strawman argument.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman

Comparing trading the 3rd most important RW on the team, who frankly isn't playing that well, is turning 29, demanding a ridiculous contract, and likely to become a broken-down Peca/Drury clone in a few years' time to trading the best defenseman on the team, who is one of the best defensemen in the entire league, who is 3 years younger, much more durable, on an excellent contract and a cornerstone of the franchise and saying it's "the exact same argument" is complete and utter bull****.

Nice try.

 

[Brooklyn Rangers Fan]

The only legit comparison I can make between Callahan and McDonagh is that they're currently on the same team.

Now, now, they both also have Irish surnames.