Rumor: Trade Rumor Thread XIII

[NYR Viper]

Anything can happen in the playoffs!

I hate this saying! Sather uses it as an excuse to not make the right decisions...

 

[Gardner McKay]

They were also coming off a Stanley Cup which is difficult for any team and went through A LOT more turnover than what losing Callahan and Girardi would be to this team.

Lets not forget their little contracts mishap which forced them to have to trade some elements of that winning team.

 

[Slick Rick 61]

One of the biggest concern of Ranger fans is roster turnover, and rightfully so. That said, whether you like it or lot, a significant amount of turnover was inevitable this summer. AV inherited an entire roster that Torts had, sans Falk, Moore, and Pouliot. This was always a year where evaluation was going to be emphasized and prioritized, because given their cap space this summer, they have the $ and assets to acquire players better fit to play this system. (Especially factoring in a Richards buyout).

I'm still of the belief that any trade of Girardi/and or Callahan makes this team weaker for the duration of the season and playoffs. Unless they flip Girardi for a similar rental, but that, to me, is incredibly idiotic and shortsighted.

 

[Raspewtin]

Getting killed? We tend to overperform every year and play surprisingly well in the playoffs. A hot Henrik will likely take us to the ECF, especially with the offense we've found lately.

We make it past the first round more often than not. Clearly we need to take the next step but it's there for the taking.

But when we face a real contender, we get shredded.

See what Boston did to us? Why do we constantly go to 7 games in series that we should be winning (Ottawa, both recent WSH series').

I just don't buy that we're a contender. Yeah, Hank can get hot and carry us, but can't any goalie do the same? It's not as likely, but it's the same bs anything can happen mantra.

 

[BarbaraAlphanse]

I know it's radical. But it is what a good organization would do in order to remain competitive for the long haul.




I do, I wasn't attacking you, just stating I don't think they would have to sign Staal if Girardi was dealt.

And in a vacuum, i'd be right there with you, supporting the same arguments. But we're not in a vacuum. Prospects don't work out all the time. They have a pretty bad turn out rate, actually. You're assuming the guys we trade for will be sure things.

What happens if we trade both of our guys, take on prospects that never develop. Let's say that 50% of the guys we get don't develop, something more hopeful a complete swing and miss, and something more optimistic than the turn out rate for most top prospects... that likely means that 2 prospects will develop into decent players from these 2 trades (if we consider we get 2 1sts and 2 top prospects in total)... meaning we'll be where we started if we go the optimistic route... and that'll be in 2-3 years, when the guys that come up develop and get used to the NHL.

So it's not as simple as trade these guys, who are bound to be overpaid, for prospects for the good of the future. There's a high risk that you need to realistically view as being problematic. Do you trust our scouting department with making the right choice? I don't. We're an average team at scouting and developing players. Average. That's it.

 

[BarbaraAlphanse]

But when we face a real contender, we get shredded.

See what Boston did to us? Why do we constantly go to 7 games in series that we should be winning (Ottawa, both recent WSH series').

I just don't buy that we're a contender. Yeah, Hank can get hot and carry us, but can't any goalie do the same? It's not as likely, but it's the same bs anything can happen mantra.

We were the better team 4/5 games we played in Boston. We weren't resilient. We lost the lead in the 3rd a couple of times. Couldn't hold leads. Couldn't come back when we needed to. 1 goal games for the most part. We also wouldn't have been pushed around the way we were if we had a healthy Clowe.

 

[NYR Viper]

And in a vacuum, i'd be right there with you, supporting the same arguments. But we're not in a vacuum. Prospects don't work out all the time. They have a pretty bad turn out rate, actually. You're assuming the guys we trade for will be sure things.

What happens if we trade both of our guys, take on prospects that never develop. Let's say that 50% of the guys we get don't develop, something more hopeful a complete swing and miss, and something more optimistic than the turn out rate for most top prospects... that likely means that 2 prospects will develop into decent players from these 2 trades (if we consider we get 2 1sts and 2 top prospects in total)... meaning we'll be where we started if we go the optimistic route... and that'll be in 2-3 years, when the guys that come up develop and get used to the NHL.

So it's not as simple as trade these guys, who are bound to be overpaid, for prospects for the good of the future. There's a high risk that you need to realistically view as being problematic. Do you trust our scouting department with making the right choice? I don't. We're an average team at scouting and developing players. Average. That's it.

I'd take a couple of high end pieces for each player and the added effect of not overpaying for players who haven't can can not carry the team on their back for any stretch.

 

[NYR Viper]

We were the better team 4/5 games we played in Boston. We weren't resilient. We lost the lead in the 3rd a couple of times. Couldn't hold leads. Couldn't come back when we needed to. 1 goal games for the most part. We also wouldn't have been pushed around the way we were if we had a healthy Clowe.

If, if, if. The fact of the matter is, the Rangers team last year was not good enough to win The Cup. Injuries happen.

The Cup is the goal. A season is not a success without winning The Cup. Making the playoffs for 10 years is great, but if you don't win a Cup no one gives a ****.

 

[NernieBichols]

On bridge deals.

Look in some cases, its a good thing, it can be win win for both sides. IE: Contending team, has a young, up and coming player who they'd like to sign to a lesser shorter deal to give them flexibility while they go for it. It's good for a struggling player is who not living up to his ability or potential. And then there are some players who neither side knows what they're going to become, so the bridge deal allows them to put that decision off for a little while.

Examples of how it doesn't work. Lets say we signed Prust to 4 year 6million contract instead of a 2 year 2 million or whatever it was deal. Lets say we bought a few years of Girardi's UFA years and had he locked up for another 2 years right now. I know callahan actually rejected a longer deal, but you don't know the details behind it. maybe it was an 8y 32 million contract and not a 5yr 22.5 million contact and Callahan wasn't willing to give up his prime free agency years for an annual of 4million. Maybe with Prust last year and this year, we'd have retained the respect we gained around the league in 2011-12. Girardi and Callahan for another couple years without making this decision. Heck, ill even say not having to think about redoing Stepan and Hagelin's deal at the end of next year.

But in most cases, if we are talking about legit players, these bridge deals pave the way to them feeling like they need to make up for lost money in their UFA eligible deal. Im not in favor of giving kreider a 7-8 year deal. but I kinda like these 4-5 year deals on RFA. you get anywhere from 2-3 years at a great value for a good player, and then when they are up for their next deal, they've been set financially for years, they are settled, they are comfortable. And as a fan and management you know the guys gonna be around for awhile. Callahan and Girardi have probably been stressing over the fact, that their financial security (in pro athletes perspective) is still up in the air and wondering all this time, in the back of their head, 'this team isn't gonna pay me, Im gonna have to move'. I know these guys are pro athletes. but it sucks for heart and soul players who gave their bodies up for the organization, that the entire time we're hedging their bets thinking, I don't know if we're gonna pay these guys when it gets down to it

 

[Cliffy1814]

In all honesty...

Does anyone think that we are going to consider dealing a top pair D man and the Captain of the team while the team is in playing pretty well, in 2nd place, world class goalie in his Prime, in a fairly weak conference?
We all know the team has holes, but so do most of these teams.

I know people we say "They should" but does anybody actually think they "will"?
I'd be shocked if they did.
Almost no chance Girardi gets dealt and small chance Callahan does (only because he is more replaceable short and long term).

 

[BarbaraAlphanse]

I'd take a couple of high end pieces for each player and the added effect of not overpaying for players who haven't can can not carry the team on their back for any stretch.

But is that for the betterment of the team?

There's option 3, which no one ever talks about, which is resign both of these players to inflated contracts and then trade them mid-way through their contracts. Dan Boyle has a lot of value at the age of 37. Both of these players haven't hit 30 yet. They have productive years yet to come...

I don't think trading both of them is in the best interest of the club. I think trading 1 would be wise, but both would be reckless and borderline idiotic. And of course, you need to make sure you have your bases covered. So if the guy you're trading is Girardi, you sure as hell better be certain that Staal wants to be here for the long haul.

 

[Slick Rick 61]

On bridge deals.

Look in some cases, its a good thing, it can be win win for both sides. Contending team, has a young, up and coming player who they've like to sign to a lesser shorter deal to give them flexible while they go for it. It's good for a struggling player is who not living up to his ability or potential. And then there are some players who neither side knows what they're going to become, so the bridge deal allows them to put that decision off for a little while.

Examples of how it doesn't work. Lets say we signed Prust to 4 year 6million contract instead of a 2 year 2 million or whatever it was deal. Lets say we bought a few years of Girardi's UFA years and had he locked up for another 2 years right now. I know callahan actually rejected a longer deal, but you don't know the details behind it. maybe it was an 8y 32 million contract and not a 5yr 22.5 million contact and Callahan wasn't willing to give up his prime free agency years for an annual of 4million.

But in most cases, if we are talking about legit players, these bridge deals pave the way to them feeling like they need to make up for lost money in their UFA eligible deal. Im not in favor of giving kreider a 7-8 year deal. but I like to 4-5 year deals on RFA. you get anywhere from 2-3 years at a great value for a good player, and then when they are up for their next deal, they've been set financially for years, they are settled, they are comfortable. Callahan and Girardi have probably been stressing over the fact, that their financial security (in pro athletes perspective) is still up in the air.

But the problem with giving guys like Prust and other RFA's 4 year deals is the uncertainty surrounding the deal. Circumstances change. Serious injuries happen. You just can't keep throwing years out.

As for guys like Kreider and Stepan, UFA status is another reason that these players are given bridge deals. Say you give Kreider a 5 year deal this summer, he's now eligible for UFA at age 27. Give him a 2 year bridge deal, watch his development, and then you still control his rights at negotiating time. Then you can give him a 6-7 year deal that takes him to 31-32, basically through his prime. That's a significant consideration is well. I'd rather have difficult negotiations than losing a player as a young UFA.

The only players who deserve long-term second contracts are the guys like Stamkos (5 year deal after ELC), Seguin (I believe 6 years), Taylor Hall. Just a few examples. Sure those guys will also be eligible for UFA before age 30, but the teams have a long time to lock them up with bigger deals. There's less risk in committing to these players at age 21/22 because you know what you're getting.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

But is that for the betterment of the team?

There's option 3, which no one ever talks about, which is resign both of these players to inflated contracts and then trade them mid-way through their contracts. Dan Boyle has a lot of value at the age of 37. Both of these players haven't hit 30 yet. They have productive years yet to come...

I don't think trading both of them is in the best interest of the club. I think trading 1 would be wise, but both would be reckless and borderline idiotic. And of course, you need to make sure you have your bases covered. So if the guy you're trading is Girardi, you sure as hell better be certain that Staal wants to be here for the long haul.

How come you can't seem to grasp the concept that NOT having 2 overpaid guys on your roster well into their mid-late 30's is, in and of itself, a long-term positive for the organization?

 

[BarbaraAlphanse]

In all honesty...

Does anyone think that we are going to consider dealing a top pair D man and the Captain of the team while the team is in playing pretty well, in 2nd place, world class goalie in his Prime, in a fairly weak conference?
We all know the team has holes, but so do most of these teams.

I know people we say "They should" but does anybody actually think they "will"?
I'd be shocked if they did.
Almost no chance Girardi gets dealt and small chance Callahan does (only because he is more replaceable short and long term).

I think a lateral move of Girardi is definitely in the realm of possibility before February 7th.

 

[Bardof425*]

This is a good point - for years, Girardi and Callahan have logged tons of minutes, played on the first pairing/top 6 and in all situations, etc., and have been utilized as some elite players would. The major problem with that is that they aren't as talented as their minutes and role on this team would indicate.

Perhaps this is why Prust wanted more money as well - he was used on the 3rd line and expected a 3rd line contract in return, when in actuality his skillset is more suited to the 4th line.

This is very important; value and ice time in a Torts system does not = value and ice time when playing for another team in this league. Girardi, Callahan, Prust, Boyle, Fedetenko, Pyatt are the kind of guys who flourish playing for Torts and then are not as valuable playing in a "normal" NHL system. This must be considered when valuing these guys.

If other teams are willing to pay for what was accomplished under Torts we have to let them go cause that will not be repeated.

 

[NernieBichols]

Im a giants fan. Try telling me anything can happen is just a line

 

[NYR Viper]

How come you can't seem to grasp the concept that NOT having 2 overpaid guys on your roster well into their mid-late 30's is, in and of itself, a long-term positive for the organization?

Exactly. And that doesn't even take into account anything they get in return.

 

[Fitzy]

I think the thing most of us can agree on is that Callahan and Girardi should either be extended or traded by the deadline.

 

[JaeTM]

In all honesty...

Does anyone think that we are going to consider dealing a top pair D man and the Captain of the team while the team is in playing pretty well, in 2nd place, world class goalie in his Prime, in a fairly weak conference?
We all know the team has holes, but so do most of these teams.

I know people we say "They should" but does anybody actually think they "will"?
I'd be shocked if they did.
Almost no chance Girardi gets dealt and small chance Callahan does (only because he is more replaceable short and long term).

This has been my mindset too. Should the organization trade these two? You can definitely make an argument about that. Will it make us better in the long term? It's possible if the prospects pan out. Again, another argument can be stemmed from this. Will they trade them? Not a chance.

 

[NYR Viper]

Im a giants fan. Try telling me anything can happen is just a line

So you are using the exception to the rule as being the rule?

 

[ArPanet]

Engelland is a joke of a hockey player. To say that he would bring what McIlrath brings is laughable.

Glad you formed your opinion on McIlrath after 3 NHL regular season games.

I'll answer this on the prospects thread.

 

[Slick Rick 61]

In all honesty...

Does anyone think that we are going to consider dealing a top pair D man and the Captain of the team while the team is in playing pretty well, in 2nd place, world class goalie in his Prime, in a fairly weak conference?
We all know the team has holes, but so do most of these teams.

I know people we say "They should" but does anybody actually think they "will"?
I'd be shocked if they did.
Almost no chance Girardi gets dealt and small chance Callahan does (only because he is more replaceable short and long term).

I agree with this given how the East has shaped up so far. Trading them for futures makes you worse now. trading them for other pending UFA's is dumb.

I've said a bunch of times in this thread I'd keep one long-term and look to trade one, but only if the deal makes sense.

 

[pld459666]

I hate this saying! Sather uses it as an excuse to not make the right decisions...

I hate it because it seems there's a rather large group of fans that actually believe it.

Like in today's day and age that a goalie can steal a cup.

When your team has as many holes as the Rangers have, I don't care how good the goalie is, you are not winning a Stanley Cup.

The "Anything can happen in the Playoffs" is a nice sound bite, but nothing more than that.

 

[NYR Viper]

I hate it because it seems there's a rather large group of fans that actually believe it.

Like in today's day and age that a goalie can steal a cup.

When your team has as many holes as the Rangers have, I don't care how good the goalie is, you are not winning a Stanley Cup.

The "Anything can happen in the Playoffs" is a nice sound bite, but nothing more than that.

The idea should be, a goalie can steal a game per series. And hey, that's a huge plus IF you have a team that can win the other 3 games.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

So you are using the exception to the rule as being the rule?

Not only that, but it takes 3-4 playoff wins to win the Superbowl.

Not 16.