Rumor: Trade Rumor Thread XIII

[BarbaraAlphanse]

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?

I grasp it. How can you not grasp the concept that this is not a vacuum. No one likes to recognize the risk associated with trading them.

"Oh trade them for the long-term success"... ********. There is no guarantee the guys we trade for them develop into anything special. There is no guarantee the money opened up for other free agents isn't used more inefficiently. We still have Sather, are you forgetting, the guy who gave 6 mill for 6 years to aging Wade Redden... He'll spend the available cap space somewhere, doesn't mean having more cap space is a good thing with this GM.

I recognize that these 2 guys are going to likely be overpaid. And again, in a vacuum, i'm right there with you guys - trade them. But there is a need to hedge your risk. You trade one of them, fine, i agree with retooling to an extent. But then the other guy needs to be kept to hedge the risk. You can't go all in on the prospects, you can't go all in on the current players. Moderation. That would be the responsible move to do. Not sell off everyone and hope for the best. That's throwing mud at the wall and seeing what sticks.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

I grasp it. How can you not grasp the concept that this is not a vacuum. No one likes to recognize the risk associated with trading them.

"Oh trade them for the long-term success"... ********. There is no guarantee the guys we trade for them develop into anything special. There is no guarantee the money opened up for other free agents isn't used more inefficiently. We still have Sather, are you forgetting, the guy who gave 6 mill for 6 years to aging Wade Redden... He'll spend the available cap space somewhere, doesn't mean having more cap space is a good thing with this GM.

I recognize that these 2 guys are going to likely be overpaid. And again, in a vacuum, i'm right there with you guys - trade them. But there is a need to hedge your risk. You trade one of them, fine, i agree with retooling to an extent. But then the other guy needs to be kept to hedge the risk. You can't go all in on the prospects, you can't go all in on the current players. Moderation. That would be the responsible move to do. Not sell off everyone and hope for the best. That's throwing mud at the wall and seeing what sticks.

We obviously have different definitions of what operating in a vacuum is.

To me, its dithering on this decision to the point where you get to the summer and your only options are either massively overpaying these guys or letting them walk for nothing. And for what? So you could have them on the roster for another half-assed playoff run? Thats looking at things in a vacuum.

 

[Thirty One]

Can anyone think of a 6'0" and under offensive forward that played a physical style and maintained their level of production into their mid 30s?

I picked out five of the closest comparables I could think of and saw how their careers went:

Some fun facts:

• This group of players’ buy-outs cost their teams a total of $16,550,002 in cap space

• The players combined for 25 goals and 43 assists in 251 games past their Age 33 season (the season in which they were 33 on February 1)

• The players announced their retirements at the average age of 35 years and 7 months

Callahan will be 29 when his new contract starts. How many productive years will he have left?

 

[NernieBichols]

"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."


8 year contract to a 27 year old brings him to 35. resigning a franchise or top-6 top-4 guy who's 31-32 to a 6-8 year deal takes him to 37-40… I much rather do business the other way seriously. To me it makes too make sense, you pay a guy for his prime in his prime, instead of being forced to shell out big bucks to an aging player. Look around the league guys, most top-6 players, that's the way the deals are structured. None of these players hit free agency bc their team has no problem paying them at 27. even prust 4 years at 1.5 million. Even if he got hurt, who cares. We pay ashram, powe, pyatt all 1.5 deals. I know its hindsight, but that instance worked out bad for the rangers.

 

[BarbaraAlphanse]

We obviously have different definitions of what operating in a vacuum is.

To me, its dithering on this decision to the point where you get to the summer and your only options are either massively overpaying these guys or letting them walk for nothing. And for what? So you could have them on the roster for another half-assed playoff run? Thats looking at things in a vacuum.

My definition of a vacuum is wanting to trade these players under the assumption that the after-effects are bound to work out. That the prospect will turn out, that the draft pick will turn out, and that the available cap space will be used efficiently on other players that fit our needs better.

I'm saying trade one of them, commit to the other to hedge the risk of swinging and missing. You retool, you keep a veteran. It's what the Penguins, the Ducks, the Sharks, the Bruins do. They don't trade everyone at once, they don't keep everyone. Why is it so difficult to remain moderate?

 

[NYR Viper]

Can anyone think of a 6'0" and under offensive forward that played a physical style and maintained their level of production into their mid 30s?

I picked out five of the closest comparables I could think of and saw how their careers went:

Some fun facts:

• This group of players’ buy-outs cost their teams a total of $16,550,002 in cap space

• The players combined for 25 goals and 43 assists in 251 games past their Age 33 season (the season in which they were 33 on February 1)

• The players announced their retirements at the average age of 35 years and 7 months

Callahan will be 29 when his new contract starts. How many productive years will he have left?

Exactly what I have been saying.

 

[OverTheCap]

Right now I think this team is in a somewhat similar position to what they were in 2010: new coach, complacency has creeped in for some players, the team doesn't really have a set identity, inconsistent effort and execution, etc.

The organization needs to identify who fits in going forward and trim some of the deadweight. However, with all the upcoming UFAs this summer, a sense of urgency is more apparent than it was in 2010. It's hard to gauge what direction this team is headed in when 7 players are eligible for free agency and there is so much uncertainty with the roster - the Rangers better start making these hard decisions soon so Sather isn't left scrambling on July 1 with no plan.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

My definition of a vacuum is wanting to trade these players under the assumption that the after-effects are bound to work out. That the prospect will turn out, that the draft pick will turn out, and that the available cap space will be used efficiently on other players that fit our needs better.

I'm saying trade one of them, commit to the other to hedge the risk of swinging and missing. You retool, you keep a veteran. It's what the Penguins, the Ducks, the Sharks, the Bruins do. They don't trade everyone at once, they don't keep everyone. Why is it so difficult to remain moderate?

Well, for starters, "remaining moderate" as you put it, allows this decision to drag onto the summer, which is just about the worst thing that can happen.

And perhaps more importantly, I think you're worrying about the wrong thing. Im far less worried about the return replacing Callahan and Girardi than I am about what these guys (especially Callahan) will look like halfway through their contracts.

And I think its far more likely the Rangers are able to find suitable replacements by that time than it is that these guys are performing like $6M players.

 

[NernieBichols]

come on Viper. how many teams go on runs. Im not gonna waste my time going through the major sports and reference every instance. But someone could if they wanted. I was in traverse city again this september and I was talking to clark again. And he kinda took it personally that I said last year wasn't a good year. He looked at me like 'what do you mean we were one of the final 8 teams this year, last year final 4'..

IF you can do that year and year out, and you have the goaltending and defense the Rangers do, the chances that you win one, is a heck of a lot better then rebuilding this team and thinking we're gonna put the blackhawks, or pens, or blues together. But society and entertainment loves people getting sucked into fantasies. For this msg board even, a rebuild would be great for business. Not as good for actual hockey product though.

And just to tell you, the giants pulled that exception not once but twice.

 

[Gardner McKay]

Can anyone think of a 6'0" and under offensive forward that played a physical style and maintained their level of production into their mid 30s?

I picked out five of the closest comparables I could think of and saw how their careers went:

Some fun facts:

• This group of players’ buy-outs cost their teams a total of $16,550,002 in cap space

• The players combined for 25 goals and 43 assists in 251 games past their Age 33 season (the season in which they were 33 on February 1)

• The players announced their retirements at the average age of 35 years and 7 months

Callahan will be 29 when his new contract starts. How many productive years will he have left?

Get out. That post just contains to much logic.

This is why I am for keeping Girardi and trading Callahan now.

 

[NYR Viper]

come on Viper. how many teams go on runs. Im not gonna waste my time going through the major sports and reference every instance. But someone could if they wanted. I was in traverse city again this september and I was talking to clark again. And he kinda took it personally that I said last year wasn't a good year. He looked at me like what do you mean we were one of the final 8 teams this year, last year final 4.. IF you can do that year and year out, and you have the goaltending and defense the Rangers do, the chances that you win one, is a heck of a lot better then rebuilding this team and thinking we're gonna put the blackhawks, or pens, or blues together. But society and entertainment loves people getting sucked into fantasies. For this msg board even, a rebuild would be great for business. Not as good for actual hockey product though.

And just to tell you, the giants pulled that exception not once but twice.

Different sports.

The fact of the matter is, the Rangers were outmatched by the Bruins. The team has gotten worse from last year. Giving Callahan and Girardi long-term big money deals solidifies this team moving forward. Do you believe this is the team that will win The Cup? Signing them, with McDonagh, Nash and Hank, means that is the core you are going to war with for many years. Will they win with that group?

 

[BarbaraAlphanse]

Well, for starters, "remaining moderate" as you put it, allows this decision to drag onto the summer, which is just about the worst thing that can happen.

And perhaps more importantly, I think you're worrying about the wrong them. Im far less worried about the return replacing Callahan and Girardi than I am about what these guys (especially Callahan) will look like halfway through their contracts.

And I think its far more likely the Rangers are able to find suitable replacements by that time than it is that these guys are performing like $6M players.

Oh well. I don't think it is worth it for either of us to argue about this till we're blue in the face.

To be honest, I wouldn't be upset with trading either for top prospects.

I don't like the prospect of tossing the season, considering that Henrik alone could get us through some rounds. But again, future foresight is needed to sustain dominance for years to come.

I think it's bad asset management if we don't win the cup, keep both players, don't extend them, and let them walk. We agree there. But there's so much more to take into account. That's my point. We could go on a run, no matter how small the chance is... it's still there, and it's still somewhat legitimate. We could trade these players and our returns be absolute duds... that's a legitimate concern too.

I'm not for resigning Cally at anything over 6. I'm not for resigning Girardi for anything over 6. So if that's the case... trade them, commit to a slight rebuild. At least we'll get better draft picks and hopefully choose players that will be dynamic top 6 players for us, something we sorely lack.

 

[Slick Rick 61]

come on Viper. how many teams go on runs. Im not gonna waste my time going through the major sports and reference every instance. But someone could if they wanted. I was in traverse city again this september and I was talking to clark again. And he kinda took it personally that I said last year wasn't a good year. He looked at me like what do you mean we were one of the final 8 teams this year, last year final 4.. IF you can do that year and year out, and you have the goaltending and defense the Rangers do, the chances that you win one, is a heck of a lot better then rebuilding this team and thinking we're gonna put the blackhawks, or pens, or blues together. But society and entertainment loves people getting sucked into fantasies. For this msg board even, a rebuild would be great for business. Not as good for actual hockey product though.

And just to tell you, the giants pulled that exception not once but twice.

Winning 4 and 16 games in the playoffs are two different things.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

Oh well. I don't think it is worth it for either of us to argue about this till we're blue in the face.

To be honest, I wouldn't be upset with trading either for top prospects.

I don't like the prospect of tossing the season, considering that Henrik alone could get us through some rounds. But again, future foresight is needed to sustain dominance for years to come.

I think it's bad asset management if we don't win the cup, keep both players, don't extend them, and let them walk. We agree there. But there's so much more to take into account. That's my point. We could go on a run, no matter how small the chance is... it's still there, and it's still somewhat legitimate. We could trade these players and our returns be absolute duds... that's a legitimate concern too.

I'm not for resigning Cally at anything over 6. I'm not for resigning Girardi for anything over 6. So if that's the case... trade them, commit to a slight rebuild. At least we'll get better draft picks and hopefully choose players that will be dynamic top 6 players for us, something we sorely lack.

Honestly, we can continue to argue about it so long as you place a premium on the team's chances this season over what Callahan looks like at 33 years old, making around $6M a year with 3 or 4 years left on his contract.

 

[Vidic15*]

come on Viper. how many teams go on runs. Im not gonna waste my time going through the major sports and reference every instance. But someone could if they wanted. I was in traverse city again this september and I was talking to clark again. And he kinda took it personally that I said last year wasn't a good year. He looked at me like what do you mean we were one of the final 8 teams this year, last year final 4.. IF you can do that year and year out, and you have the goaltending and defense the Rangers do, the chances that you win one, is a heck of a lot better then rebuilding this team and thinking we're gonna put the blackhawks, or pens, or blues together. But society and entertainment loves people getting sucked into fantasies. For this msg board even, a rebuild would be great for business. Not as good for actual hockey product though.

And just to tell you, the giants pulled that exception not once but twice.

I take it personally that we only have 1 Cup in 74 years

 

[Bardof425*]

2.5 is way too much for a guy who was a Tortorella player, and is now a 4th line winger who doesn't ever score or fight.

You can find a faster, more effective PK guy for 1/3rd that price. Take Dom Moore or Darrell Powe.

agree; Boyle got his contract when his 21 goal season was still something that could have been repeated in some people's minds. Now that he is defense only without any ability to protect his mates, his value is significantly less than his current contract. At 1.2M per he's useful. Anything more, no thanks. And I'd rather have Dom Moore if that turns out to be the decision.

 

[BarbaraAlphanse]

Honestly, we can continue to argue about it so long as you place a premium on the team's chances this season over what Callahan looks like at 33 years old, making around $6M a year with 3 or 4 years left on his contract.

He doesn't look like a 6 m premium at age 33, I'll tell you that.

5-5.5 is my limit to him. 5.5-5.8 is my limit on Girardi. Those contracts aren't crippling and they're easier to trade if need be.

Neither is realistic or likely unfortunately. I just think that things don't always work out the way that you hope and because of that, there is an inherent need to mitigate the risk you're taking. That's my argument. I wouldn't mind if both are traded. I'd think it was a mistake, but I wouldn't be upset.

 

[Thirty One]

I don't think the Rangers should trade them for picks and prospects without replacing them. The Rangers are 2nd in their division and I think they are the 2nd best team in the division. I think you could make the argument they're the 3rd best team in the East overall. As doomy and gloomy as we get around here, they would have a chance in the 7 game series against Boston/Pittsburgh. Even if the Bruins or Penguins have a say 65% chance of winning each game, that still gives the Rangers a 20% chance of winning 4 of 7. Not to mention other teams could knock off the good teams as well (see 2011-12). What would last year's playoffs look like if all of Toronto's bad luck didn't reverse itself in the third period against Boston in Game 7?

They should follow San Jose's route. Trade off overvalued assets (Clowe, Murray) and bring in undervalued ones (Torres).

 

[eco's bones]

Can anyone think of a 6'0" and under offensive forward that played a physical style and maintained their level of production into their mid 30s?

I picked out five of the closest comparables I could think of and saw how their careers went:

Some fun facts:

• This group of players’ buy-outs cost their teams a total of $16,550,002 in cap space

• The players combined for 25 goals and 43 assists in 251 games past their Age 33 season (the season in which they were 33 on February 1)

• The players announced their retirements at the average age of 35 years and 7 months

Callahan will be 29 when his new contract starts. How many productive years will he have left?

Drury and Parrish were physical players?

 

[Bardof425*]

I think Girardi would bring back more than Callahan. Easily

Especially this year where he is the top available at his position in the UFA market. We either need to lock him up or deal him cause there will be a bidding war for his services; one we cannot afford to participate in.

 

[Slick Rick 61]

I don't think the Rangers should trade them for picks and prospects without replacing them. The Rangers are 2nd in their division and I think they are the 2nd best team in the division. I think you could make the argument they're the 3rd best team in the East overall. As doomy and gloomy as we get around here, they would have a chance in the 7 game series against Boston/Pittsburgh. Even if the Bruins or Penguins have a say 65% chance of winning each game, that still gives the Rangers a 20% chance of winning 4 of 7. Not to mention other teams could knock off the good teams as well (see 2011-12). What would last year's playoffs look like if all of Toronto's bad luck didn't reverse itself in the third period against Boston in Game 7?

They should follow San Jose's route. Trade off overvalued assets (Clowe, Murray) and bring in undervalued ones (Torres).

I agree with this, but that Sharks team was quite fine without Clowe (who had 0 goals, missed time with a concussion, and slid down the depth chart). Murray can't skate anymore. Addition by subtraction for them.

Subtracting Callahan is easier to swallow, and they'll get more than a 2nd, 5th, and conditional second for Cally, but it's a greater impact loss. I've become torn up on what to do. I'm really not scared of anyone but Pittsburgh in the East and going to the ECF will likely require going through them, because the Metro is NOT getting two Wildcards.

 

[OverTheCap]

Interesting that Clark felt that last season was a good year, while Sather said anything less than a cup is a failure. Either they aren't on the same page in terms of defining success for this organization, or Sather is just spouting more of his doublespeak.

 

[BarbaraAlphanse]

I'm wondering if we trade both Cally and Girardi, or the alternative of losing both after the season for nothing... if we keep Richards for the long haul afterwards?

 

[JimmyG89]

The team can compete without Ryan Callahan on this roster. He is the captain, but he produces at a tweener 2nd/3rd line rate and the 2nd liner is further than being a 3rd liner at this point. I do not like the Jaskin + 1st type trades unless we buy a rental who can slot into the 3rd line. We do have a shot to go on a deep run and making a move that does not add a piece to the NHL roster would hurt. A subsequent trade would be needed for a 3rd liner to fill a void in the lineup.

Girard I should be resigned. Many defenders can make it to their mid 30s and be effective. Girardi can do it. He relies on positioning.

 

[NYR Viper]

I'm wondering if we trade both Cally and Girardi, or the alternative of losing both after the season for nothing... if we keep Richards for the long haul afterwards?

Why? All that does is create a whole other problem.