Rumor: Trade Thread XVIII: Brace Yourselves. Friday Is Coming.

[Levitate]

San Jose did last year. They traded away Murray and Clowe. I'm sure other teams have as well in the past, though it's not as frequent. Signing or trading our UFAs is about the next X years, not just about this year.

Both were bad players who didn't really have a place on the team anymore and traded because San Jose knew that trading them wouldn't have an adverse effect on the team. I'm not even sure I can say that for the Rangers 4th line players at the moment

My point was that there seem to be some people who think every UFA should be traded for picks at this time in the season and that's just not something that's going to happen

 

[Brooklyn Rangers Fan]

Seems a little high, no?

I would've put it lower before we got the most recent update on his contract demands.

Honestly, at this point, I think the biggest risk is that he gets hurt during the Olympics and they're forced to hang on to him and then lose him for nothing over the summer.

 

[Staxgod90]

The makeup of the team now puts the Rangers at playoff contenders, not cup contenders. They will possibly make it to the 2nd round only to be ousted by Pittsburgh or one of those teams. KenJets, idk why you bring up the winning % of opposing teams we are to face when we are still bound to finish around the spot we are in now. Trading Callahan is the best thing for the team's future because of the assets it can provide although Sather is probably looking for a roster player as reported. Girardi being traded would be be good and bad. The assets we would be getting back would be a huge plus but a huge gap would be in where Girardi once stood. I don't think Stralman would be able to take that role of 1RD. And for the minor players, trade Moore, resign Boyle to play the wing on the 4th line and resign Pouliot if the term is good.

 

[Ola]

Ola, simply put, you are too wrapped up in cap implications and percentages. Of course that plays a role, but player evaluation should come first and foremost.

And, simply put, investing 6 or 7 years in a player like Ryan Callahan makes little sense -- and that still stands even if there wasnt a cap.

Six years take Cally till he is 35. 35. Not 37 or 39 or 42.

We have to agree to disagree.

I am not saying that we should resign him at all cost. But I am worried about Cally's AAV the coming 2-3 years, not really year 4-6. He will -- would -- level out as a character 3rd lineer who can PK and score clutch goals during those years.

 

[NYR Viper]

I understand the argument of using Callahan Stralman, Girardi, etc. as rentals. However, just know that not moving is the same as giving away the following assets:

Callahan - Top Prospect + middling prospect + 1st

Girardi - (2) top prospects + 1st

Stralman - 1st

Boyle - 2nd

Moore - 2nd

So while I understand wanting to go for it, would you be upset if the Rangers spent those assets on rentals for the rest of the season?

 

[KreiMeARiver*]

Playing the way we are....I just don't see Sather pulling the trigger to trade either one. I just don't see it.

 

[Blue Blooded]

I'm so freaking torn on this whole issue, it drives me crazy!

On the one hand we have the rapidly increasing cap - Ola is entirely correct in that very few of the long-term contracts signed the 4 years before the lockout look bad now, in fact most of them look like complete steals.

Everyone was up in arms over Skinners extension at the time - that deal is amazing right now. Erik Karlsson makes $6.5M, he'd fetch $10M+ on the open market. Let's not even mention Tavares.

Now I know that they were RFA's at the time but the point still stands - most of those cap hits looked at least "reasonable" at the time but are now steals.

Therefore I'm completely at peace with extending Girardi even though I think he is overrated, as long as it doesn't interfere with extending Strålman, since his cap hit won't be a problem going forward and he has an important role on the team.

The problem with Callahan is threefold.

1. Unlike Girardi who seems to ask for slightly more than he is worth, Callahan is asking for significantly more than he is worth.

2. We all know he is going to break down sooner rather than later, Drury-like red flags here.

3. And this is probably the most important one: He has lost his role on the team. If he was solidly cemented in the role as 2RW and a staple on the top PP I wouldn't have a big problem with extending him even at a steep price. Sure he may break down, but he'd be a significant part of the team and who knows - with the cap going up it may not be that big a burden anyway even if he turns into Brenden Morrow. But considering he doesn't have a permanent spot on the PP and that there are two players at his position that are significantly better 5v5 a big contract makes no sense at all. I'm sorry, but he needs to go.

My plan would therefore be to trade Callahan for a stop-gap for this playoff run and futures. Bank on a kid like Fast taking that role next year. And use the cap space to extend our current players to long-term contracts.

Take the short-term hit for the long-term gain. Lock up Zucc to an 8-year deal at ~$5M, Brassard at $4.5M, Hagelin at $4M, Strålman at $4.5M, give Kreider a back-loaded deal at a ~$4M average, Stepan $5.5M, Girardi $5.5M, Staal $6M. Early extensions are great because they are negotiated versus a lower cap and market than the one the contract takes effect in.

I'd even consider keeping Richards, but that would make the cap tight in 2014-15.

Many of those contracts may look ridiculous now, but they will be gold in 3-4 years.

Hell, even Kevin Klein's contract might look good in a few years.

 

[Trxjw]

Look at my post directed towards RB. Comparable schedules of January and March.

Everyone that we've played in the month of January (besides the Islanders) was over .500. Everyone we play in the month of March besides the Flames and Oilers is over .500. We've gone 11-3-2 in the month of January, statistically a harder month than March in terms of the opponents we've had to face.

You say mediocre opponents - the stats don't even remotely back that statement up. You say that we're not cup contenders... than what do we have to say about the Flyers from several years back, the Kings from several years back, the Devils from several years back, etc?

It's easy to look back in rhetrospect and claim how legitimate those teams actually were but in the moment, i'm sure nobody thought that any of those teams had a remote chance of even sniffing the cup.

I completely disagree with the sentiment we can't compete this year. In fact, if we were to hypothetically trade for a more dominant winger than Benoit Pouloit, I would even argue that we'd fundamentally be better than most teams in the league, let alone just the East.

Here's the Rangers Schedule in January that you posted.

Penguins
Maple Leafs Win
Blue Jackets
Blackhawks Win
Stars Win
Flyers Win
Lightning
Redwings Win
Senators Win
Capitals Win
Islanders
Blues
Devils Win
Islanders Win
Islanders Win

The bolded teams are currently playoff teams. I've indicated the games we won with a green 'Win' beside it. Three of our wins came against playoff teams. Three. Of those playoff teams that we beat, only one of them is in the top-4 of their conference. So unless you're counting on playing weaker teams all the way to the cup, I'm not sure how any of this really fits into us being legitimate contenders for a cup.

People see a string of wins and they think suddenly this team can make a run at it. In reality, we're beating mediocre teams during a very friendly travel schedule. There's a very distinct difference between "competing" and being legitimate challengers for a cup. Whenever that is brought up, sure enough people come forward with the "What about the Kings or Flyers!?" Basing your hope for success around a statistical anomaly is something coaches champion to their players when they're the underdogs. It's not something you build a team building strategy around.

I don't want the team to lose. Quite the opposite in fact. However, I don't want the team to make important team building decisions around a recent run of success against lesser opponents. Sure, we could have a great March, but if we're not beating the teams that we're going to have to beat in the playoffs, then the month-to-month record doesn't really matter.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

Here's the Rangers Schedule in January that you posted.



The bolded teams are currently playoff teams. I've indicated the games we won with a green 'Win' beside it. Three of our wins came against playoff teams. Three. Of those playoff teams that we beat, only two of them are in the top-4 of their conference. So unless you're counting on playing weaker teams all the way to the cup, I'm not sure how any of this really fits into us being legitimate contenders for a cup.

People see a string of wins and they think suddenly this team can make a run at it. In reality, we're beating mediocre teams during a very friendly travel schedule. There's a very distinct difference between "competing" and being legitimate challengers for a cup. Whenever that is brought up, sure enough people come forward with the "What about the Kings or Flyers!?" Basing your hope for success around a statistical anomaly is something coaches champion to their players when they're the underdogs. It's not something you build a team building strategy around.

I don't want the team to lose. Quite the opposite in fact. However, I don't want the team to make important team building decisions around a recent run of success against lesser opponents. Sure, we could have a great March, but if we're not beating the teams that we're going to have to beat in the playoffs, then the month-to-month record doesn't really matter.

Whatever, you play who have in front of you. We were a bad call away from beating the Lightning a fluke goal away from beating the Blues. It's not like it looks like these teams are out of our league. Yes yes, but they lost, that's a lazy argument. If you lose like they lost those games, they can easily win that game if they played again. They CAN win. Losing a one off game in a close fashion doesn't mean we're not in that team's league.

 

[NYGBleedBlueNYR]

I understand the argument of using Callahan Stralman, Girardi, etc. as rentals. However, just know that not moving is the same as giving away the following assets:

Callahan - Top Prospect + middling prospect + 1st

Girardi - (2) top prospects + 1st

Stralman - 1st

Boyle - 2nd

Moore - 2nd

So while I understand wanting to go for it, would you be upset if the Rangers spent those assets on rentals for the rest of the season?

I think if we had those assets to be gained in hand already & had to GIVE them for the players, very few would want to do it.

 

[Raspewtin]

Here's the Rangers Schedule in January that you posted.



The bolded teams are currently playoff teams. I've indicated the games we won with a green 'Win' beside it. Three of our wins came against playoff teams. Three. Of those playoff teams that we beat, only one of them is in the top-4 of their conference. So unless you're counting on playing weaker teams all the way to the cup, I'm not sure how any of this really fits into us being legitimate contenders for a cup.

People see a string of wins and they think suddenly this team can make a run at it. In reality, we're beating mediocre teams during a very friendly travel schedule. There's a very distinct difference between "competing" and being legitimate challengers for a cup. Whenever that is brought up, sure enough people come forward with the "What about the Kings or Flyers!?" Basing your hope for success around a statistical anomaly is something coaches champion to their players when they're the underdogs. It's not something you build a team building strategy around.

I don't want the team to lose. Quite the opposite in fact. However, I don't want the team to make important team building decisions around a recent run of success against lesser opponents. Sure, we could have a great March, but if we're not beating the teams that we're going to have to beat in the playoffs, then the month-to-month record doesn't really matter.

To be fair, those losses were insanely close games, minus the Penguins one.

 

[Brooklyn Rangers Fan]

Here's the Rangers Schedule in January that you posted.



The bolded teams are currently playoff teams. I've indicated the games we won with a green 'Win' beside it. Three of our wins came against playoff teams. Three. Of those playoff teams that we beat, only one of them is in the top-4 of their conference. So unless you're counting on playing weaker teams all the way to the cup, I'm not sure how any of this really fits into us being legitimate contenders for a cup.

People see a string of wins and they think suddenly this team can make a run at it. In reality, we're beating mediocre teams during a very friendly travel schedule. There's a very distinct difference between "competing" and being legitimate challengers for a cup. Whenever that is brought up, sure enough people come forward with the "What about the Kings or Flyers!?" Basing your hope for success around a statistical anomaly is something coaches champion to their players when they're the underdogs. It's not something you build a team building strategy around.

I don't want the team to lose. Quite the opposite in fact. However, I don't want the team to make important team building decisions around a recent run of success against lesser opponents. Sure, we could have a great March, but if we're not beating the teams that we're going to have to beat in the playoffs, then the month-to-month record doesn't really matter.

This is very well put.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

I've never seen a fanbase so giddy to say that a team isn't good and come up with a million excuses and then pat themselves on the back for being so realistic and objective and awesome.

 

[Blue Blooded]

The Kings weren't a statistical anomaly in that they were great in the playoffs - they were a statistical anomaly in that they were an 8th seed.

They had horrid puck luck all season and then it came back with a vengeance in the playoffs. The 11-12 LA Kings were at worst a top-3 team in the league after the Carter trade.

But considering the 13-14 Rangers are arguably a top-5 team in the league - we aren't that different from the 11-12 Kings although we play a different brand of hockey.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

Funny if the Rangers win games against good teams there will be other excuses. There were excuses for the Avs win already. Rangers fans are just most miserable fans in the world. You can't enjoy a good thing and have to come up with a million different reasons they suck.

 

[AHB*]

Funny if the Rangers win games against good teams there will be other excuses. There were excuses for the Avs win already. Rangers fans are just most miserable fans in the world. You can't enjoy a good thing and have to come up with a million different reasons they suck.

This coming from the guy who was ready to burn Lundqvist at the stake earlier this year.

 

[eco's bones]

I understand the argument of using Callahan Stralman, Girardi, etc. as rentals. However, just know that not moving is the same as giving away the following assets:

Callahan - Top Prospect + middling prospect + 1st

Girardi - (2) top prospects + 1st

Stralman - 1st

Boyle - 2nd

Moore - 2nd

So while I understand wanting to go for it, would you be upset if the Rangers spent those assets on rentals for the rest of the season?

If the Rangers move any of these guys I doubt whether they'll make moves that seriously have adverse impact on their playoff position. I expect for example that if Callahan gets traded--it's going to be for a roster player + either a prospect or draft pick. The same with Girardi--although Dan might get more.

I'm not swept away with this year's first rounders either. IMO--it's a so so looking draft and no point IMO in waiting for these guys to take 3-4-5 years of development to finally make our team as bottom liners or bottom pairing d-men with maybe the upside of being 2nd liners or No. 4 d-men. I'd prefer already developing players.

Nor do I see any point in trading Moore. I don't think he gets you a 2nd. We have a 4th line that's working well together in the meantime. I'd be more inclined to keep it together. In any case I can see Moore re-signing with us next year and pretty much filling the same kind of role. If Lindberg looks to be moving up--one of them can always go to the wing.

 

[Ail]

This coming from the guy who was ready to burn Lundqvist at the stake earlier this year.

Yeah but that's all the past. We're living in the now where Lundqvist is Conn Smythe winner and the Rangos plams win Cup.

 

[Trxjw]

Whatever, you play who have in front of you. We were a bad call away from beating the Lightning a fluke goal away from beating the Blues. It's not like it looks like these teams are out of our league. Yes yes, but they lost, that's a lazy argument. If you lose like they lost those games, they can easily win that game if they played again. They CAN win. Losing a one off game in a close fashion doesn't mean we're not in that team's league.

You play who you have in front of you? Yeah, that certainly helped all those Washington teams who ran over a garbage South East division on their way to early playoff exits.

Losing a game in a close fashion also isn't an indication that you could have won it. We might have lost a close game to St. Louis, but it also wasn't one of the better games they played this year. These one on one matchups are a microcosm of the bigger picture. We beat Boston twice last year in the regular season and lost once, and then they stomped us out in the playoffs.

I was simply pointing out that the teams record last month wasn't all it was cracked up to be. In reality, there is no definitive way to say I'm right or you're wrong. The difference is that my opinion is based on the make up of this team, and not on it's record. I do not think this team can stand toe-to-toe with a team like Boston or Pittsburgh, both of whom have a playoff pedigree that this team simply does not have.

 

[Trxjw]

This coming from the guy who was ready to burn Lundqvist at the stake earlier this year.

Well played.

 

[aufheben]

You play who you have in front of you? Yeah, that certainly helped all those Washington teams who ran over a garbage South East division on their way to early playoff exits.

Losing a game in a close fashion also isn't an indication that you could have won it. We might have lost a close game to St. Louis, but it also wasn't one of the better games they played this year. These one on one matchups are a microcosm of the bigger picture. We beat Boston twice last year in the regular season and lost once, and then they stomped us out in the playoffs.

I was simply pointing out that the teams record last month wasn't all it was cracked up to be. In reality, there is no definitive way to say I'm right or you're wrong. The difference is that my opinion is based on the make up of this team, and not on it's record. I do not think this team can stand toe-to-toe with a team like Boston or Pittsburgh, both of whom have a playoff pedigree that this team simply does not have.

Not to mention, not only does this team lack a true #1C, but our default #1C can hardly put up #2C numbers in the playoffs. People wanted to tank at two separate times this season and now we're contenders?

 

[Raspewtin]

Funny if the Rangers win games against good teams there will be other excuses. There were excuses for the Avs win already. Rangers fans are just most miserable fans in the world. You can't enjoy a good thing and have to come up with a million different reasons they suck.

Coming from the poster who posted "Lundqvist is no longer elite" on the main boards about one month into season, I can't take this seriously.

Spoken by me, a true "irrational Sather hater" .

You do have a point, though. Nobody here can enjoy a win.

 

[Blue Blooded]

Not to mention, not only does this team lack a true #1C, but our default #1C can hardly put up #2C numbers in the playoffs. People wanted to tank at two separate times this season and now we're contenders?

We don't have a true 1C, that is unfortunate. But we are currently making due with three centers that are at worst solid 2C's at the moment, that more than makes up for not having a 1C. We have an elite playmaker, he just happens to play RW instead of C.

Imagine if our center depth was: Thornton, Grabovski, Sutter. That's a true 1C, decent 2C, decent 3C but I'm not sold on that being better.

 

[aufheben]

Who was the last team to win a Cup without a #1C? 2003 Devils?

 

[Blue Blooded]

Who was the last team to win a Cup without a #1C? 2003 Devils?

Boston.