Rumor: Trade Thread XVII: Callahan's Reckoning.

[broadwayblue]

Why would he take JUST 2 million per year?

Stralman will probably be offered somewhere neat 4 per maybe even more over 5 years.

Righty shooting RS defenceman are at a premium. He's learned how to play defence under Torts and the kid can skate.

such an underrated player for this team.

He's a compound/spackle type of player. One of those guys that don't get noticed, but is just as important in building a wall as are the studs.

My point was to counter the opinion that Stralman did not deserve a 5 year deal. I would argue he does deserve a 5 year deal, depending on the dollars. Certainly I'd go higher than 2 (nor would he accept only 2) but the point is that at the right price he's worth inking for a lengthy term. You don't have to be a superstar to get a long term deal...you just have to be worth your money.

 

[NikC]

yep he did. I think Steve Eminger did at one time too

Quincey did in Detroit and hes been terrible.

That was Gaustad...

 

[Ola]

Brassard is a frustratingly inconsistent, but talented player (I'd love to get a 3 year deal done for him this summer).

Stralman is a fine depth defenseman. Plug-and-play in the #4/#5 spot. Gives you solid minutes. Plays physically, positionally sound, and moves the puck up the ice.

Committing to guys like that long-term is not an insignificant risk and can really screw up your salary cap structure if you're not careful. Look at a team like Philadelphia. They hand out term like candy and now their flexibility is limited.

Short/Intermediate-term deals give you flexibility. In a salary cap world, that's almost as important as players themselves.

Philly signed Pronger to a +35 contract that takes him to 45, and handed over the room to him, and then screwed up again with giving Bryz 50m before buying him out.

How is that comparable to signing a young and healthy D to when he is 33? Or even 29?

He is more valuble on the market with a log contract and he will be cheaper for us down the road. What is it to think twice about? God forbid, something happen to him there is always LTIR. People seriously think Stralman will break down when he is 31 lol? He will only get better.

I could get it if people where expecting Stralsy and Brass to get full NMCs,but they will need get that.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

Philly signed Pronger to a +35 contract that takes him to 45, and handed over the room to him, and then screwed up again with giving Bryz 50m before buying him out.

How is that comparable to signing a young and healthy D to when he is 33? Or even 29?

He is more valuble on the market with a log contract and he will be cheaper for us down the road. What is it to think twice about? God forbid, something happen to him there is always LTIR. People seriously think Stralman will break down when he is 31 lol? He will only get better.

I could get it if people where expecting Stralsy and Brass to get full NMCs,but they will need get that.

If you want me to be blunt and brutally honest, the answer is that Stralman is just not good enough of a player to invest in long-term

 

[Brooklyn Rangers Fan]

I would have no issues giving Stralman a 5 year deal as long as the numbers were right.

He' not overly physical so it's not like his body will take a beating over that time thus reducing his mobility or effectiveness.

I see the same player in year 5 that I see in Stralman today.

solid 2nd/3rd pairing RS defenceman.

18.75 over 5 for Stralman is a deal I do in a heartbeat.

Completely agreed.

Someone - might have been RB - made the point a while back that Stralman has like 6 kids. Players (especially mid- and lower-tier players) are typically willing to sacrifice dollars for term and the security that comes with it. That might be doubly true for Stralman. I offer him:

5 x $3.75
4 x $4.00
3 x $4.25
2 x $4.50

And if you can do $250K less at each level, so much the better.

 

[NYR Viper]

And? Who actually wants Stewart as a long term centerpiece here? He's filler.

If he's the only player in that deal, then we don't lose anything by having that deal pulled.

I think Stewart is getting bashed a bit more than he deserves. The guy isn't a grinder, he isn't a 2-way player, however he knows how to score goals and he is very capable of putting up 100 PIM's worth of fighting majors in a year. I wouldn't be all that upset if he was part of the deal coming back. See how he does over the rest of this season and next season and if he works bring him back. If not, he is well worth a 1st round pick at next years deadline.

He brought it up again in prime time TSN coverage last night. So I'd wager it's a bit more than just his own speculation at this point. He went from, and I'm paraphrasing a bit here, "Callahan for Stewart would be a good deal for the Blues" on Twitter to "The deal is still there. Stewart would be a part of that." last night. To me, that's a bit more than just speculation.

It makes the most sense to deal Callahan before the Olympic break. If he's injured in Sochi, the Rangers are screwed. You're hedging your risk with what is possibly a lower return if you deal him prior to the roster freeze. However, I can't imagine that by now the Rangers don't have a good feel for what the market is, and then have a couple of days to negotiate the right trade.

Girardi and Stralman aren't going anywhere before the break. They aren't in jeopardy of getting hurt because they aren't playing in the Olympics. They can wait.

Agree on all of this.

Because if you sign him to a 6 year contract he'll be 33?

5+ year contracts should be reserved for the elite/very good players.

I love Stralman. He's one of my favorite Rangers.

He does not deserve a 5 year contract.

I'd sign Stralman to a 5 year contract iat a reasonable cap figure. 3 million? Done deal.

Not to mention that Stastny is a much better face off guy (just about as good as Boyle)

If Richards was the same player he is today, but 28 years old, I'd have no issues keeping him around at 6.66.

But at 34 years old to start next season and clearly declining as a productive player, you don't take the chance that he will maintain a 50 point average.

cap foot print being equal, I take Stastny at 7.5 over Richards at 6.66 starting the 2014-15 season every day of the week.

He's a good player for sure but I bet he gets more than 6.6 unfortunately.

 

[HatTrick Swayze]

Personally, I finally really like the balance of the defense. I agree another offensive guy would be great in the Vatanen, Honka mold.

But all things considered I think it would really behoove the org to lock up Girardi at 5.5-6ish and Stralman at what, 4? Keep this group together until you can land an upgrade, then you can consider jettisoning someone.

Allen could play I guess. Without having seem a ton of him lately, I agree with those saying McIlrath is a ways off. I thinking keeping these 6 together would be the best option for now though.

 

[NYR Viper]

If you want me to be blunt and brutally honest, the answer is that Stralman is just not good enough of a player to invest in long-term

I'm not sure I agree, it all depends on what the contract cap hit is.

 

[Mikos87]

Someone - might have been RB - made the point a while back that Stralman has like 6 kids. Players (especially mid- and lower-tier players) are typically willing to sacrifice dollars for term and the security that comes with it.

Hahaha I think someone is confusing Antonio Cromartie with Anton Stralman.

 

[xander]

Personally, I finally really like the balance of the defense. I agree another offensive guy would be great in the Vatanen, Honka mold.

But all things considered I think it would really behoove the org to lock up Girardi at 5.5-6ish and Stralman at what, 4? Keep this group together until you can land an upgrade, then you can consider jettisoning someone.

If the numbers make sense, I am of a similar mindset. Make Allen or McIlrath push someone out. If Stralman is signed at 3.5-4 for 3/4 years, you will be able to get assets for him. The same goes (obviously) for Moore or Staal* on the left side. Make the kids force your hand.

*Ugh, typing Staal's name in this thread reminded me of how soon we're going to need to go through this process again. If there is any chance they can extend him this summer, they have to. Value only decreases the closer a player gets to UFA status.

 

[BarbaraAlphanse]

If the numbers make sense, I am of a similar mindset. Make Allen or McIlrath push someone out. If Stralman is signed at 3.5-4 for 3/4 years, you will be able to get assets for him. The same goes (obviously) for Moore or Staal* on the left side. Make the kids force your hand.

*Ugh, typing Staal's name in this thread reminded me of how soon we're going to need to go through this process again. If there is any chance they can extend him this summer, they have to. Value only decreases the closer a player gets to UFA status.

Who is Staal's agent?

 

[broadwayblue]

The difference is that Staal is more deserving of big money than Girardi or Cally. Granted, we don't know what he's going to be looking for, so he too could need to be moved.

 

[xander]

Who is Staal's agent?

Paul Krepelka of the Orr Hockey Group negotiated his last contract.

 

[Matt4776]

I think Stewart is getting bashed a bit more than he deserves. The guy isn't a grinder, he isn't a 2-way player, however he knows how to score goals and he is very capable of putting up 100 PIM's worth of fighting majors in a year. I wouldn't be all that upset if he was part of the deal coming back. See how he does over the rest of this season and next season and if he works bring him back. If not, he is well worth a 1st round pick at next years deadline.



Agree on all of this.



I'd sign Stralman to a 5 year contract iat a reasonable cap figure. 3 million? Done deal.



He's a good player for sure but I bet he gets more than 6.6 unfortunately.

If you could get Stralman for a 5 yr 15M deal you make the deal.

I think he gets at least 4M, though. I don't think I'd do 5 yr 20M.

 

[xander]

The difference is that Staal is more deserving of big money than Girardi or Cally. Granted, we don't know what he's going to be looking for.

Staal and Girardi aren't that far apart. If Girardi gets 6 for $5.75m, Staal probably goes at 6 for $6.5m.

 

[NYR Viper]

If you could get Stralman for a 5 yr 15M deal you make the deal.

I think he gets at least 4M, though. I don't think I'd do 5 yr 20M.

I wouldn't go 20, but I'd split the difference. 17.5.

3.5 million for 5 years. He is a #4/5 RD. Look at Klein. He has value because of his long contract. Stralman isn't old.

 

[NYR Viper]

Staal and Girardi aren't that far apart. If Girardi gets 6 for $5.75m, Staal probably goes at 6 for $6.5m.

Eh, more LD's in the NHL. Girardi hasn't missed time due to injuries. I disagree.

Girardi gets 6 million over 7 (as a UFA)
Staal gets 5 million over 7 (as a UFA)

 

[broadwayblue]

Eh, more LD's in the NHL. Girardi hasn't missed time due to injuries. I disagree.

Girardi gets 6 million over 7 (as a UFA)
Staal gets 5 million over 7 (as a UFA)

Even better...since I'd rather keep Staal (long term) over Danny G.

 

[xander]

Eh, more LD's in the NHL. Girardi hasn't missed time due to injuries. I disagree.

Girardi gets 6 million over 7 (as a UFA)
Staal gets 5 million over 7 (as a UFA)

He's going to make 5.4m in the last year of his deal, the market isn't going to make him take a pay cut; certainly not if he continues his current form for the next year and a half (not to mention the expected cap raise).

 

[RGY]

Even better...since I'd rather keep Staal (long term) over Danny G.

I'd rather keep both.

 

[haveandare]

I'd rather keep both.

Me too. The franchise fell backward into a situation where they have 3 really good defenseman. They drafted one, the other was a wolf pack tryout, and the third came in a once-in-a-lifetime fleecing of Montreal. In today's league, with how little movement there is among top d-men, they need to ride this out as long as they possibly can.

 

[Ola]

Brassard is a frustratingly inconsistent, but talented player (I'd love to get a 3 year deal done for him this summer).

Stralman is a fine depth defenseman. Plug-and-play in the #4/#5 spot. Gives you solid minutes. Plays physically, positionally sound, and moves the puck up the ice.

Committing to guys like that long-term is not an insignificant risk and can really screw up your salary cap structure if you're not careful. Look at a team like Philadelphia. They hand out term like candy and now their flexibility is limited.

Short/Intermediate-term deals give you flexibility. In a salary cap world, that's almost as important as players themselves.

We get more flexibility with them signed long term because they become a lot easier to move.

It's not an insignificant risk to have most of your players hit UFA either.

You also always pay more or less market value for a player when you sign him, don't matter if it's 3 years or 6 years. With the cap going up, it's a built in mechanism that you stand to gain from those deals.

Look at all long deals signed, besides the one that goes into players 40s, how many were misstakes in hindsight? 1-3? The other 60 seem to be steals.

What do you know that all the other GMs don't? Slats is almost alone in refusing to lock up his players and in preferring having them all become UFAs on a regular basis. Still almost everyone at this place loves Slats strategy of having mass UFAs.

From my point of view, I would bet that locking up a 26 y/o at a decent price for 4-5 years is to prefer over 1-2 years in like 19 of 20 cases. The odd case is that the player breaks when he is like 29, faces a career endin injury or something.

I mean, if Stralsy is worth 3.75m today, in just two years, with the cap going up, he is probably worth like 4.25m assuming that he is as good when he is 29 as when he was 27. So, for him to be overpaid when he is 29, he actually has to regress. The same thing applies when he is 31, but to a greater extent. Or 32 which he would be at the end of a 5 year deal.

I have very good reasons for why players shouldn't take 5 year deals. But to make them for the teams is not easy lol, not with 25-27 y/o.

 

[Slick Rick 61]

Ola, I don't fully disagree with your opinion. I sound hypocritical regarding Stralman because I was thrilled that the Rangers were able to get back a signed Kevin Klein for 4 more years.

However, does it really make sense to hand out another longer term deal to a "solid" defenseman? I like Stralman, really I do, but to lock up another 2nd pair type long-term creates a bit of a log-jam. Prospects obviously have to earn their roster spots, but where does one open up when you add Stralman for another 4-5 years? The team lacks offensive impact from the blue line, and it's pretty important for the system Vigneault implements.

Players like that have trade value under longer deals only if they remain a contributor and they fill an immediate need for an inquiring team.

A lot changes in 4-5 years time. Maybe you have a bad year and an impact D-man falls into your lap. You can't just bury players in the minors anymore. If the player falls off, it hurts your team in the now, and often will require you to eat money in a deal.

Committing 4-5 years to secondary players is just too risky for my taste going forward, given the state and makeup of the roster. It's as much about minimizing the risk of a player's decline than it is about the salary cap flexibility.

Of course, a steep rising salary cap minimizes these issues. But that's no guarantee, even with the steady increase in new TV revenue.

 

[broadwayblue]

Ola, I don't fully disagree with your opinion. I sound hypocritical regarding Stralman because I was thrilled that the Rangers were able to get back a signed Kevin Klein for 4 more years.

However, does it really make sense to hand out another longer term deal to a "solid" defenseman? I like Stralman, really I do, but to lock up another 2nd pair type long-term creates a bit of a log-jam. Prospects obviously have to earn their roster spots, but where does one open up when you add Stralman for another 4-5 years? The team lacks offensive impact from the blue line, and it's pretty important for the system Vigneault implements.

Players like that have trade value under longer deals only if they remain a contributor and they fill an immediate need for an inquiring team.

A lot changes in 4-5 years time. Maybe you have a bad year and an impact D-man falls into your lap. You can't just bury players in the minors anymore. If the player falls off, it hurts your team in the now, and often will require you to eat money in a deal.

Committing 4-5 years to secondary players is just too risky for my taste going forward, given the state and makeup of the roster. It's as much about minimizing the risk of a player's decline than it is about the salary cap flexibility.

Of course, a steep rising salary cap minimizes these issues. But that's no guarantee, even with the steady increase in new TV revenue.

If you're talking about a 5/6 dman I agree. But even if Stralman is only a 4, you can still have a couple guys leap frog him and not need to bury him in Hartford. Plus, as long as he doesn't completely fall apart, he can likely be moved since his cap hit will become more of a relative value in later years.

 

[xander]

If Stralman is signed to a reasonable rate, he can be moved. He's a solid 4/5 RD in his 20s, that will return assets if the contract isn't stupid.