Razor talks Rangers

Ray Ferraro's Q&A from Today at TSN.CA.   Three of the emails involved the Rangers (2 out of the three involving the analogy between Blueshirts and Bloated Contracts).  Just thought I'd throw it up for everyone's interest.

Hey Ray, What are your comments regarding the glaring omission of Tim Connolly from the roster. Connolly's a point a game player and in today's NHL. He runs the Sabres PP, he's big and strong and has a tremendous shot. Yes he's had injury problems in the past, but how can the U.S. select a player like Chris Drury (currently eight goals, 11 assists) over Connolly (14 goals, 38 assists)?

Steve

Most teams have players that are on teams that are questioned by fans. You can go through any roster at the Olympics and there are probably those same questions. I do know the U.S. likes Drury's experience on a young team, but I do wonder what they will get from him at the Olympics. Now they aren't looking for him to be on the power play, but Drury is at a stage in his career where he is best not as a top 2 line player. Don't forget, Connolly has 23 of his 58 points after the U.S. team was announced.

I'm beginning to wonder if these "no trade" contracts are good for hockey. A guy signs for big bucks and then demands the team can't trade him during the length of the contract. It seems to me that this situation heavily favours the players. I guess there is huge pressure on the teams to sign these guys and they really haven't any choice but to live with it. Some players get these great deals and then proceed to do nothing but collect nice pay cheques. It really hampers the teams to make any trades and they can only unload these guys and their salaries if the player agrees. Do you think the "no trade" clause in a contract should be eliminated?

Gary

I am constantly amazed by the types of players that get no-trade contracts. You are correct, however, that teams feel under great pressure to give players these deals to be competitive. They can't be eliminated, per se, but teams can just stop handing them out like candy. The no-trade really only works if both parties are happy. Say a team wants to move a player with a no-trade. They can make things uncomfortable for him, cut his playing time and pressure him into seeing that a move might be beneficial for everyone. I think the fairest clause would be a limited no-trade. The player gives a list upon signing a contract that contains 15 teams that he would agree to move to. That seems pretty fair to me.

Ray, great columns - keep 'em coming! I've been watching the Rangers for 11 years now, and I just can't figure it. Why does this team seem to have no heart? Inconsistent play, inconsistent effort, very little team commitment (the Gaborik fight and Girardi's non-response comes to mind) are all hallmarks of the Rangers year after year. People talk about living in NYC and enjoying all it has to offer as a possible reason, but I wonder if there is some other aspect here that we just aren't hearing about.  Any insight you can offer much appreciated.

Thanks, JBS

The issues you talk about have not much to do with the city I'm afraid. Look at the players that have been brought into New York since you started following. Players past their prime, paid huge money and with predictably poor results. I have been somewhat critical of the Rangers for a while, mostly for a misguided approach that just doesn't work. Think about this - who, besides the Rangers, ties up 10 years and $60 million on Wade Redden and Michal Rozsival? Or a combined 12 years and $86 million on Scott Gomez and Chris Drury? This theory has never worked and it doesn't work now. If you add in the above letter's concern for no-trade contracts, you have jammed yourself into a corner with very little escape room.