Toggle sidebar

Rumor: Trade Thread XVI: Callahan looking for $6.85M+ AAV?

  • Thread starter Thread starter BarbaraAlphanse
  • Start date 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
Not open for further replies.
Ryan Clowe, age 31, 292 points, AAV: $4.8 million, 5 years (concussion problems)

David Clarkson, age 29, 178 points, AAV: $5.25, 7 years (missed small increments over his career)

Ryan Callahan, age 28, 252 points, AAV: ? (missed more games than clarkson.


The most I give Callahan is $5.5. The most. I'd rather give him Clarkson money because I don't see him being worth more. That is open market money Clarkson got.
 
I don't understand what is going on with Girardi. There is at least one person each week who says that they are being told that a contract is close and at least one a week that says a contract isn't close.

In the grand scheme of things, if Sather doesn't trade Callahan and we lose him in free agency, we are losing a third liner. If we lose Girardi in free agency for nothing, we are losing our #1 RHD with no replacement in the system, on the team or available in free agency.

Taking away the emotional bit of it, the Rangers could afford to lose Callahan for nothing, but can't afford to lose Girardi for nothing. I am more worried about his contract situation than Callahan's.
 
Sather gets locked into these situations because he doesn't really have the cap space to give out a long term contract covering arb years and group III years. The Rangers wanted to sign Callahan for longer than 3 years in 2011. Gorton and Bartlett couldn't find the number. The Rangers had boatload of players to sign that summer with Callahan,Dubinsky,AA,Sauer and Boyle and pay Richards. They could have bought out Wolski for 1/3 to clear out $ but Sather didn't do that. The money was there with a WW buyout to pay Callahan for more than 3 years. Wolski was hurt for most of the year and Sather traded him for a 3rd and Vernace. The 3rd went in the Clowe deal. Torts made the tub joke about Wolski. With Stepan,Gorton indicated to Custance it was a matter of cap space with Stepan getting a long term deal. Sather kept Richards. Louie Jean reported there was a split within the Rangers front office on Richards. Its the same thing now with Kreider. If the Rangers wanted to do a 6 year deal with him,would they have the space for that? Not with giving everyone raises and the Rangers looking at spending $7M plus on Stastny.
 
RGY said:
Umm no, I hope we keep both. Staal has always been the difference for this team. When he is healthy this team plays that much better. He starts shutting down forwards with his size and long reach. He gets more involved in the offense; saw it in the Islanders game friday. When Staal came back in 2011-2012 the team started to pick it up and in the playoffs that year he was very good. Last year the team was playing very well and then when he went down after getting hit in the eye, the team wasn't as consistent even with DZ playing well while he was out. Right now, this team is playing well and Staal is a large part of it. He should be here for a long time.
Click to expand...

The Rangers had their best stretch under Tortorella when Staal was out. Set a team record for most 5 game winning steaks in a season. The team slipped around the same time he returned. Rangers were 20-20 over final 40 including playoffs. Not saying Staal was the reason the Rangers declined, just that he wasn't "missed" competitively.

Staal has tremendous trade value if he keeps playing like he has been recently. Slotting in, say, Allen, obviously is a downgrade but if O'Reilly for instance was coming the other way (not saying 1 for 1, but then again), maybe the net result of those moves makes the Rangers stronger. That's the gamble, anyway.
 
Gardner McKay said:
Not really. Not to throw you into this generalization or direct it at you but most who say that it is overblown have not spent any significant time outside of NYC. Outside of the northeast and California, the vast majority of the country is significantly cheaper. My taxes in Georgia or Virginia are a fraction of what they were in NY. My pay is slightly less but the cost of living is significantly less. It is a factor.
Click to expand...

And yet people manage to get by without 7 figures. Most of us live in the metro area, we know that cost of living is certainly higher. But it isn't a negotiating point.

Until guys take a discount to play in Carolina, Florida or Nashville because its cheaper, I think we ought to put the NYC cost of living increase to bed.

I'm in the camp that no one is the bad guy here. Its business and nothing more. Cally is worth what he gets paid, but we aren't obligated to be the max bidder.
 
[QUBlurt Vision;79285573]The Rangers had their best stretch under Tortorella when Staal was out. Set a team record for most 5 game winning steaks in a season. The team slipped around the same time he returned. Rangers were 20-20 over final 40 including playoffs. Not saying Staal was the reason the Rangers declined, just that he wasn't "missed" competitively.

Staal has tremendous trade value if he keeps playing like he has been recently. Slotting in, say, Allen, obviously is a downgrade but if O'Reilly for instance was coming the other way (not saying 1 for 1, but then again), maybe the net result of those moves makes the Rangers stronger. That's the gamble, anyway.[/QUOTE]


We also lost Sauer right before Staal came back and with it probably one of the most balanced defenses. I'm not against moving Staal but that is a flawed logic right there.
 
Matt Carle Place said:
Not to mention Staal's market next year is going to be 1.

Yes, everyone saying Staal is definitely going to bolt for Carolina after his contract up are idiots. But that is because there is a very good chance that Staal wants to stay a Ranger. However, if Staal isn't going to stay a Ranger, you can bet there is only one team he'll sign with as a free agent. We'd be in the same position as now with Callahan, with Staal only being a rental and not getting the worth you'd imagine. Every team would be well aware that Staal won't re-sign with them.
Click to expand...

So you are saying there is a 50% chance he winds up a cane but I'm an idiot if I say it?
 
RangerBoy said:
Sather gets locked into these situations because he doesn't really have the cap space to give out a long term contract covering arb years and group III years. The Rangers wanted to sign Callahan for longer than 3 years in 2011. Gorton and Bartlett couldn't find the number. The Rangers had boatload of players to sign that summer with Callahan,Dubinsky,AA,Sauer and Boyle and pay Richards. They could have bought out Wolski for 1/3 to clear out $ but Sather didn't do that. The money was there with a WW buyout to pay Callahan for more than 3 years. Wolski was hurt for most of the year and Sather traded him for a 3rd and Vernace. The 3rd went in the Clowe deal. Torts made the tub joke about Wolski. With Stepan,Gorton indicated to Custance it was a matter of cap space with Stepan getting a long term deal. Sather kept Richards. Louie Jean reported there was a split within the Rangers front office on Richards. Its the same thing now with Kreider. If the Rangers wanted to do a 6 year deal with him,would they have the space for that? Not with giving everyone raises and the Rangers looking at spending $7M plus on Stastny.
Click to expand...

The Rangers simply shouldn't look at spending $7M+ on Stastny. We save money on a Richards buyout and then sign the next albatross? Would he even be an upgrade over Richards? He's certainly younger, but Richards had much better numbers when we signed him. $7M+ could buy us Vanek, or what will he command?
 
Matt Carle Place said:
Not to mention Staal's market next year is going to be 1.

Yes, everyone saying Staal is definitely going to bolt for Carolina after his contract up are idiots. But that is because there is a very good chance that Staal wants to stay a Ranger. However, if Staal isn't going to stay a Ranger, you can bet there is only one team he'll sign with as a free agent. We'd be in the same position as now with Callahan, with Staal only being a rental and not getting the worth you'd imagine. Every team would be well aware that Staal won't re-sign with them.
Click to expand...

If Staal signs with Carolina after his contract runs out, it'll be when Eric Staal has 1 year left on his deal. Is Eric's priority at that point to play with his brothers, or will he be thinking about winning the Cup again? Because that isn't happening any time soon in Carolina, it's reasonable to think. Look at what they gave up for Jordan. Pittsburgh absolutely tonked them in that deal. Considering contracts alone, Sutter is the superior asset. Adding what is a foreseeable future #1 d men pair in Pouliot and Dumoulin, should give any player and his agent no confidence Carolina has a clue. Which is why I don't believe Marc is interested in joining Carolina any time soon. Besides, there's plenty of time left for the 3 brothers to play together, if they don't in the next 5 years.
 
Blurt Vision said:
The Rangers had their best stretch under Tortorella when Staal was out. Set a team record for most 5 game winning steaks in a season. The team slipped around the same time he returned. Rangers were 20-20 over final 40 including playoffs. Not saying Staal was the reason the Rangers declined, just that he wasn't "missed" competitively.

Staal has tremendous trade value if he keeps playing like he has been recently. Slotting in, say, Allen, obviously is a downgrade but if O'Reilly for instance was coming the other way (not saying 1 for 1, but then again), maybe the net result of those moves makes the Rangers stronger. That's the gamble, anyway.
Click to expand...

It's also worth noting that Girardi played the best hockey of his career when Staal was out. I haven't seen him play close to that level since. Del Zotto played over his head as well. The defense overachieved in Staal's absence that year and it's something they haven't been able to replicate since - the defense struggled when Staal missed time last year due to his eye injury and this year due to his concussion.
 
jniklast said:
The Rangers simply shouldn't look at spending $7M+ on Stastny. We save money on a Richards buyout and then sign the next albatross? Would he even be an upgrade over Richards? He's certainly younger, but Richards had much better numbers when we signed him. $7M+ could buy us Vanek, or what will he command?
Click to expand...

Regardless of vanek's demands, i just think it came down to him not wanting to be an islander.
 
DutchShamrock said:
[QUBlurt Vision;79285573]The Rangers had their best stretch under Tortorella when Staal was out. Set a team record for most 5 game winning steaks in a season. The team slipped around the same time he returned. Rangers were 20-20 over final 40 including playoffs. Not saying Staal was the reason the Rangers declined, just that he wasn't "missed" competitively.

Staal has tremendous trade value if he keeps playing like he has been recently. Slotting in, say, Allen, obviously is a downgrade but if O'Reilly for instance was coming the other way (not saying 1 for 1, but then again), maybe the net result of those moves makes the Rangers stronger. That's the gamble, anyway.
Click to expand...


We also lost Sauer right before Staal came back and with it probably one of the most balanced defenses. I'm not against moving Staal but that is a flawed logic right there.[/QUOTE]

Where is the flawed logic in saying when Staal was out the Rangers had their best results under Torts, and set a team record for 5 game winning streaks in a season? I'm not seeing it.

And, if the Rangers declined after Sauer was lost even with Staal returning, maybe we're seeing how Sauer was more valuable to the Rangers than Staal? Not saying here that is what I believe, primarily because it sucks even to think about Sauer, but the logic certainly follows that Sauer was more valuable than Staal.

For the record, I'm not saying that Staal returning made the Rangers worse. I'm saying, while he was out the team was not worse than after he came back.
 
Bardof425 said:
This cost of living thing is overblown. What about the opportunities to make millions of dollars on Madison Avenue if you're a popular Ranger? NY is a big place and the cost of living varies depending on the choice the player makes.
Click to expand...

It is absolutely not overblown...

Avg entry level salary = 48k in Boston/Philly
Avg entry level salary in NY = 62k

The 14k is the estimation in the increase of cost of living... That's a big difference.
 
Ailurophile said:
This has officially entered pop-corn territory. I think it is all a show. I fully believe Sather, and the Callahan party both knew over the summer how this was going to end.

The entertainment extends beyond what happens on the ice and they have to give the media something to sensationalize even if they know how the story ends prior.
Click to expand...

I'm predicting a shocking development mid-week.
 
GAGLine said:
Yeah, ok. You're wrong. Not going to argue about it.



Because there's no way in holy hell that the islanders would give us Vanek AND a pick for Callahan. They wouldn't give us Vanek for Callahan straight up. They gave up Moulson, plus a 1st and 2nd to get Vanek. So unless you are prepared to give up Callahan plus 1st and 2nd round picks for Vanek, it isn't happening, and probably not even then because the islanders aren't going to make that kind of deal with a rival.
Click to expand...

You're right about the trade, I overestimated how valuable Callahan is, but I don't think I went overboard on his value as a player...

secondly, I'm wrong why? Because of the reality that Callahan finds $ more important than this "team" that he supposedly "has his heart in"? I'm fine with the guy cashing in on his pay day, he's earned that right no doubt. So, I guess I'm wrong because he should be asking for Dustin Brown $? Because they're very very similar players?

Yeah, and I'm the one who's wrong./
 
OverTheCap said:
It's also worth noting that Girardi played the best hockey of his career when Staal was out. I haven't seen him play close to that level since. Del Zotto played over his head as well. The defense overachieved in Staal's absence that year and it's something they haven't been able to replicate since - the defense struggled when Staal missed time last year due to his eye injury and this year due to his concussion.
Click to expand...

Many factors contribute to results of course. But, to say the Rangers can never be sufficiently defensively competent without Staal, doesn't make sense to me. Other guys can be better. Allen may be good enough. It's a decent shout right now. Again, not saying Allen will be the equal of Staal, but if trading Staal gets the Rangers a center who is better than Stepan, I think it's not out of the question to trade Staal. Even if our d corps overall is weaker. Best d is great offense, right?
 
Can't the team just be deep in one position without shipping that depth out for the dream of some depth somewhere else, which almost never pans out? They have 2 good RWs in front of Callahan. Awesome. 3 top 6 RWs would be good too, even better. Obviously, 7 years in wacky, but I'd be okay with 5 if Callahan has any chance at all of coming around to it. Good teams have good depth. They have 2 d-men in front of Staal if G resigns. Good. Resign Staal anyway and keep him. Again, good depth. Having 3 dmen like that in your deck is a huge deal. Keep them all there unless you get absolutely blown away by an offer.

Good teams don't shuffle the deck halfway every single offseason. This team needs to decide who is here to stay, lock them up and be done with it.
 
kenjets36 said:
It is absolutely not overblown...

Avg entry level salary = 48k in Boston/Philly
Avg entry level salary in NY = 62k

The 14k is the estimation in the increase of cost of living... That's a big difference.
Click to expand...

But doesn't cost of living proportionally decrease as you have higher and higher income?
 
azaloum90 said:
exactly
Click to expand...

Not really because your quality of life expenses go up. Yes you could continue buying generic food, generic clothing and living in a lower income neighborhood, but most people like to reward themselves and their family for earning more money. Do some people overspend, and spend frivolously? Yes, but just because you were eating ramen and oatmeal in college 5 times a week doesn't mean you will when you get a real job.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom