Rumor: Trade Thread XVII: Callahan's Reckoning.

[NYR Viper]

UFAs (minimum return IMO)
F - Callahan (young 3rd liner +1st/equivalent prospect)
F - Boyle (3rd/equivalent)
F - Pouliot (2nd/equivalent)
F - Moore (3rd/equivalent)
F - Carcillo (7th)
D - Girardi (young bottom 4 D + 1st/equivalent + prospect)
D - Stralman (2nd)

Callahan plus 1 or 2 more Fs and 1 D should be traded from that group, enough to get back some very good assets.

I don't disagree with anything except maybe Pouliot. Probably a 3rd.

Many here disagree with me but I'd move a few of them if they don't foresee them being around past this year. Enough of just being good enough. I want to have a Stanley Cup in the next 5 years. Bite the bullet, bring in the assets necessary.

 

[Tawnos]

If they don't foresee being able to re-sign him, it's an easy decision. Losing a player like him for nothing would be far worse than moving him close to the deadline and returning something. One helps the organization in the long haul. The other trades long-term health for a shot in the dark.

Exactly, which would make not trading him the difficult decision.

 

[NYR Viper]

no, it really hasn't. When was the last time the rangers traded youth for age, anyway?

But that being said... It's larry brooks speculation. He doesn't say he's hearing rumblings that this is what management is thinking. He's saying that there's a logic behind keeping the player, if that's what the rangers decide to do. When have you ever known brooks to be good at speculation? Rumors, maybe. But "maybe there’s an entirely different perspective for glen sather to adopt" does not suggest rumor, even remotely.

mdz

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

No, it really hasn't. When was the last time the Rangers traded youth for age, anyway?

But that being said... it's Larry Brooks speculation. He doesn't say he's hearing rumblings that this is what management is thinking. He's saying that there's a logic behind keeping the player, if that's what the Rangers decide to do. When have you ever known Brooks to be good at speculation? Rumors, maybe. But "maybe there’s an entirely different perspective for Glen Sather to adopt" does not suggest rumor, even remotely.

So, not trading youth for age is enough for you to consider the team as one that is cognizant of the future? The majority of the rest of the league calls that standard operating procedure.

The bottom line is that the Rangers have been really really bad when it comes to asset management -- with the main goal being immediate gratification in the current season. The Callahan situation is an ideal example. Brooks' article might be entirely speculation, but it sure does fall in line with the poor decision making we've seen. How is hanging on to Callahan for a few months and pretending hes a rental for a playoff run good strategy?

The reason Im getting worked up over this is because, while it may be speculation, it would be typical Rangers to depreciate an asset to the point where it walks away for zilch in the summer. And all for what? Another 2nd round exit?

 

[NYR Viper]

Exactly, which would make not trading him the difficult decision.

Or the bad decision.

i just don't understand the thought process that leads one to want to keep him if they can't re-sign him. I want the Rangers to compete for the next 10-15 years. Not just for the remained of the season.

 

[SupersonicMonkey*]

The deal isn't just Stewart though. He is a piece.

A 20-25 goal scoring forward at 26 + for Callahan isn't the worst return I could see happening. Stewart is a pretty good player. He isn't Lucic or Backes. He is a goal scorer in a power forwards body.

If the other piece isn't a top prospect that is NHL ready, its a loss. Again, Stewart's contract expires summer 2015. 4.15 cap hit. What's his next contract going to look like? We surely won't be paying for it, right? And what team will take him for fair value at the deadline one year from now?

These are legitimate concerns.

If Stewart and a piece are all Sather can muster from this cluster **** of a situation he manifested, heneeds to be fired on the spot.

BRB and others, including myself, are asking for long term vision from this club. Stewart and a pice is not long term vision. Its putting some gauze and neosporin on a severed limb.

Sather has no ability to think beyond two inches in front of his face.

If Stewart is GREAT for this club, we have to overpay to keep him. If he bombs, we lost Callahan for a year of a bust. This is the situation Sather created.

Has he called all 29 other GMs? Or does he just look at a name he recognizes?

A GM has to be compliant, but a package like: Austin Watson, Zach Budish, and David Legwand for Callahan, Lindberg, and Kristo makes infinitely more sense.

Salary swaps, and swaps of talented prospects that fit different organizational needs for both parties. We get bigger on the wing, we get our leader and two way center. They get more offensive skill in their system.

Then you look for an offensive defenseman in exchange for Girardi if you can't sign him. Detroit's Ryan Sproul and Riley Sheahan. Reach and skill.

Colorado may be losing Stastny in the summer, would Brassard entice them enough to trade McGinn and Barrie for Brassard and McIlrath?

Is Stralman returning? Is Boyle? Detroit needs a center and a bottom pairing defenseman. Would they give up Jeremy Morin? Adam Clendening?

Those are long term moves.

Chris Stewart and a piece, isn't a long term move. We will be sitting here, one year from now, discussing what to do with Stewart.

 

[eco's bones]

I think the whole 'size in the playoffs' thing is overblown. Chicago doesn't have the biggest team, and they tore apart the league last season. There's no one way to be successful, and trying to clone the strategies of other teams based on their success is a recipe for failure.

Players with size, speed, and skill are insanely rare in this league. When we have size and skill, we decry our lack of speed. When we have size and speed, we decry our lack of skill. My point is, most teams have warts, and any given year there are probably 4-6 teams that have what it takes to win a cup. The eventual winner is the one that figures out how to best mask their deficiencies and play to their strengths.

Now, the question becomes: Do we have the personnel and coaching to be true contenders? Not this year in my opinion, but lets not pretend that we're going to lose in the playoffs to a team simply because they have more size than us. It will be a variety of factors.

What works for one team doesn't always work for another. In 11-12 the Rangers went through 3 grueling series against physical, grinding teams--the Rangers did not have a pwp that could make those teams pay like Chicago has. They were still the best team to come out of the East that year. Those lesser teams turned every game into a series of boards battles--clogging up the neutral zone and the slot in their own end. We repeated the same last year. Teams know that this is a successful strategy against the Rangers. They'll continue to use it until it proves not to be workable. You'd need a different strategy against the Hawks. All teams that make the playoffs have strengths not necessarily equatable to raw skill.

If somebody can pull up the Ranger record and against those bigger heavier teams, and also pull up the GF-GA for those games. I think you'd be surprised.

The Rangers have improved greatly since the tail end of the 9 game home stand that started of badly, but those tight checking big teams win a lot of games for a reason.

They play playoff hockey all season long.

One of the points to take from RB's analysis is that he's talking more about playoff series--not regular season games. The same team over and over again over a short span of time. It's different from a game here and there. The players are locked into a game plan on how to play their opposition. After a game or two there are no secrets.

 

[NYR Viper]

If the other piece isn't a top prospect that is NHL ready, its a loss. Again, Stewart's contract expires summer 2015. 4.15 cap hit. What's his next contract going to look like? We surely won't be paying for it, right? And what team will take him for fair value at the deadline one year from now?

These are legitimate concerns.

If Stewart and a piece are all Sather can muster from this cluster **** of a situation he manifested, heneeds to be fired on the spot.

BRB and others, including myself, are asking for long term vision from this club. Stewart and a pice is not long term vision. Its putting some gauze and neosporin on a severed limb.

Sather has no ability to think beyond two inches in front of his face.

If Stewart is GREAT for this club, we have to overpay to keep him. If he bombs, we lost Callahan for a year of a bust. This is the situation Sather created.

Has he called all 29 other GMs? Or does he just look at a name he recognizes?

A GM has to be compliant, but a package like: Austin Watson, Zach Budish, and David Legwand for Callahan, Lindberg, and Kristo makes infinitely more sense.

Salary swaps, and swaps of talented prospects that fit different organizational needs for both parties. We get bigger on the wing, we get our leader and two way center. They get more offensive skill in their system.

Then you look for an offensive defenseman in exchange for Girardi if you can't sign him. Detroit's Ryan Sproul and Riley Sheahan. Reach and skill.

Colorado may be losing Stastny in the summer, would Brassard entice them enough to trade McGinn and Barrie for Brassard and McIlrath?

Is Stralman returning? Is Boyle? Detroit needs a center and a bottom pairing defenseman. Would they give up Jeremy Morin? Adam Clendening?

Those are long term moves.

Chris Stewart and a piece, isn't a long term move. We will be sitting here, one year from now, discussing what to do with Stewart.

I agree with the beginning but those deals you proposed are not good.

Stewart + Schmaltz + STL 1st

for

Callahan

That's the deal I am speaking of.

Stewart has a chance to hit UFA next year, yes. He won't be as expensive as Callahan and can replace him as a 2/3RW. He provides size and some scoring to replace him. If he doesn't work out or AV doesn't see him as a long-term solution move him at next years deadline. He would easily return another 1st.

 

[Tawnos]

So, not trading youth for age is enough for you to consider the team as one that is cognizant of the future? The majority of the rest of the league calls that standard operating procedure.

The bottom line is that the Rangers have been really really bad when it comes to asset management -- with the main goal being immediate gratification in the current season. The Callahan situation is an ideal example. Brooks' article might be entirely speculation, but it sure does fall in line with the poor decision making we've seen. How is hanging on to Callahan for a few months and pretending hes a rental for a playoff run good strategy?

The reason Im getting worked up over this is because, while it may be speculation, it would be typical Rangers to depreciate an asset to the point where it walks away for zilch in the summer. And all for what? Another 2nd round exit?

Lots of teams employ that strategy year after year, although looking at it as a "rental" is just a different perspective. Pittsburgh kept Rob Scuderi. Phoenix kept Ray Whitney. The Flyers kept Matt Carle. The Red Wings kept Damien Brunner and Valteri Filpula. The question is whether the return outweighs the damage to the team. If Sather isn't happy with what he's seeing on the trade market, keeping the player can be the right decision.

I happen to agree that if Callahan can't be resigned, he should be traded. But that doesn't mean it's a massive blunder to keep him.

 

[NYR Viper]

Lots of teams employ that strategy year after year, although looking at it as a "rental" is just a different perspective. Pittsburgh kept Rob Scuderi. Phoenix kept Ray Whitney. The Flyers kept Matt Carle. The Red Wings kept Damien Brunner and Valteri Filpula. The question is whether the return outweighs the damage to the team. If Sather isn't happy with what he's seeing on the trade market, keeping the player can be the right decision.

I happen to agree that if Callahan can't be resigned, he should be traded. But that doesn't mean it's a massive blunder to keep him.

I don't believe any of those players would return what Callahan will.

The Ducks GM stated early last year that if Perry or Getzlaf wouldn't re-sign during the year, they would have to be traded. He couldn't let assets like that walk away for nothing. It doesn't matter where you are in the standings.

 

[SupersonicMonkey*]

I agree with the beginning but those deals you proposed are not good.

Stewart + Schmaltz + STL 1st

for

Callahan

That's the deal I am speaking of.

Stewart has a chance to hit UFA next year, yes. He won't be as expensive as Callahan and can replace him as a 2/3RW. He provides size and some scoring to replace him. If he doesn't work out or AV doesn't see him as a long-term solution move him at next years deadline. He would easily return another 1st.

Austin Watson is going to get a C on his jersey in the NHL one day. Morin is scoring at the pro level. Clendening is leading his AHL club in scoring. Sproul is as good a skater as McDonagh and has an absolute cannon of a shot, Sheahan is going to be a very good two-way #2-#3 center.

Schmaltz has 2 goals at UND... the first round pick will be a late pick and that player wont help, if ever, within the next three years at earliest. Stewart is a UFA after next season. Thats an awful return package for a homegrown captain.

High end NHL ready prospects, ready to play now and are cost controlled for years to come. Thats the right package.

 

[BarbaraAlphanse]

I don't know anything about this Schmaltz character but his last name has "bust" written all over it.

Kind of like "Heilman" and the Mets.

 

[NYR Viper]

Austin Watson is going to get a C on his jersey in the NHL one day. Morin is scoring at the pro level. Clendening is leading his AHL club in scoring. Sproul is as good a skater as McDonagh and has an absolute cannon of a shot, Sheahan is going to be a very good two-way #2-#3 center.

Schmaltz has 2 goals at UND... the first round pick will be a late pick and that player wont help, if ever, within the next three years at earliest. Stewart is a UFA after next season. Thats an awful return package for a homegrown captain.

High end NHL ready prospects, ready to play now and are cost controlled for years to come. Thats the right package.

Callahan + Lindberg + Kristo for Watson + Budish + Legwand is the one I was speaking of. That's not a good deal.

Girardi for (2) prospects isn't either.

Schmaltz also has more points at UND.

The prospects don't HAVE to be NHL ready right now. The have to get the best players they can. Ready now, or in 2 years it shouldn't matter. The Rangers have a pretty good list of players close to NHL ready now. Fast, Lindberg, Miller, McIlrath, Allen.

How many players can take spots at the same time?

 

[Tawnos]

I don't believe any of those players would return what Callahan will.

The Ducks GM stated early last year that if Perry or Getzlaf wouldn't re-sign during the year, they would have to be traded. He couldn't let assets like that walk away for nothing. It doesn't matter where you are in the standings.

I know he did. But that didn't happen. For all we know, he was just leveraging them to sign the deals they eventually did.

To your point about return: What about Alexander Semin? There are actually more examples of teams risking losing a player for nothing past the trade deadline, for teams in the playoff race, than there are examples of teams in playoff races trading guys. Are all GMs stupid then?

 

[NYR Viper]

I know he did. But that didn't happen. For all we know, he was just leveraging them to sign the deals they eventually did.

To your point about return: What about Alexander Semin? There are actually more examples of teams risking losing a player for nothing past the trade deadline, for teams in the playoff race, than there are examples of teams in playoff races trading guys. Are all GMs stupid then?

Not all of them make those decisions though. Look at the teams those players came from. Detroit is struggling. Washington is struggling. Boston kept Horton bit they looked like true Cup Contenders all season. Philly struggled after losing Carle.

I don't consider those good decisions keeping those players.

The opposite of that is SJ last year moving players they didn't want to re-sign and they are even better while recouping quite a few nice assets.

 

[Off Sides]

I get the feeling this is going to turn out sort of like the Thornton/Marleau announcement except with Callahan and Girardi. Yet instead of a thread about how good the contracts are, there is far less positive fanfare.

Rangers think they are contenders, management and players alike. They all come to the conclusion that both players even if they get terms longer than the team would like, more guaranteed money for the players, the alternative of trading them does not provide enough value either now or long term.

 

[LORDE]

Yea, but can you accurately predict when that breakdown will happen?

32? 34? 36? Could happen on his last year as a Ranger. Could happen after a 5 or 6 year contract. Could happen midway. The broken finger was circumstantial. The twisted knee was because his skate got caught on a rut in the ice. Vigneault isn't Torts. Cally plays reckless, but much less so under AV. That deterioration may come later than people think.

Take a look... last night aside, it's already started.

 

[Tawnos]

Not all of them make those decisions though. Look at the teams those players came from. Detroit is struggling. Washington is struggling. Boston kept Horton bit they looked like true Cup Contenders all season. Philly struggled after losing Carle.

I don't consider those good decisions keeping those players.

The opposite of that is SJ last year moving players they didn't want to re-sign and they are even better while recouping quite a few nice assets.

The SJ situation is entirely different, since they had young players pushing to take those spots. Specifically Tommy Wingels and Justin Braun. Do we have a player pushing Callahan out of the lineup? The Rangers want to resign Callahan and are balking at price. The Sharks didn't want to resign those players no matter the price. Big difference.

 

[DutchShamrock]

Brooks posits a valid point. It really does depend non the offer. Can we net a Seguin for Eriksson return? That's a win now/win later but we certainly don't land Seguin with a Cally rental. If we get a future Callahan type, 25/25, hard worker, on the verge that right now slots in on the bottom 6, I think you can't pass on that. If our best offer is a mid round pick and a fringe NHLer, I say roll the dice with Cally.

Out of curiosity, what is the figure on a Moulsson contract this summer?

 

[SupersonicMonkey*]

If they did end up signing. The Rangers can still improve in other areas with some shrewd moves. Buyout Richards, move Brassard for some young pieces, move Boyle for a young pice. Find prospects in other systems that are blocked a bit by depth above them.

Jeremy Morin, Tanner Pearson, Linden Vey, Nick Shore (LA has a good system), so on.

There are ways to improve. Does Sather have enough foresight and vision to make a plan and stick to it?

 

[SupersonicMonkey*]

Callahan + Lindberg + Kristo for Watson + Budish + Legwand is the one I was speaking of. That's not a good deal.

Girardi for (2) prospects isn't either.

Schmaltz also has more points at UND.

The prospects don't HAVE to be NHL ready right now. The have to get the best players they can. Ready now, or in 2 years it shouldn't matter. The Rangers have a pretty good list of players close to NHL ready now. Fast, Lindberg, Miller, McIlrath, Allen.

How many players can take spots at the same time?

Depth is a good thing. You can use it to upgrade the roster via trade at the deadline.

 

[NYR Viper]

If they did end up signing. The Rangers can still improve in other areas with some shrewd moves. Buyout Richards, move Brassard for some young pieces, move Boyle for a young pice. Find prospects in other systems that are blocked a bit by depth above them.

Jeremy Morin, Tanner Pearson, Linden Vey, Nick Shore (LA has a good system), so on.

There are ways to improve. Does Sather have enough foresight and vision to make a plan and stick to it?

Who plays center? You just moved the 2C, 3C and 4C

 

[NYR Viper]

Depth is a good thing. You can use it to upgrade the roster via trade at the deadline.

True, but why not have the foresight to try and build up the next wave after this one so there isn't a lull?

 

[Punxrocknyc19*]

Who plays center? You just moved the 2C, 3C and 4C

Miller and Lindberg... maybe Dom Moore resigns and Boyle traded for prospects...

 

[Brooklyn Rangers Fan]

On the SJ comparable, I personally think Fast and Miller are ready right now to be our 3rd best RWs. They aren't PUSHING per se, but they're ready to step in.

On Ola's point that "7-year deals are the going rate for your best players these days," I agree - about your best players. Despite being the captain, a fan favorite and a team leader, CALLAHAN IS NOT ONE OF OUR BEST PLAYERS. The fact that Callahan came up through the system, epitomized hard work and helped turn the organizational culture around does NOT make him an equivalent to a Getzlaf or a Perry. We DID give our one home-grown elite player one of those deals - Hank just signed it a month or so ago, remember? If and when we have a true first line forward, and not a hard-working guy who's the 3rd best RW on the team, that is in a similar situation, I promise you that he too will get close to a max deal. But you DON'T give 7x7 to "intangibles" guys. Clarkson and Brown are making MILLIONS less and they're already looking like bad deals.

And as to the question of the message that it sends to other players that come up through the system: what kind of precedent does it set if you DO give him this ridiculous deal? If we drafted you, we'll be terrified of lockeroom backlash if we don't cave so 7-year deals for everyone who isn't a 4th liner/6th defenseman? Craziness. We paid Hank; Cally we offered a very good deal (which frankly was too much and I didn't like), but will be traded if he wants much more than he's worth. You will be dealt with according to your worth, as should be the case. THAT is the message.

Move him. It's in the best long-term interest of the team. And I frankly don't think it hurts that much this year - outside of last night, he hasn't been nearly as important as half the other guys on the team to the team's success.