Brooklyn Rangers Fan
Change is good.
I should have mentioned that, in addition to having their risks, they would have different costs.
My point was that there are a whole host of pieces that aren't Yakupov or Eberle that are still interesting.Speculation: Trade Thread Part XI: New year...no trades.
- Thread starter Trxjw
- 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
I should have mentioned that, in addition to having their risks, they would have different costs.
My point was that there are a whole host of pieces that aren't Yakupov or Eberle that are still interesting.
HatTrick Swayze
Just Be Nice
I do hate to cherry pick like this. And I largely agree with your post. But this bottom line just underscores exactly what is wrong with the Rangers.
Girardi doesn't "fit right now". Yet magically, he is desired by a ton of teams around the league. We are throwing away a first pair RHD because he doesn't fit the travesty that is the Rangers defense this year. How does that make any sense? Especially since the system & identity could very well change before Girardi's next contract is close to expiring. Because the organization has no plan. Well they "do" but it will change in 5 minutes.
Finding a top pair RHD is almost as difficult as a 1C. What player is gonna come in and fill his role? I love aspects of Buff's game. I have a hard time seeing him being close to as effective as Girardi in the abortion of a defensive system the Rangers are employing now. I'm not even talking about Buff vs Girardi. Because Buff's offensive game shifts the entire argument. I am talking about pissing away a RH defensive d because he "doesn't fit" a defensive system when we have one defenseman who fits said system and the entire group has been wildly erratic.
NoQuitInNewMexico
it's okay cause it's all just the way it should be
http://nypost.com/2014/01/03/del-zottos-reps-want-meeting-with-rangers-gm-to-talk-trade/
Gorton was in Sweden. A lot of players to look at the WJC.
The day Lundqvist was resigned, was the signal that this team won't be drafting (with their own pick) in the top ten for about a decade.
That is the reality we have to work with going forward.
Its going to be back-fill UFAs to fill out the roster, and hope-and-pray-picks like Duclair.
Everybody makes it sound like there is some sure fire formula here. You do this and the result will be thus. You make this move and this will happen. You have this plan and you guarantee this result.
NO! NO! NO!
There is no magic solution or formula here. This is not fantasy hockey or an app on your smart phone. This is real life; its messy and unpredictable. The law of unintended consequences lurks over everything.
Not only is it about real life, but its worse: its sports and only one team goes home as champions. Its sports with a salary cap that in many ways punishes success and makes it difficult to keep team together.
You know what? Every team has a plan. No team, including the incompetent Sather run Rangers has not had a plan. The plan was: build with youth, supplement with high end talent acquired as UFAs or in trades, bring in a coach who will maximize talent. A great plan, a great "formula." But who could have predicted Richards getting old before his time, injuries to key players like Staal? Torts wearing out his welcome early? The lockout? It was a good plan, but as they say, life got in the way. And plans can't stagnate, especially in sports. All teams tinker with their roster in the off season or are forced to by cap restraints. Having a plan, having a good plan and sticking to it does not mean you will be successful.
Another thing: "core." Every team has a group of young and older players that is its core. But cores evolve and change. I blame the whole "core" mysticism on the Yankees and their Core Four. Now all teams in all sports pay homage to it.
I wish I knew what the answer is. I've been a Ranger fan for over 50 years and its darned frustrating. There is no sure fire answer. Sometimes it seems teams just blunder into success. Thats not to say that having a top notch GM doesn't mean anything: of course it does. But it doesn't guarantee success either.
One thing I've seen is teams, particularly in baseball, that get to a point in the season where it doesn't appear they will make the playoffs so they trade off their assets. More often then not, they are worse for the deal. Not all the time, for instance Beltran for Wheeler.
I am loathe to trade Cally and Girardi unless the deal is lopsided in our favor. We could find out that we did'nt appreciate their value until they were gone. We could find ourselves a much worse team. Not to say I don't listen to offers and move them under the right circumstances. But we must proceed with caution. Sometimes taking a step back sends you tumbling over the cliff and it takes years to recover.
Believe me, I'm tired of mediocrity. One cup in a lifetime of being a fan is not nearly enough. But there is no magic solution or formula. Fire Sather? Absolutely. Get draft picks? Absolutely. Develop your own? Positively. Have a plan and stick to it? Positively. But success is not a given.
NO! NO! NO!
There is no magic solution or formula here. This is not fantasy hockey or an app on your smart phone. This is real life; its messy and unpredictable. The law of unintended consequences lurks over everything.
Not only is it about real life, but its worse: its sports and only one team goes home as champions. Its sports with a salary cap that in many ways punishes success and makes it difficult to keep team together.
You know what? Every team has a plan. No team, including the incompetent Sather run Rangers has not had a plan. The plan was: build with youth, supplement with high end talent acquired as UFAs or in trades, bring in a coach who will maximize talent. A great plan, a great "formula." But who could have predicted Richards getting old before his time, injuries to key players like Staal? Torts wearing out his welcome early? The lockout? It was a good plan, but as they say, life got in the way. And plans can't stagnate, especially in sports. All teams tinker with their roster in the off season or are forced to by cap restraints. Having a plan, having a good plan and sticking to it does not mean you will be successful.
Another thing: "core." Every team has a group of young and older players that is its core. But cores evolve and change. I blame the whole "core" mysticism on the Yankees and their Core Four. Now all teams in all sports pay homage to it.
I wish I knew what the answer is. I've been a Ranger fan for over 50 years and its darned frustrating. There is no sure fire answer. Sometimes it seems teams just blunder into success. Thats not to say that having a top notch GM doesn't mean anything: of course it does. But it doesn't guarantee success either.
One thing I've seen is teams, particularly in baseball, that get to a point in the season where it doesn't appear they will make the playoffs so they trade off their assets. More often then not, they are worse for the deal. Not all the time, for instance Beltran for Wheeler.
I am loathe to trade Cally and Girardi unless the deal is lopsided in our favor. We could find out that we did'nt appreciate their value until they were gone. We could find ourselves a much worse team. Not to say I don't listen to offers and move them under the right circumstances. But we must proceed with caution. Sometimes taking a step back sends you tumbling over the cliff and it takes years to recover.
Believe me, I'm tired of mediocrity. One cup in a lifetime of being a fan is not nearly enough. But there is no magic solution or formula. Fire Sather? Absolutely. Get draft picks? Absolutely. Develop your own? Positively. Have a plan and stick to it? Positively. But success is not a given.
My thoughts exactly. Our guys are still adapting to a new coach and a new system -- and to each other under that system. Accordingly, in my humble opinion, our short-term goal should be to finish the season with: (1) a higher-than-current win percentage, led by (2) improved GFA, while seeing (3) Hank return to form. Those three targets would set us up nicely for next season (especially if we reach them with the current roster). Reaching the playoffs this year is a bonus -- but I expect a Conference Semifinals appearance next season.
For now, there are definitely positives, like our improved power play efficiency. Succeeding in the aspect of the game that most relies on crisp passing, vision and shooting tells me that our roster is more skilled than it might seem. Patience is a virtue; there's no need to make moves for the sake of making moves -- no matter how good they may look on paper. Let's see how our performance evolves with the current roster.
Lets not forget, that "one defensemen" is so good he likely would do just fine in any system.
a tribe cq
That’s just like…your opinion man.
- Jan 15, 2013
- 1,350
- 418
Girardi is a bad fit for a transition offense. AV clearly likes the guys who can rush the puck out of their own end and Girardi simply can't do that. Hence the reason Del Zotto and his elite stretch pass continues to be passed over for John Moore. Also, for better or worse, it seems like man-coverage is here to stay in the defensive zone. You can't play man-to-man without being able to skate. Additionally, like you said, you're cherry-picking a point. It's not that he simply doesn't fit. It's that he's a bad fit right now AND he's due for a significant raise AND plays a style of game that has a track record of breaking a player's body down. Do we want to invest ~$5-6M per for 7 years in the hope that Girardi will be the exception to the rule when it comes to shot-blocking defenders?
Replacing him is difficult, but not entirely impossible. I think saying we're pissing him away is a bit over the top. I'm not advocating putting the guy on waivers. I'm saying that if you can get a solid return that builds for a better future, then it's something that absolutely has to be considered.
Could you please provide us all a hint if you are just trolling or like just not able to read?
The Gloaming
23
Ex Officer Friendly
Got Nothin To Say
ha that would be like a dream if they can get Jurco
I think Jurco is gonna be a great player
If I ask you kindly to respect that I am doing just that, can you please respect it? Is that to much to ask for?
Brooklyn Rangers Fan
Change is good.
Exactly. Saved me the trouble of another long post.
I don't think anyone's advocating a full-on rebuild - we all know that ship sailed the moment they signed Hank to a max contract. But there is a core group of players (Al will please pardon the phrase) who were built for the old system, that are getting older and that are due for new contracts.
When they shifted from Torts for AV, that move indicated that they had acknowledged the failure of the previous plan and moved on to a new one. Once you've done that, you need to begin executing on it. This trading deadline should represent the next step. Get the best possible returns for Cally, Girardi, MDZ, Boyle, D. Moore - and maybe Staal.
You're not looking to blow it up Buffalo style; you're looking to get the best possible influx of new assets for the ones that don't fit the plan you're pursuing now - no matter how well they performed under the old one.
The Gloaming
23
HatTrick Swayze
Just Be Nice
Fair points. And if the argument is Girardi could break down, or isn't worth $5M+ per, I totally get it. I just take issue with the "doesn't fit" argument. Especially when the round hole the Rangers are trying to force the defense into has little track record for success. And requires a significant roster overhaul, based on hoping you find the right prospects. Seems a bit like grasping in the dark to me.
Cant disagree, and thats what makes this all so frustrating. How can we trust Sather that this latest half-assed plan of being a skill/speed team is a long-term philosophy? Especially when he hasn't had a long-term philosophy from the day he got here.
Regarding Girardi, we've seen all we're going to see out of him. Do the Rangers think hes worth 6 years $6M per? I dont know, but that decision should be made already and, as long as theyre not left with their thumb up their ass and Girardi walks for nothing, I dont think they can really go the wrong way on that one.
Pavel Buchnevich
"Pavel Buchnevich The Fake"
For all those people that want to trade Girardi, let me ask you this. Who is going to replace his minutes on the right side?
Stralman is a fine 2nd pair defenseman. Allen and McIlrath are 3rd pair defenseman at best right now, and almost certainly not 1st pair RHD. If Girardi is traded, the team is missing a 1st pair RHD. You can't just bump everyone up a pair or sign some average RHD to play the minutes that Girardi did and expect that you won't have problems. McDonagh can cover others mistakes, but he can't handle an entire top line from a team like Washington or Pittsburgh by himself.
The Rangers are bereft of RHD on the team and in the system. They need to keep Girardi and sign him to a contract. The only way that it would be fine if they traded Girardi was if they got a potential 1st pair RHD back in the trade for him or drafted one this year. Seeing as that doesn't seem likely given his lack of star value on the trade market and the Rangers probable drafting position, trading Girardi should and is not an option. They also can't afford to let him walk in free agency. He is the most important piece in the organization besides McDonagh, IMO. Its just not easy to find guys that are first pair defenseman. You can find a forward who could be a potential 60 point guy in the later rounds. In fact, the Rangers found two forwards that look like potential 50-60 point guys 5 picks apart in the third round of the 2013 draft. Finding a 1st pair RHD is extremely hard, and I think the Rangers would be wise to keep their 1st pair RHD and sign him.
If the team is going to tank and not care about weaknesses, then trade Girardi along with Nash, Callahan, Lundqvist and Staal, but as long as the Rangers are aiming to win the Cup with this group, Girardi is not an option to trade. He can't be replaced easily.
Stralman is a fine 2nd pair defenseman. Allen and McIlrath are 3rd pair defenseman at best right now, and almost certainly not 1st pair RHD. If Girardi is traded, the team is missing a 1st pair RHD. You can't just bump everyone up a pair or sign some average RHD to play the minutes that Girardi did and expect that you won't have problems. McDonagh can cover others mistakes, but he can't handle an entire top line from a team like Washington or Pittsburgh by himself.
The Rangers are bereft of RHD on the team and in the system. They need to keep Girardi and sign him to a contract. The only way that it would be fine if they traded Girardi was if they got a potential 1st pair RHD back in the trade for him or drafted one this year. Seeing as that doesn't seem likely given his lack of star value on the trade market and the Rangers probable drafting position, trading Girardi should and is not an option. They also can't afford to let him walk in free agency. He is the most important piece in the organization besides McDonagh, IMO. Its just not easy to find guys that are first pair defenseman. You can find a forward who could be a potential 60 point guy in the later rounds. In fact, the Rangers found two forwards that look like potential 50-60 point guys 5 picks apart in the third round of the 2013 draft. Finding a 1st pair RHD is extremely hard, and I think the Rangers would be wise to keep their 1st pair RHD and sign him.
If the team is going to tank and not care about weaknesses, then trade Girardi along with Nash, Callahan, Lundqvist and Staal, but as long as the Rangers are aiming to win the Cup with this group, Girardi is not an option to trade. He can't be replaced easily.
NYR Viper
Registered User
The reason you make those types of moves is to become healthier in the long run, it will be hard for a little while, there is no denying that.
Pavel Buchnevich
"Pavel Buchnevich The Fake"
Then why not trade everyone that won't be of great value when the team is ready to make another run in three of four years? Nash, Staal and Lundqvist should all be out the door if the team is tanking.
SlingshotVv
arm-bar all the things
In the opinion of this long time NYR and NHL fan Girardi is the kind of defenseman you win with. The fact that he's home grown makes him heart and foul tied up this franchise.
Fitzy
Very Stable Genius
- Jan 29, 2009
- 36,350
- 24,135
A couple responses to the "who fills Girardi's minutes" comment...
1. Girardi does nothing on the PP, so those mintues can be handed off to Stralman, Allen, ect without substantial loss.
2. On the PK, the handedness of a defenseman is less important. So NYR could run 2 pairings, those being McD, Stralman and Staal, Del Zotto or Staal-Moore
3. For ES, you'd have to move someone over. That is the big problem, because to me the main reason for Del Zotto's recent struggles have been the fact that he was the guy forced over onto the right hand side. You could try McDonagh over there, or really anyone, just not Del Zotto.
I like Girardi a lot. He's been subpar like most guys this year. Trading him hurts us short terms and helps us long term.
1. Girardi does nothing on the PP, so those mintues can be handed off to Stralman, Allen, ect without substantial loss.
2. On the PK, the handedness of a defenseman is less important. So NYR could run 2 pairings, those being McD, Stralman and Staal, Del Zotto or Staal-Moore
3. For ES, you'd have to move someone over. That is the big problem, because to me the main reason for Del Zotto's recent struggles have been the fact that he was the guy forced over onto the right hand side. You could try McDonagh over there, or really anyone, just not Del Zotto.
I like Girardi a lot. He's been subpar like most guys this year. Trading him hurts us short terms and helps us long term.
I dont see the point of massively overpaying Girardi just because the team doesnt have an immediate replacement.
For decades, the Rangers have panicked over holes in the lineup - and it often led to longterm problems, doing more bad than good, causing the team to take steps backwards.
Whats wrong with trying something different? Whats wrong with purposefully taking a couple of steps back as part of a plan to get better in the future?
- Status
Latest posts
-
Proposal: Ivan Provorov For Seth Jones with 50% retained?- Latest: PanniniClaus
-
Due to a Traffic Jam Hurricane players walk to the Arena in Toronto- Latest: The Hanging Jowl
-
