Blue Blooded
Most people rejected his message
The upside is that other GM's seem to like him, so we could get a good return. The same goes for Girardi.
The moves would be hated by a large part of the fanbase though, there is no getting around that.
Speculation: Trade Rumors/Speculation Part X: Sather Falls Asleep on the Phone
- Thread starter BBKers
- Start date
-
Xenforo Cloud will be upgrading us to version 2.3.5 on March 3rd at 12 AM GMT. This version has increased stability and fixes several bugs. We expect downtime for the duration of the update. The admin team will continue to work on existing issues, templates and upgrade all necessary available addons to minimize impact of this new version. Click Here for Updates
- Status
The upside is that other GM's seem to like him, so we could get a good return. The same goes for Girardi.
The moves would be hated by a large part of the fanbase though, there is no getting around that.
Ergo my ass, WTF is option D and how does option D rank against a)-c)?????????
How hard is simple logic? You know odds aren't good for option a)-c), that's life we haven't done many great things in NY lately, but is it impossible to understand that we -- might -- actually have less chance to win with your option d) as opposed to a)-c)???
Because from my point of view, when I look through option "d)" I definitely can't rule out that it sucks more than a)-c). Less potential, much deeper miserable worst scenario.
I don't know how many Cally/Girardi dumps I've seen over the last 20 years. Most of the time, you end up getting crap. In hindsight, unbelievable crap.
Yeah, and you live in your fantasy that Colorado would trade us Landeskog for Girardi lol.
What's becoming of these boards?
You are just too spoiled. It's like you think someone will give us a cup.
I am sorry, but tearing things apart also put us in a really tough situation...
Samuel Culper III
Mr. Woodhull...
All that really means, if option D sucks and provides less chance to win, is that we are finally forced to draft inside the top 10 a couple of times. The window for when we're even considering competing is pushed back by several years but we're actually looking at the kind of top end talent we clearly lack and require to actually be anything but a pretender. We can hang around and talk "hot at the right time", etc. as a 5-8 seed with a team similar to our current one for the next however many years, with Cally and G as centerpieces, but if we want to actually build a chance at winning, we probably have to embrace sucking at some point first.
Amazing Kreiderman
Registered User
- Apr 11, 2011
- 45,070
- 40,920
The Gloaming
23
Samuel Culper III
Mr. Woodhull...
Basically. Instead of salivating at some 28 year old hitting UFA so we can give them their retirement contract it would be nice to draft a hungry 18 year old with all world talent for once. Or even a few times in a 5 year period or so. It's clear as day that we're a team of support players from top to bottom (outside McD). You know how you get players who are better than support players? Draft them.
HatTrick Swayze
Just Be Nice
The harsh reality is that the Rangers will be in a cesspool of mediocrity for the next 5-10 years at least, regardless of if they sign Callahan and Girardi or not.
1. Henrik Lundqvist. Nuff said. They are absolutely not a bottom 5 and probably not a bottom 10 team as long as he is in net.
2. If you really think Dolan and Sather/GM are going to sit out of the UFA market and let this team fall down the standings for a period of years I've got a bridge to sell you.
3. There is no well oiled "plan" that could be executed for success with limited top talent. Aside from the latest "let AV copy the Red Wings" idea. To which I say good luck, and which I expect will change again in 3-4 years if not sooner.
Unless there is a "Seguin trade" out there the Rangers are in for some tough sledding over the next few years. Just not tough enough "unfortunately".
1. Henrik Lundqvist. Nuff said. They are absolutely not a bottom 5 and probably not a bottom 10 team as long as he is in net.
2. If you really think Dolan and Sather/GM are going to sit out of the UFA market and let this team fall down the standings for a period of years I've got a bridge to sell you.
3. There is no well oiled "plan" that could be executed for success with limited top talent. Aside from the latest "let AV copy the Red Wings" idea. To which I say good luck, and which I expect will change again in 3-4 years if not sooner.
Unless there is a "Seguin trade" out there the Rangers are in for some tough sledding over the next few years. Just not tough enough "unfortunately".
Samuel Culper III
Mr. Woodhull...
I think deep down we all know this which is why their can be such rough attitudes on these boards sometimes. We're damned if we keep our guys and stay mediocre on the low end of good and we're damned if we let them go because our goaltending/management will keep us mediocre on the high end of bad. There is no actually drafting in the top three or making the 'tough calls' on this team. It's going to be same old, same old, seemingly for as long as Sather has breath to draw cigar smoke from. We all want to see improvement and feel there's some sort of plan, whether it's building on what's here to reach something better or tearing it down to create something fresh. Unfortunately neither seems likely. We'll just stagnate right here in the middle.
haveandare
Registered User
Kinda makes you wonder who knows better - a bunch of people on a board who hate everyone who isn't playing their best hockey ever at the exact moment they're being discussed, or professional GMs who actually run NHL teams and have lifetimes of experience between them?
Thirty One
Safe is safe.
- Dec 28, 2003
- 28,981
- 24,357
From what I've seen from the U.S. selection committee, I think I'd go with the angry mob.
AlternateSideParking
Registered User
- Dec 11, 2005
- 21,595
- 5,128
Brassard is a PP specialist and versatile. Why in the world would you want him moved?
Boyle, Girardi, Stralman and D. Moore can be replaced after the deadline to continue a playoff push. Callahan is so bit overrated but he's deserving of a New contract with the Rangers. The problem is I can see Buffalo make a hard run at him and we lose him for nothing.
I like the playoffs. They can make smart moves to improve the teams future and still compete.
Full blown rebuild will never happen. They have enough talent to prevent that.
Boyle, Girardi, Stralman and D. Moore can be replaced after the deadline to continue a playoff push. Callahan is so bit overrated but he's deserving of a New contract with the Rangers. The problem is I can see Buffalo make a hard run at him and we lose him for nothing.
I like the playoffs. They can make smart moves to improve the teams future and still compete.
Full blown rebuild will never happen. They have enough talent to prevent that.
Brooklyn Rangers Fan
Change is good.
Er, okay, not sure why the word "ergo" sparked such a reaction. In any event, as the phrase implies, "simple logic" isn't that hard - I just don't think you're applying it.
The implication from your post is that somehow, someway, this team is going to sign both Cally and Girardi to long-term deals AND figure out a way to compete for the cup at some point while they are both still under contract as core players. This, despite the fact that you've agreed that the team as currently composed ain't going anywhere.
So, by that (simple) logic, somehow drafting in the mid teens and signing the (unbelievable) crap that makes it to UFA in the cap world, this team will figure out by magic and ancient alchemy a way to compete for the cup. As far as I can see, the only way to do that is to draft incredibly well and hope that our prospects pan out into better players than Cally and Girardi.
The only logical way to disagree with that proposition - at least as far as I can see - is if you actually believe that Cally and Girardi are core pieces to a cup winning team, along the lines of a Malkin/Crosby or a Toews/Kane. If that's the case (and it would be at odds with what you've posted previously), we can stop the conversation and agree to disagree.
If, however, you agree that they are nice team players that play important roles, but are not the core of a cup-winning team - and that the way to get the core is to draft it/trade for it - then, I quite simply do not understand why you don't see the logic in moving them to get (many) more chances at finding guys who CAN be the core of a cup winner.
We all know that you're not going to get Landeskog for either player. We also know that some of those trades might wind up like Armstrong and Christensen. However, if you're EVER going to try to make a go of it, you need to take as many shots at getting a McDonagh type prospect in a deal, or drafting a Perry late in the 1st or even drafting another Callahan in the fourth as you can get.
Because once you've determined that your current core is not good enough, you need to start working to upgrade that core.
Will there be debris left by the side of the road? Sure. That's why you need as many lottery tickets as possible - that debris is just as likely to come from guys drafted in the Rangers' allotted slots as it is from the Ducks' 3rd best prospect or the Bruins 27th overall 1st round pick.
I think that's pretty logical reasoning - not sure why you don't agree.
haveandare
Registered User
Aside from inviting media to places that they never, ever should have been, I don't really see much to mock them about. They didn't build an all-star team, but they didn't do that last Olympics either and they had great results.
You make it sound so easy. The draft is one big crap shoot. You just never know how 18 year olds will develop. You might think you know or hope you know, but you never really know. The history of the draft is full of high picks that teams did their due dilgence on that didn't pan out. And that's not even taking injuries into account. Even with excellent scouting and a first class developmental program, many high picks never pan out.
It also works the other way. Look at the Bruins and two unique players, Lucic and Bergeron. Both taken in the second round. Some would give the Bruins high marks for drafting these guys. But the Bruins never thought they would develop as they did, otherwise they would have taken them in the first round. 29 other teams passed on them in the first round and many teams didn't pick them is the second. The Bruins got lucky.
Bottom line in the draft is: You never, ever know. Every team wants to build through the draft. Every team drafts players they hope will excel in the NHL. But it remains one big roulette game.
Given their UFA status I am not adverse to trading Cally or Girardi. But I'm not willing to give them away. The deal must be right. I'm not willing to give up on this season unless we are getting top 10 picks or young proven talent back.
My expectations are realistic for this team: hopefully make the playoffs and win a round. Come April, I want to be in the playoffs.
Having high draft picks is no guarantee of success: look at the Oilers, how many high picks have the Panthers had?
Yes, build through the draft. But you can have 5 picks in the top 10 and still not be successful.
It's not easy, especially when you are drafting kids. Its easier, but still not a sure thing in the NFL or NBA. Just as hard in MLB which requires years of developmental time. But just to say that all we need to do is draft high end players does not guarantee success or winning the Cup.
It also works the other way. Look at the Bruins and two unique players, Lucic and Bergeron. Both taken in the second round. Some would give the Bruins high marks for drafting these guys. But the Bruins never thought they would develop as they did, otherwise they would have taken them in the first round. 29 other teams passed on them in the first round and many teams didn't pick them is the second. The Bruins got lucky.
Bottom line in the draft is: You never, ever know. Every team wants to build through the draft. Every team drafts players they hope will excel in the NHL. But it remains one big roulette game.
Given their UFA status I am not adverse to trading Cally or Girardi. But I'm not willing to give them away. The deal must be right. I'm not willing to give up on this season unless we are getting top 10 picks or young proven talent back.
My expectations are realistic for this team: hopefully make the playoffs and win a round. Come April, I want to be in the playoffs.
Having high draft picks is no guarantee of success: look at the Oilers, how many high picks have the Panthers had?
Yes, build through the draft. But you can have 5 picks in the top 10 and still not be successful.
It's not easy, especially when you are drafting kids. Its easier, but still not a sure thing in the NFL or NBA. Just as hard in MLB which requires years of developmental time. But just to say that all we need to do is draft high end players does not guarantee success or winning the Cup.
Thirty One
Safe is safe.
- Dec 28, 2003
- 28,981
- 24,357
haveandare
Registered User
Thirty One
Safe is safe.
- Dec 28, 2003
- 28,981
- 24,357
Well I think Byfuglien should be on the first pairing with Suter. Looks like he was barely considered.
There's a lot of countries I think Brooks Orpik would be the top 8 in, but not USA.
haveandare
Registered User
Can't disagree about Orpik. I have no idea how anybody could possibly look at the Pens' D the past few years and say "let's put 1/3rd of those guys on team USA" - they've been carved up by lesser offenses than they'll see in Sochi many, many times.
I wanted Buff on the team as well, though probably not that high. I just think a guy with his unique skill set and the ability to play forward and D would be very useful.
Honestly though, every olympic selection is going to have sites of conflict and disagreement. I really don't think this is that bad. I guess we'll see soon enough.
silverfish
got perma'd
- Status
