Rumor: Trade Rumor Thread XIII

[haveandare]

The logic in here is absurd.

The Rangers are mediocre because, despite making the playoffs and advancing, they don't win the cup. Other teams that do the same thing (San Jose for example) are good teams.

Players shouldn't get signed because they're "old" and the team isn't going anywhere, but San Jose signing even older players and still not going anywhere is cool.

Everyone on this team is worse than everyone not on this team.

Callahan is a third liner because he was hurt and underperformed for a short period. Zucc is a "proven player" since he's over performed for almost the same exact period.

Klein is a bad trade because he's not young.

Let's just trade literally every asset for 1st round picks and prospects we've heard of a few times, most of whom likely won't amount to anything. This board has a very, very clear bias toward young players and picks. Yeah, every team needs both, but that's not a golden ticket to success, and you don't blow up a team that competes year in and year out for a bunch of unknowns just because bitter fans have gone through the whole batting order hating everyone on the team.

 

[Tawnos]

He was a second line player in one season. That was his unbelievably lucky 2011-2012 season. He was a third liner every other year.

Callahan deserves 6 million on the open market because of inflated contracts given to worse players. Not because he has the skill to warrant 6 million. He's not a 6 million dollar player. I can't think of 2nd liners that make 6 million dollars.

It's a little of everything. Do we want to invest in a player that is injured every three weeks? Do we want to pay big money for a player who has nowhere to go but down? Do we want to pay this money for a player who's the third best RW on the team, with 4 RW'ers? There's a lot of reasons Callahan's contract situation is so tricky. It doesn't just boil down to "Is he an AV player?".

Joe Pavelski, Patrick Sharp, Vincent Lecavalier, Milan Lucic, Jordan Staal, Jeff Skinner, Mike Richards, Jeff Carter... There are way more too. Don't forget that you need to look at salary for some and not cap hit, as contracts backdive.

Also, it's faaaar more informative to calculate percentage of what the cap was when the player signed. A $5.5m contract signed last summer, at equal cap %, would be $6.08m against a $71.1m cap.

Who said anything about being an AV player? All the things you mentioned fall under whether he fits going forward.

 

[Raspewtin]

Joe Pavelski, Patrick Sharp, Vincent Lecavalier, Milan Lucic, Jordan Staal, Jeff Skinner, Mike Richards, Jeff Carter... There are way more too. Don't forget that you need to look at salary for some and not cap hit, as contracts backdive.

Also, it's faaaar more informative to calculate percentage of what the cap was when the player signed. A $5.5m contract signed last summer, at equal cap %, would be $6.08m against a $71.1m cap.

Who said anything about being an AV player? All the things you mentioned fall under whether he fits going forward.

When you said "does he fit going forward?" I thought you were questioning can he play in this system, sorry for that.

Patrick Sharp is a 1st liner on almost any team in the NHL. Jeff Skinner has dominant talent and is again, a 1st liner on almost any team in the NHL. Pavelski plays a more important position than RW, and is really good at it. Lecavalier makes less than 5 mill I believe. Jordan Staal is overpaid, as is Lucic. Mike Richards, again, a center. Hard to compare to wingers. Jeff Carter has dominant gamebreaking talent. A player playing on a 2nd line doesn't make him a bonafide 2nd liner. Ryan Callahan has about half the talent of most of these players. It's just the truth.

I understand that contract values go up, but it's about that even when that's considered, Callahan still isn't worth 5.5 mill+. This isn't so much a Callahan thing, so much that this team already has a ton of expensive contracts, and you can't keep spending big on locking up a core that's still very flawed. This team has too many needs to keep giving big contracts to players who aren't getting it done.

 

[alkurtz]

The amount of money being talked about for Cally and Girardi is fair market value in today's NHL for players of their talent, experience, and ages.

Many might not like it but that is the way it is. Replacing them down the road will cost us more.

Do we want to become a cheap, small market team like the Mets?

Talent costs money. You can argue that the money might be better off spent elsewhere, but you can't argue that in the league today, they will not get what they deserve.

The marketplace is driven by limited supply and outsized demand. For most of us the money is staggering, but for professional athletes in the NHL, the two will resign here or sign elsewhere for fair market value.

 

[Tawnos]

When you said "does he fit going forward?" I thought you were questioning can he play in this system, sorry for that.

Patrick Sharp is a 1st liner on almost any team in the NHL. Jeff Skinner has dominant talent and is again, a 1st liner on almost any team in the NHL. Pavelski plays a more important position than RW, and is really good at it. Lecavalier makes less than 5 mill I believe. Jordan Staal is overpaid, as is Lucic. Mike Richards, again, a center. Hard to compare to wingers. Jeff Carter has dominant gamebreaking talent. A player playing on a 2nd line doesn't make him a bonafide 2nd liner. Ryan Callahan has about half the talent of most of these players. It's just the truth.

I understand that contract values go up, but it's about that even when that's considered, Callahan still isn't worth 5.5 mill+. This isn't so much a Callahan thing, so much that this team already has a ton of expensive contracts, and you can't keep spending big on locking up a core that's still very flawed. This team has too many needs to keep giving big contracts to players who aren't getting it done.

You're too caught up in offensive talent. Callahan is a better defensive player than almost any of those guys, except for Staal and Richards, maybe.

I think you also need to adjust your values on what constitutes a big contract. In a $70m+ world, $6m represents a medium sized deal, not a large one.

 

[RangerBoy]

The Rangers were 3-5-2 in 10 home games in December. So far they are 4-3-1 this month at home. 2-3 in the last 5 games at home. These two months were the time for the Rangers to solidify their spot in the playoffs. Put the points in the bank for when the schedule gets harder with more travel. They haven't faced great competition at home. 7-8-3. 17 points out of a possible 36. 3 more home games before the break. Islanders,Avs and Edmonton. That's 1/2 the home schedule and the most points they can come out this is 23 points out of 42. Look at their schedule in March and April which includes a west coast trip to western Canada and Colorado. The Rangers have 3 games in 3 1/2 days in March. In Minnesota on Thursday,Winnipeg on Friday and back home to face SJ on Sunday afternoon at 4. Then they go back out west one week later for Calgary,Edmonton,Vancouver and Colorado. We talked about their schedule in November and how they needed to take advantage of it. They haven't.

 

[lucky13]

You're too caught up in offensive talent. Callahan is a better defensive player than almost any of those guys, except for Staal and Richards, maybe.

I think you also need to adjust your values on what constitutes a big contract. In a $70m+ world, $6m represents a medium sized deal, not a large one.

This.... So much this.... $6m contracts were big 6 yrs ago.... not anymore

 

[Raspewtin]

You're too caught up in offensive talent. Callahan is a better defensive player than almost any of those guys.

I think you also need to adjust your values on what constitutes a big contract. In a $70m+ world, $6m represents a medium sized deal, not a large one.

6 million dollars for, again, a 50 point player. Of course I'm a little caught up in offensive talent, it's what this team has desperately needed for 6 years now, and still does. So lets say we sign Callahan and Girardi to 6 million each, which is supposedly their fair market value.

Nash-7.8
Lundqvist-8.5
McD-4.7
Cally-6
Girardi-6

That's 33 million, just a bit under half of the 70 million dollar cap.

Now we need to pay for the other 18 players. With 35 million. None of the centers we have are included here. When (if) we finally get that #1 center we so desperately need, that's probably another long term contract. How much money do Kreider, Stepan, Zuccarello, etc. get? The players that half of our cap is going to are our #1 D and Goalie (which is fine), our #3 defenseman (who can't play well without an elite partner), a 2nd line RW with intangibles, and Nash, who is our big goal scorer who is about a million dollars overpaid.

Do you see the problem here? You're banking on the cap going up high enough that we can sign all of our players, that aren't good enough to be gamebreakers to long and expensive contracts. And if we keep signing these players at their "market value", we still have minimal space to work with to bring in elite talent (our, again, far and away biggest need) when the cap goes up.

 

[Paulie Walnutz]

In a 30 team league, that's more the norm that not.

Yeah explain 1 in 74 years, mostly in a 6 team league

 

[Raspewtin]

This.... So much this.... $6m contracts were big 6 yrs ago.... not anymore

I'd have no problem giving 6 million dollars to a player who contributes more offensively, and isn't hurt 3 times a year.

 

[lucky13]

I'd have no problem giving 6 million dollars to a player who contributes more offensively, and isn't hurt 3 times a year.

Im not completely disagreeing with you..... Like I said earlier im most worried about just riding the season out and letting them walk for nothing and thinking about where the money goes then.....

I just dont see him trading these guys without getting players back who can contribute now.... Not picks and prospects who might play in the future

 

[Raspewtin]

Im not completely disagreeing with you..... Like I said earlier im most worried about just riding the season out and letting them walk for nothing and thinking about where the money goes then.....

I just dont see him trading these guys without getting players back who can contribute now.... Not picks and prospects who might play in the future

People want picks and prospects because the future looks bleak (no elite talent in the pipeline, no gamebreakers, except maybe Miller, and some question marks in Duclair and Buch) and this team isn't good enough to win the cup this year, but also not bad enough to get high picks. Gotta stock up for the future, and try to improve from within. Because this constantly buying and win now mentality has gotten us into this garbage situation for the last 6 years.

 

[Ail]

The logic in here is absurd.

The Rangers are mediocre because, despite making the playoffs and advancing, they don't win the cup. Other teams that do the same thing (San Jose for example) are good teams.

Players shouldn't get signed because they're "old" and the team isn't going anywhere, but San Jose signing even older players and still not going anywhere is cool.

Looks at where San Jose is in the standings. Look at the Rangers. Look at the conference they are in. Look at the Rangers. Look at the division, look at the Rangers.

The Sharks have remained consistently competitive for as long as they guys have been there together. No they haven't won ****, but guess what only one team can win a year. I would rather have a team who you know is making the playoffs every year CONVINCINGLY and not winning the Cup, then a team who MIGHT make the playoffs every year and has almost no shot of winning the Cup.

Also, the Sharks aren't the greatest example for someone to argue with, but they're still in a better place than the Rangers. Only the past two seasons have they struggled a bit. They re signed those played because they feel like they have a good core now and those two players help a.) develop that core, and b.) give them a chance to win a Cup.

Do Callahan and Girardi have the same effect? On the former, yes they are good role models and have experience. On the latter? No. The latter is more important when considering their upcoming contracts.

 

[Tawnos]

6 million dollars for, again, a 50 point player. Of course I'm a little caught up in offensive talent, it's what this team has desperately needed for 6 years now, and still does. So lets say we sign Callahan and Girardi to 6 million each, which is supposedly their fair market value.

Nash-7.8
Lundqvist-8.5
McD-4.7
Cally-6
Girardi-6

That's 33 million, just a bit under half of the 70 million dollar cap.

Now we need to pay for the other 18 players. With 35 million. None of the centers we have are included here. When (if) we finally get that #1 center we so desperately need, that's probably another long term contract. How much money do Kreider, Stepan, Zuccarello, etc. get? The players that half of our cap is going to are our #1 D and Goalie (which is fine), our #3 defenseman (who can't play well without an elite partner), a 2nd line RW with intangibles, and Nash, who is our big goal scorer who is about a million dollars overpaid.

Do you see the problem here? You're banking on the cap going up high enough that we can sign all of our players, that aren't good enough to be gamebreakers to long and expensive contracts. And if we keep signing these players at their "market value", we still have minimal space to work with to bring in elite talent (our, again, far and away biggest need) when the cap goes up.

I'm actually not advocating resigning Callahan at all. I'm saying that if that's the HOCKEY decision the team makes, the value of the player is what it is. This is more of a case of making a hockey decision than it is a case of a financial one.

Also important to note that a team like Chicago has $41m tied up in 7 players for next season. The rest of their roster needs to average $2.3m. The current signed players beyond those 7 average $2.5m, meaning the other 4 players need to pull the average down.

People freak out about top heavy rosters, but the truth is that they are the norm in the NHL. Having a top heavy roster in itself doesn't mean a team won't be able to compete. Does Chicago have a better mix of offensive players? Of course they do. But that's the hockey decision I'm talking about, not the financial one.

 

[lucky13]

People want picks and prospects because the future looks bleak (no elite talent in the pipeline, no gamebreakers, except maybe Miller, and some question marks in Duclair and Buch) and this team isn't good enough to win the cup this year, but also not bad enough to get high picks. Gotta stock up for the future, and try to improve from within. Because this constantly buying and win now mentality has gotten us into this garbage situation for the last 6 years.

I know why they want them but I dont see it happening... Also cmon.... They stopped trying to just buy in 10 yrs ago.... Theyve been bringing up prospects steady since Girardi 1st came up.... Only diff is that they only hit 1 truly lucky HR in the late rds with Hank in Net.... Most teams Stumble into some top line talent in the late rds and we havent done that .... Kreider can be one... he needs prob 2 more yrs to really see what we got in his prime tho

 

[Raspewtin]

I'm actually not advocating resigning Callahan at all. I'm saying that if that's the HOCKEY decision the team makes, the value of the player is what it is. This is more of a case of making a hockey decision than it is a case of a financial one.

Also important to note that a team like Chicago has $41m tied up in 7 players for next season. The rest of their roster needs to average $2.3m. The current signed players beyond those 7 average $2.5m, meaning the other 4 players need to pull the average down.

People freak out about top heavy rosters, but the truth is that they are the norm in the NHL. Having a top heavy roster in itself doesn't mean a team won't be able to compete. Does Chicago have a better mix of offensive players? Of course they do. But that's the hockey decision I'm talking about, not the financial one.

Comparing Chicago and the Rangers as top heavy teams is a bit ludicrous.

Players that Chicago has locked up with 41 mill are Keith (#1 Dman, one of the tops in the league), Patrick Kane (3rd in the league in points), Jonathan Toews (Complete #1 center), Marian Hossa (A rich man's Callahan with multiple PPG seasons under his belt), Patrick Sharp (one of the more dynamic goal scorers in the league), and Corey Crawford (average starting goalie, terrible contract). The Rangers situation doesn't compare at all.

I'm not arguing that this team should have contracts spread out evenly. I am arguing that the big contracts go to the best players.

I'd be just fine with a top heavy roster salary wise, if the top was good enough to win a cup.

 

[Raspewtin]

I know why they want them but I dont see it happening... Also cmon.... They stopped trying to just buy in 10 yrs ago.... Theyve been bringing up prospects steady since Girardi 1st came up.... Only diff is that they only hit 1 truly lucky HR in the late rds with Hank in Net.... Most teams Stumble into some top line talent in the late rds and we havent done that .... Kreider can be one... he needs prob 2 more yrs to really see what we got in his prime tho

I never said they're trying to just buy at this point, but it's still very prevalent in this organization's philosophy that they believe this team is close to winning. "Just gotta get in" "Anything can happen" "Hank's just gotta get hot" "One more trade and we're in!" are very common mindsets that are reflected in the team's moves.

 

[Tawnos]

Again, you're discussing hockey decisions. Let's say you add Callahan at $6m to a Blackhawks team that doesn't already have Marian Hossa. Most people would consider that a GREAT move. Is Callahan as good of an offensive player as Hossa? No, but he'd bring great things to that team and the contract, as an open market, non-back diving deal would be considered good for them. These are roster decisions.

 

[Cassano]

Again, you're discussing hockey decisions. Let's say you add Callahan at $6m to a Blackhawks team that doesn't already have Marian Hossa. Most people would consider that a GREAT move. Is Callahan as good of an offensive player as Hossa? No, but he'd bring great things to that team and the contract, as an open market, non-back diving deal would be considered good for them. These are roster decisions.

It'd be a terrible deal for them. They already overpaid Bickell. They have bigger needs to address at center and they're stacked with Callahan type prospects in their deep farm system. You just can't justify giving Callahan 6mil per when Keith, Seabrook, Sharp make less than that on the cap.

 

[Raspewtin]

What does adding Callahan to Chicago have to do with anything?

 

[alkurtz]

So what are we advocating here? Trading our 1st pair dman and our captain for prospects and/or picks?

If we do that, we will not make the playoffs this year or next? Is that what we want?

Now I would have no problem if the front office decided to tear the whole team down and start over. But, that is a hockey decision and not a financial one.

But we all know that this is not going to happen. They will not be traded at the deadline. We're not going to makes moves that make the team worse.

Certainly Cally and Girardi are not elite players nor are they getting elite money or will they. We have invested a lot in these players and now that they are in their peak years, to let them go seems poor asset management.

Many here do not want to accept that salaries are on an upward spiral. 6 milion for a first pair D is what the market will pay. 5-6 million for a second/third line winger who is also your captain is a fair salary.



It is likely the skills will erode after a few years, Girardi slipping to second pair and Cally on the third line. But by then, 2nd pair D and 3rd liners will be making 6 million a year. These contracts will give us cost certainty as the cap spirals upward. What seems onerous now, will not be onerous then.

The world of athlete's salaries is a surreal one but is the world we must function in.

 

[Ail]

So what are we advocating here? Trading our 1st pair dman and our captain for prospects and/or picks?

If we do that, we will not make the playoffs this year or next? Is that what we want?

Now I would have no problem if the front office decided to tear the whole team down and start over. But, that is a hockey decision and not a financial one.

But we all know that this is not going to happen. They will not be traded at the deadline. We're not going to makes moves that make the team worse.

Certainly Cally and Girardi are not elite players nor are they getting elite money or will they. We have invested a lot in these players and now that they are in their peak years, to let them go seems poor asset management.

Many here do not want to accept that salaries are on an upward spiral. 6 milion for a first pair D is what the market will pay. 5-6 million for a second/third line winger who is also your captain is a fair salary.



It is likely the skills will erode after a few years, Girardi slipping to second pair and Cally on the third line. But by then, 2nd pair D and 3rd liners will be making 6 million a year. These contracts will give us cost certainty as the cap spirals upward. What seems onerous now, will not be onerous then.

The world of athlete's salaries is a surreal one but is the world we must function in.

Hypothetically speaking would not making the playoffs for the next 1-2 years be worth making it without question convincingly for the next 5-10?

I'm not even saying that would 100% be the result, but it is more likely to be the outcome than it is in a world where we hand Girardi and Callahan bloated contracts.

 

[ArPanet]

Dustin Brown negotiated his own contract so to compare him to anybody else add 15%.

 

[Tawnos]

What does adding Callahan to Chicago have to do with anything?

Seriously?

The point is that Callahan at $6m isn't a bad contract as such. It might not be the best for the Rangers as they are currently constituted, but that's not saying the same thing.

 

[Ail]

Seriously?

The point is that Callahan at $6m isn't a bad contract as such. It might not be the best for the Rangers as they are currently constituted, but that's not saying the same thing.

It isn't a bad contract for say, 3 years. It is for 5-7.

I don't think any team should give Callahan 6 mil for any longer than 3-4 years.