In Relation to Kreider
First off I want to say that I am not advocating the the trading of Kreider. With that said I believe that we are putting TOO much stock into what he is or could be. He is a crapshoot at BEST. My point is lets not get too crazy about trading an unproven commodity for one that may be able to help us NOW. Now for arguments sake, lets say thats Rick Nash. It is unlikely that kredier will meet or exceed Nash's accomplishments in the NHL. Case in point? Lets review NYR 1st round draft choices. Manny Malhotra, Pavel Brendl, Jamie Lundmark, Dan Blackburn, Hugh Jessiman, Al Montoya, Laurie Korpikoski, Marc Staal, Bobby Sanguinetti, MDZ. I wont go any further than that becuase they are unknowns. So lets see. Only 2 of the prior mentioned 1st rounders are on the team in Staal and MDZ. The rest are either average to below average or TOTAL busts. None of them are even in Rick Nash's outer hemisphere of talent or NHL production. While I'm not advocating that we trade all our young players away it shouldn't be dismissed out of hand just becuase they are young. Kreider is much more likely to fail than succeed, the numbers prove it.
148 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
It’s ok, you’ve got plenty of karma built-in from Tuesday’s GDT.
Blueshirt Banter
"Oils like he's getting a himmer!"
For me to read that Gordie Clark has a chubbie for him, is enough for me to think that he has better odds to be a stud than simply a crapshoot.
I agree the odds are better but its 50/50 at best IMO.
by DieselCane22 on Feb 16, 2012 10:17 AM EST up reply actions
I agree its better but its a still a roll of the dice, maybe 50/50.
by DieselCane22 on Feb 16, 2012 10:18 AM EST up reply actions
50/50 is a perfectly fine assessment, but “crapshoot at best” is misguided IMO.
I do agree with you though that maybe we should tone down or assumptions of how good he will be
by Zuppa Di Pesce on Feb 16, 2012 12:38 PM EST up reply actions
It’s all about the contract.
I agree that we are overhyping Kreider, but in terms of Nash, the man is not worth his contract.
That’s what makes the trade a big no-no for me.
"Mr. Madison, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."
LET'S GO RANGERS!!!
by Moshe52792 on Feb 16, 2012 10:35 AM EST reply actions 3 recs
It is a fair point to make when talking about prospects overall but the majority of those were not drafted by the current people in charge of drafting. So to try to make a link saying we shit the bed on Brendl so it is a high likelihood that we will do it again with Kreider is flawed.
With regard to prospects overall I like to look at specific skills and use them to judge how they will translate. Kreider is fast and big. He wont shrink or get slower when playing in the NHL so to me that is a good start. Obviously his hockey sense will come into play but the fact that he has very good raw skill that translate well to this team and the new NHL is a good indicator of his potential success.
Aucune clause de Mouvement
by Blueshirt in Paris on Feb 16, 2012 11:09 AM EST reply actions
he also has a very good wrist shot which wont magically become terrible
by Prustyballs94 on Feb 16, 2012 1:34 PM EST via Android app up reply actions
Anisimov has a good wrist shot. he nevers hits the net.
by DieselCane22 on Feb 16, 2012 2:22 PM EST up reply actions
If someone never hits the net is it a good shot?
Plus, if AA puts on some strength he gives himself more space to get the shot off, which will give him more accuracy.
"Mr. Madison, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."
LET'S GO RANGERS!!!
He wont shrink or get slower when playing in the NHL
But he’ll still have prove he can USE that speed and size outside of a league where the players are more likely to go onto dental school then the NHL. There’s gonna be less room to use his speed, less time to get his shot off, and much, much more physical play then Kreider has EVER seen in his game. He’s got a huge mountain to overcome. As I said in other threads, plenty of players have been MORE dominant at BC then Chris Kreider, and have gone on to do little to nothing in the NHL
by BuckarooClub on Feb 16, 2012 2:10 PM EST up reply actions
Really, do we need to argue for the sake of arguing? If so, ok I will bite.
And he will have players that can keep up with his speed, get him the puck and make room for him as well.
There have also been players who haven’t dominated and get picked in the 7th round or not even drafted at all and then talked about as finalists for the Veznia and Norris.
We can play this game all day.
Aucune clause de Mouvement
by Blueshirt in Paris on Feb 16, 2012 2:45 PM EST up reply actions
Not arguing for the sake of arguing, just counterpointing a little bit. Like I said above, with his speed, size, and shot, Kreider is having the type of season many any NHL journeyman has had in a BC Eagles uni.
You certainly can go back and forth all day about what COULD happen, and there will always be late bloomers and suprises from late picks, but those are the exception not the rule.
There’s a TON of excitement about Kreider around here, and he seems to already be put on a pedestal and marked for greatness, but in reality the numbers point more to him being average then exceptional.
by BuckarooClub on Feb 16, 2012 3:08 PM EST up reply actions
It's not like he played really well internationally
against more players prob going to the nhl than becoming “dentist”
by Prustyballs94 on Feb 16, 2012 3:30 PM EST via Android app up reply actions
I’ll agree that there is way to much excitement, but take names out of this for a second. Look at what we’re giving up and what we’re getting back, without names.
"Mr. Madison, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."
LET'S GO RANGERS!!!
Of course anything can happen. But if you dont have something then nothing can happen. Kreider has a better shot of being something then say Randy McNaught, agree? So its not really a crap shoot. And if you dont keep the ones that have a better shot and being good then your chances of having a good young player is reduced.
Aucune clause de Mouvement
by Blueshirt in Paris on Feb 16, 2012 3:37 PM EST up reply actions
Kreider could easily end up being a cross between Boyle and Stepan…both of them, like Gilroy, were crazy good in college. While they are great NHL’ers, you can’t bank a future cup on them which is what we are doing by holding Kreider. We’re saying it isn’t worth risking a cup run now because we might have a better chance for a cup run in the future…like four or five years from now…with a kid who is still in the ECAC. Who knows what the Rangers will look like that far down the road. This year is a very rare opportunity. Nash is only 27. He’s easily got five great years left in him, probably more like 7.
Is 25/60 a great year? Because if it isn’t, I doubt he’s even got 5 left in him.
Blueshirt Banter - Where Rangers' Fans Matter
Tracking the Rangers - Numbers don't lie. They just don't agree with you.
Twitter: RangerSmurf
"Oh, that sensible and sober* Rangers fan guy who is cool, actually" - Dominik, Lighthouse Hockey
*Statement has not been verified nor regressed
by George E. Ays on Feb 16, 2012 5:56 PM EST up reply actions
He’s healthier, younger and much more versatile than Gabby. And I love Gabby. The point is you all are talking the 2014 – 2018 seasons. We’re talking about a cup run. We have enough depth, cap space and options to handle the proposed Dubi/1 pick/young prospect exchange. The last cup we won happened to be in 1994. I don’t need to tell you how long it takes to get to this point and how rare it is.
Most teams in our position would realize that this is the moment we’ve been building for…we are no longer building for 1014. We built for now.
I would hope we're building for both, personally.
Yes, it’s hard to get to this position, but it’s even harder to actually follow through, with or without Rick Nash. Dubinsky, you can be assured, will not be only roster player moving in a deal for Nash. Howson can’t be so lost as to move his franchise player for one guy and a bunch of hope.
The result of 94 was going the broke for 1 cup, and then destroying the depth and farm system in a desperate hope of doing it again. I don’t want to see that repeated, and getting Nash’s contract is the first step on that path.
Blueshirt Banter - Where Rangers' Fans Matter
Tracking the Rangers - Numbers don't lie. They just don't agree with you.
Twitter: RangerSmurf
"Oh, that sensible and sober* Rangers fan guy who is cool, actually" - Dominik, Lighthouse Hockey
*Statement has not been verified nor regressed
by George E. Ays on Feb 16, 2012 6:13 PM EST up reply actions 3 recs
On the Rangers 60 is unheard of
Gabby is the only guy to put up more then 60 points in a season since Jagr left, and he’s only done it once since he’s been here. So, yeah, it looks like Nash at his worst is better then anyone here at their best.
by BuckarooClub on Feb 16, 2012 6:59 PM EST up reply actions
Because he’ll automatically fit in here and put up 60+ points on a defense-first team.
Blueshirt Banter
"Oils like he's getting a himmer!"
Ever factor in that we play in a defensive system?
And yeah, $7.8 million.
"Mr. Madison, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."
LET'S GO RANGERS!!!
WOW, Nash = cup???
Your saying getting Nash gives us a “cup-run”??? A little presumptuous no? Nash is nice, $7.8mil is not. Given the odds of making it to the “big dance” I’ll wait for Parise, Christian Thomas, or Chris Kreider.
I’m pretty sure Hagelin has shown that there is plenty a place in the NHL to use speed.
"Mr. Madison, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."
LET'S GO RANGERS!!!
I’ve mentioned that before but people still like to think in vacuums.
Speed translates better in a faster game. The guy could be the first of his teammates into the o-zone every single time and it would matter for shit if it took the others 20sec to catch up. The Rangers system relies on speed on the forecheck. Look at the element that Haggs has added with his speed. Now think of that and add size to it and a better shot.
It has been said by scouts that Kreider could be one of the fastest skater in the NHL. Now that Haggs has wno the fastest skater and Ranger brass feel Kreider is faster than Haggs, we really should consider that.
Aucune clause de Mouvement
by Blueshirt in Paris on Feb 16, 2012 3:00 PM EST up reply actions
his speed is breathtaking
http://m.youtube.com/index?desktop_uri=%2F&gl=US#/watch?v=QXb81YtSmi4
by Prustyballs94 on Feb 16, 2012 3:07 PM EST via Android app up reply actions
When?
Are we serious about winning the cup or just making sure we watch good hockey in four years. If we’re serious about winning the cup we do what other teams in our situation have done…pull the trigger on the type of trade we would NEVER make if we were simply building to compete for the cup. Totally different situation. You can’t get anybody as good as Nash without giving up something.
It is the difference between going all in or making sure you have enough chips to stay in the game and keep yourself in position to win. We did the all-in in ‘94 and while it was great and I wouldn’t change a thing, but it sucked being on the sideline watching for years after.
Winning it all has to do a lot with good luck or bad luck, injuries, hot goaltending, fluke bounce, etc… if you put yourself in as a top team for 4-5 years you can have just a good chance of winning it all by just being there.
Yes I would rather watch 5 years of good hockey and 1 championship then 1 championship and crap years.
Aucune clause de Mouvement
by Blueshirt in Paris on Feb 16, 2012 6:43 PM EST up reply actions
Hagelin has shown he can use his speed to get a job in the NHL, but certainly isn't dominating it.
There’s a huge amount of ground between being a great player in the NHL, and being Hugh Jessiman. I’m trying to say that Kreider is going to be either.
by BuckarooClub on Feb 16, 2012 3:21 PM EST up reply actions
It funny how people preach about chemistry and how the team plays as a team yet then can turn on a dime and start pulling individuals out of the team to pick apart.
He may not be dominating on the scoreboard, he was never expected to do that. But his speed on the forecheck has influenced the teams success without a doubt. it is not just about the best player. it is also about the best player for the team/system.
Aucune clause de Mouvement
by Blueshirt in Paris on Feb 16, 2012 3:32 PM EST up reply actions
I not so much picking any one player apart, just pointing out that there’s a big gap between the elite guys and the average guys. Hagelin is doing well and has been playing great so far, but he’s not somebody who can’t be replaced.
by BuckarooClub on Feb 16, 2012 7:05 PM EST up reply actions
By all standards, Hagelin is dominating possession battles. That’s a huge aspect to hockey, let alone the fact that the guy has 21 points in 37 games in his rookie year.
"Mr. Madison, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."
LET'S GO RANGERS!!!
Using Corsi as an approximater, we went from a 44% possession team to a 52% one when Hagelin and Mitchel came on board.
Hagelin himself may not be dominating persay, but his addition was a monster catalyst from us being a bad team with a HOF goaltender to a borderline elite team with a HOF goaltender.
I’d settle for that impact with Kreider, let alone all the hubbub.
Blueshirt Banter - Where Rangers' Fans Matter
Tracking the Rangers - Numbers don't lie. They just don't agree with you.
Twitter: RangerSmurf
"Oh, that sensible and sober* Rangers fan guy who is cool, actually" - Dominik, Lighthouse Hockey
*Statement has not been verified nor regressed
by George E. Ays on Feb 16, 2012 4:31 PM EST up reply actions
So then maybe the best thing to do with Kreider is trade him for a whole mess of 5th and 6th round picks so we will have more guys like Hagelin and Mitchel to call up and raise our Corsi?
by BuckarooClub on Feb 16, 2012 7:13 PM EST up reply actions
Why not make it 7th’s and take a team’s 7th rd picks for the next ten years
by Zuppa Di Pesce on Feb 17, 2012 10:24 AM EST up reply actions
Its not just about Brendl and Sather was here for all of them so yes the current structure is now different but the top remians the same. Also it isnt just Brendl, we have missed on most of the picks. My point is that its unlikely Kreider will ever meet or exceed Nash and his numbers in his NHL career so it should be considered when evaluating a deal for him. There are tons of guys with speed and skill that didnt survive the NHL, I can name 40 of them. The draft is an absolute crapshoot so you shouldnt be overlooking a proven talent to save what may be fools gold.
by DieselCane22 on Feb 16, 2012 2:21 PM EST up reply actions
Of course it is unlikely since just ~60% of 1st rd picks make a career in the NHL.
We could be having the SAME conversation right before Nash was picked. There was not guarantee he was going to score 40, was there?
So no its not a crap shoot which is basically something random not based on any skill.
Aucune clause de Mouvement
by Blueshirt in Paris on Feb 16, 2012 2:52 PM EST up reply actions
It IS a crapshoot because NASH is proven. Krieder is NOT. Its a massive gamble thinking Krieder will even come close to Nash.
by DieselCane22 on Feb 16, 2012 3:45 PM EST up reply actions
Do you understand the difference between crap-shoot and calculated/educated gamble?
Yes, the chances are that he will not come close to Nash. But why would you overlook a possible 20g scorer getting paid under $2m which would leave you another ~6mil to spend for another 15-20g to match Nash’s production while actually adding depth.
Aucune clause de Mouvement
by Blueshirt in Paris on Feb 16, 2012 3:55 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Of course but you said yourself 60% never have a career and your willing to hold on to that for dear life rather than for a guy who has 400 NHL points and 4 seasons of 30 or more goals? Thats a bigger risk, crapshoot, educated gamble, freakononics, sabermetrics or whatever you want to call it. I dont care about the semantics.
Also I wouldlnt do the deal if they ask for Step or McD.
If its Dubi a 1st and Kreider I do it.
by DieselCane22 on Feb 16, 2012 4:17 PM EST up reply actions
That’s fine, but understand that in 2 years one of McD or Step will NOT be able to be re-signed.
"Mr. Madison, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."
LET'S GO RANGERS!!!
If we win a cup. And then we’ll have to choose who we let go of anyway. We need to grab the silver while we can. Look where Pittsburgh and Washington are right now. They are good teams who can win the cup, but they are not the dominant force that either their fans or management predicted they would be in 2011-2012. We can stand pat and end up like Vancouver last year….and watch ourselves fall to 7 or 8 in the league with a young stud named Kreider and an aging core of players without rings on their fingers.
Vancouver came one game away from winning it all and are there contending for it again this year…I’d be very okay with that…and yes gabby Richards and hank will be ageing but that’s why we hold onto our young guys so that they eventually replace them or trade for a better player who doesn’t have a 7.8 mil cap hit.
by Prustyballs94 on Feb 16, 2012 5:58 PM EST via Android app up reply actions
If you don’t see any weakness in our offense compared to Vancouver last year I don’t know what to say. You aren’t going to get a hockey player of Nash’s caliber without paying.
You don’t need a hockey player of Nash’s caliber. Who was the Bruins superstar last year? Great defense? Great goaltending? Timely scoring? The team working together and complimenting each other’s play?
We are going to make a cup run with or without Nash, would he help this year? Yes. Would he help the next 5 years? No. Not directly him, but directly because of his contract.
I have a man-crush on Anisimov
Every time McDonagh plays a game in a Rangers jersey, a Canadiens fan sets a car on fire.
"I'm not a screamer or yeller. If I would try to scream and yell at people, it's not what I'd naturally do. So if I tried to do that, it would be awkward, I think." - Eli Manning
Exactly.
"Mr. Madison, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."
LET'S GO RANGERS!!!
A lot of assumptions there.
I can make them too. We trade for Nash, Dubi becomes 60 point player on Columbus, and Nash drops down to 60 points here. Kreider turns into a dominant power forward in the league, and the pick is solid too. Within 2 years we all want Nash bought out, and we want Sather fired.
No cups, shitty older over-payed players. We can do this all day.
"Mr. Madison, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."
LET'S GO RANGERS!!!
i love reading comments when the person shares my exact beliefs…THANK YOU! We stay the system and we will constantly have great players on our team with great youth. That will allow us to always stay cap compliant. We will have a continuous stream of prospects coming in with 3 years of entry level deals while we resign our home grown key guys to cap friendly cotnract because they all want to stay in NY, win a cup, and be part of a glorified organization that will be a contender for the next decade….If we stay the course and avoid Nash!
Aye!
"Mr. Madison, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."
LET'S GO RANGERS!!!
the number is 60 percent because there are 30 picks in the first round…I wonder what the odds are with top 10 picks….Wasnt kreider 10th overall? I think its at least 75 percent. Kreider would be on our team now had he not wanted to finish college. 8 mil a year is WAY to much and WAY to much on the cap hit! I would rather the Rangers havea contender for years to come than be stuck with another crazy contract praying that Sather can pull off some magical trade again.
As I said above, if we’re just looking for 15-20 goal guys, why not trade Kreider for a bunch of 3rd round picks? Then we could have A BUNCH of 15-20 goal guys.
by BuckarooClub on Feb 16, 2012 7:15 PM EST up reply actions
There’s making a decent argument, and then there’s being an asshole. Don’t be the latter.
Blueshirt Banter
"Oils like he's getting a himmer!"
The arguement being made was that if Chris Kreider only became a 20 scorer making $2mil, he’d still be a help to the team. I was just pointing out that 15-20 goal scorers are dime dozen. If Chris Kreider turns into a 20 goal scorer he’s a bust, and it means we should have sold him high.
by BuckarooClub on Feb 17, 2012 9:37 AM EST up reply actions
I would not call a 20 goal scorer a bust, regardless of where he is drafted.
by Zuppa Di Pesce on Feb 17, 2012 10:27 AM EST up reply actions
Nash is on pace for 26 goals BTW, and is making $7.8 million.
"Mr. Madison, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."
LET'S GO RANGERS!!!
You’re right that Nash is on pace for only 26 goals, and that would be his worse season ever. Although he is playing for a team having an absolutely horrible season. The funny thing is though, even it used Nash’s current season (his career worst) on a HORRIBLE team, the numbers still would put him in our top 3 for scoring any of the last 10 years.
So basically, at worst, he’s could still arguably be our best player for only $300k more then Gabby.
by BuckarooClub on Feb 17, 2012 4:53 PM EST up reply actions
yeah except we already
have the contract of gabby, we can’t afford him, sorry son you can’t have your shiny new toy.
Yeah, but contract amnesty sounds pretty real with the new CBA. Gabby could be done.
by BuckarooClub on Feb 17, 2012 8:23 PM EST up reply actions
So Dubi, MDZ, prospect, 1st pick AND Gabby for Nash?
Go back to Xbox.
Aucune clause de Mouvement
by Blueshirt in Paris on Feb 18, 2012 5:35 AM EST up reply actions
I’m not saying include Gabby, just saying if we are THAT concerned about cap space after this year, we could use the amnesty on Gabby over the off season.
The fact is, Gabby if Gabby makes it through this season that will be unbelievable. To think he’s going to be healthy for the entire remaining two is a stretch.
by BuckarooClub on Feb 18, 2012 9:43 AM EST up reply actions
You are saying to get Nash and the amnesty Gabby because of Nash. So in essence you are giving up Gabby for NAsh plus others.
Aucune clause de Mouvement
by Blueshirt in Paris on Feb 18, 2012 11:12 AM EST up reply actions
I’m saying, even if we DON’T get Nash, using the amnesty on Gabby after this season might not be a bad idea. Gabby will have 2 years left, but I don’t think we’ll get two productive years, given his history.
Too some extent you can’t be worried about what you get in return for everything, you just need to worry about getting the best team on the ice.
by BuckarooClub on Feb 18, 2012 11:33 AM EST up reply actions
So if we don’t get Nash, you want to buyout our top scorer who will probably have a 35+ goal 82 game season, because he MIGHT get hurt sometime in the next 2 years?
Ok, good luck with that pitch.
It’s not a case of “might” it’s just a matter of WHEN he gets hurt.
by BuckarooClub on Feb 18, 2012 7:40 PM EST up reply actions
I mean honestly, if Gabby was a UFA after last season, no one would have wanted Slats to give him $7.5 per and a NTC to bring him back. The guy was invisible the second half of his first year and all of last year. The defense was that he “wasn’t right” because he was playing hurt. Gabby’s a guy who is hurt more then healthy, and he’s been healthy for this whole season, it makes me think the other shoe will be ready to drop next season.
by BuckarooClub on Feb 18, 2012 7:51 PM EST up reply actions
And no one wants to sign Nash for $7.8 million even if he was a free agent?
SO why the fuck would we give up assets for him? Also, that logic of yours is completely faulty.
He’s been healthy so he’s more likely to get hurt. Have you ever taken a statistics class? Just one? By that logic Dubi is more likely to be a 25+ goal scorer this year since he’s struggling this year.
Come on man.. You are slowly going from a devil’s advocate to a true troll.
"Mr. Madison, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."
LET'S GO RANGERS!!!
Nash’s $7.8 isn’t the easiest thing to swallow, but it’s certainly better then Gabby’s $7.5. The thing to remember too, is that what Nash is making looks worse then what it really is. Guys like Nash ($7.8) Ovi ($9.5), Crosby ($8.7) and Malkin ($8.7) just happened to be signed before GM’s learned how to tweak the cap like they did for guys like Hossa ($5.3 hit, $7.8 salary), Kovi ($6.6 hit, $10 mil salary) and even we did with Richards($6.6 hit, $10 mil salary).
Who knows what will happen in the next CBA, and how much you will or won’t be able to tweak deals, but Nash’s money isn’t that far off, if anything his cap hit is a little higher then it should be.
by BuckarooClub on Feb 19, 2012 1:09 PM EST up reply actions
How does it look worse than it really is?
it is what it is. That’s what he’s making. Malkin is making 8.7 mil, and tearing up the entire league.
A little higher? Nash is a 65 point player, regardless of how shiny he is to you. Since when in the world are 65 point players worth 8.7 million?
"Mr. Madison, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."
LET'S GO RANGERS!!!
It looks worse then it really is because guys signed in the last few years like Kovi and Hossa are actually making $10 mil a year, they just have years added at the end to help the hit. With the NHL cracking down on cap tweaking, you’re going to be looking at not just paying guys that $10 mil a year, but also have that cap hit.
If you want to say that Nash’s hit is a million or so higher then what it should be, since it wasn’t tweaked with extra years, I will agree with you. However, we’ve got plenty of guys like Dubi, Staal, and Boyle all eating a million or more a year in cap hit above and beyond what they bring to this team. Take the special player in Nash when you can, and find cheaper role players to fill spots in the offseason.
by BuckarooClub on Feb 19, 2012 4:48 PM EST up reply actions
You really don’t think Staal is worth 4 million? Really?
And his actual salary doesn’t matter, his cap hit does. That’ the only number that matters here. Dolan isn’t short on money.
Sorry, but I rather have a deep team than 5 superstars and me and my friends playing lines 2-4 and defense pairs 2-3.
"Mr. Madison, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."
LET'S GO RANGERS!!!
Really? sometimes you make good points. Other time I think you are seriously high when you post.
Aucune clause de Mouvement
by Blueshirt in Paris on Feb 18, 2012 12:07 PM EST up reply actions
Just pointing out, we have alot of ways we can keep our flexibility under the cap. If we bring on Nash, and need to make cap space (although their are easier ways) buying out Gabby would pretty much even out our cap situation. By the same token, even if we don’t get Nash, but Parise or Suter are available as UFA’s, buy out Gabby and use his money for Parise.
by BuckarooClub on Feb 18, 2012 7:54 PM EST up reply actions
Gabbys contract is over 2 season after this. He wont be resigned at that kind of money. So a Gabby and Nash/Parise/etc would only overlap for 2 years. That is our best chance of winning
Aucune clause de Mouvement
by Blueshirt in Paris on Feb 19, 2012 5:25 AM EST up reply actions
Right on. Just pointing out, we’ve got alot of ways to keep our flexibility even if we take on Nash this season.
by BuckarooClub on Feb 19, 2012 1:11 PM EST up reply actions
So..
Trade Dubi, MDZ, prospect, 1st and buy out Gabby so we can have Nash?
I hope you don’t manage your money supply like that.
"Mr. Madison, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."
LET'S GO RANGERS!!!
Let’s look at what you’re talking about here…
Trade Dubi, a guy who’s fallen into a 7th forward role, and is pulling down a $4.2 mil cap hit. This is honestly the part of deal I think might hurt us the most, since he does do alot of things we don’t have anyone really ready to jump in and do. It’s unfortunate that someone thought he was “definatly a wing” and had to try to build him into a scorer he wasn’t, resulting in him getting paid like a scorer.
MDZ – Again this is one guy in the system who does things we don’t see from other guys. If they let MDZ go, they must have alot of faith in Tim Erixon.
Prospect – take anyone of them, no one in our system is our whole future.
1st round pick – it’s gonna be a late one anyway, and we’ve got more pieces then holes anyway.
As far as buying out Gabby (using an amnesty buyout if there is one)- we wouldn’t be doing it to afford Nash, for the most part sending Dubi let’s us afford Nash, it would be to give us more cap flexibility, and even let us go after a guy like Parise in the offseason.
Now if what you listed is the actual price, I would counter with Staal, AA and a first.
The teams been winning without Staal, and there’s alot more D help on the way. I’m not saying Dubi is untouchable, or even worth $4.2 mil, but Staal buys us the same cap space, we already know we can win without him, and as I said above, I think Dubi’s faceoffs, defense, and physical game will be more valuable to this team down the road then what Staal will bring.
AA is going to be in a bit of an “off man out” scenerio anyway with Nash coming in, and if Dubi were the guy to guy, I think AA gets pushed out of the top 6 anyway, and I don’t know if he really thrives on the 3rd line.
I’d also ask for Brett Lebda coming back. He’s cheap, only signed through the season, has playoff experience and a ring with Detroit and would sure our blueline with Staal going the other way.
by BuckarooClub on Feb 19, 2012 1:32 PM EST up reply actions
Buying out players hurts. You end up paying for nothing. Parise is going to command 8.5 million, or atleast those are the reports. I’d stay away from that too.
Also, what I don’t understand is that you literally value prospects at 0. You always make the comment, “they have done nothing at the NHL level”. If that’s the case, how come all of a sudden you have changed your tone and you now trust them to take over spots of guys we are losing. Make up your mind.
Onto your second point.
AA has thrived in multiple situations. First line this year, 2nd line last year, 4th line the year before. He could fit perfectly anywhere. Dude is what, 23 years old? He’s on pace (just like Cally) to be a 50+ point player in the upcoming years.
Staal has been injured all year, and so what if the team wins without him? Does that mean the Penguins should trade Crosby? Because they are winning without him. Just because you are winning without someone doesn’t mean you can’t be better with them. When healthy, he’s our best defensemen.
Lastly, Lebda is an absolute terrible defensemen. Worse than Eminger, worse than Woywitka, worse than Bickel even. The guy is just brutally bad. He might be the WORST defensemen in the NHL.
The gap between Staal and Lebda is larger than the gap between AA and Nash, add onto that Nash’s terrible contract and the first round pick, and the answer is once again, no.
"Mr. Madison, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."
LET'S GO RANGERS!!!
Also, what I don’t understand is that you literally value prospects at 0.
I don’t value them at zero, I just think when you can trade a prospect for a proven, young, player, it’s better to take the player.
If that’s the case, how come all of a sudden you have changed your tone and you now trust them to take over spots of guys we are losing. Make up your mind.
If we’re talking about the ability of a top prospect (1st rd pick) to become a 4th or 5th dman, I don’t think it’s a stretch to peg them for those spots. Right now Girardi, McD, MDZ, and Sauer when he’s healthy, have all show then can play in the top 4. I’m not saying trade our #1 guy, because this prospect will be a number 1, I’m saying I think atleast one of McIl and Erixon should be capable of devopling into a bottom pair defenseman at the very least. Also, as far as the D goes, they’re main job is to make them look good anyway. Unless you can handle the puck, make a decent first pass, or have a boomer from the point, anybody will pretty much do.
Does that mean the Penguins should trade Crosby? Because they are winning without him.
If Crosby came back, and was going to find himself playing on the 3rd line, then they should definitely consider moving him, if the move would help the team. It’s a bit different with Crosby, because you’re talking about a guy who’s been top 5 in the league his whole career. I can’t stand him, but he has produced. Still, the teams winning, you’ve got a superstar in Malkin, if you think you can use Crosby (coming off a serious injury too) to get you a top defensemen, Pittsburgh has to look at that option, although Mario would be too sentimental not to.
Lastly, Lebda is an absolute terrible defensemen. Worse than Eminger, worse than Woywitka, worse than Bickel even.
Those are pretty strong feelings about a 7th defenseman. The sole purpose of taking back a guy like Lebda would be add some playoff experience to the blueline, and have an extra body in case of injuries. Lebda has a ring, and tons of playoff experience with the Wings that would be nice to around with our young blueline. He’s certainly not the worst defenseman in the NHL, and I think he could handle time in our bottom pair, which is all we’d need out of him.
by BuckarooClub on Feb 19, 2012 5:36 PM EST up reply actions
How could you say that should trade Crosby. The players have feelings, and react to moves. You can’t just flip a guy like him for a defensemen. That’s not how making a team works.
You made a comment that the team is winning without Staal and therefore they should move him. THE TEAM IS WINNING WITHOUT NASH, so why trade for him? Seriously, let’s be fair here.
In regards to Lebda, go take a look at how Leafs fans would felt about trading him. If we trade AA And Staal, Lebda takes Staal’s place. It has a domino effect, and most likely Sauer isn’t coming back this season.
All of a sudden you have:
Girardi McD
MDZ Stralman
Eminger Lebda
Yeah I’ll pass on that. On a defensive team, that doesn’t cut it.
I’m sorry, but the gap between Staal and Lebda is much larger than the gap between AA and Nash. It’s not all about big shiny names.
"Mr. Madison, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."
LET'S GO RANGERS!!!
If we trade AA And Staal, Lebda takes Staal’s place. It has a domino effect, and most likely Sauer isn’t coming back this season.
Are you looking into ANY of this before you respond, or even reading what I’m saying? I suggested Ledba because I thought he was the best option for us of the defensemen with on Columbus with expiring contracts. He’s making 700K and he’s done after the season. How does he have ANYTHING to do with Sauer coming back? I wouldn’t see us resigning Ledba, just using him for the run, as the lone guy with playoff experience on the blueline. After that let him lose. His contract is up.
He’d be a rental.
How could you say that should trade Crosby. The players have feelings, and react to moves. You can’t just flip a guy like him for a defensemen. That’s not how making a team works
You know what feels worse then your buddy getting traded? Not winning a cup. You brought up this hypothetical, and if the Pens think hes their guy, and they need him, then keep him. I put Crosby in a situation similar to what Staal has been in, and assumed he’d be on the third line, cause other, cheaper guys had shown they can do his job. If you can flip a third liner, or a 5th defenseman for a top player, you’ve gotta do it.
by BuckarooClub on Feb 20, 2012 12:34 AM EST up reply actions
He’d be a rental, but he’d be playing this season. Follow me here….
If Sauer doesn’t come back, and we make this trade, Lebda is going to be seeing minutes on a regular basis. If we are so concerned about winning the cup this year, how does replacing Staal with Lebda do that?
The extra production that Nash will bring over Anismov (less than 2 points in a 7 game series), is NOT worth the lapses in defense we would have with Lebda out there.
What other, cheaper guys have shown they can do Crosby’s job? Just because the team is winning doesn’t mean it can’t be better. Crosby played a handful of games this year and averaged 1.5PPG. If healthy, he’s the best player in the NHL.
Their defense is already solid, so it would make no sense to flip Crosby in any way. And if you believe trading Crosby for anyone would help them win the cup, and that the players wouldn’t be negatively affected by it, you really need to reconsider these players as human beings.
Also, since when does trading AA and Staal for Nash increase our chances of winning a cup? I’d say they decrease our chances, this year and in the future.
"Mr. Madison, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."
LET'S GO RANGERS!!!
but but but Nash is a Super Starzzz!
we must TRAID Stepan, AA, dubi, Del Zotto- they all suck!
"Fantasy, reality, science Fiction. Which is which? Who can tell?"
by feslenraster on Feb 23, 2012 8:16 PM EST up reply actions
Seems like you’re more worried about the big name and less worried about how the team actually plays.
Shiny toy.
"Mr. Madison, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."
LET'S GO RANGERS!!!
I’m more worried about getting guys who are special players, when they are available (since they aren’t always available) then I am with making sure we have money to pay an overachiving player with an average skill set down the road.
There are hockey players then can do things, that most players could never do, no matter how long they practice. Then they’re are guys who have come across success through hardwork. Hardwork, conditioning and defensive responsibility can be taught, and worked on. Having a nasty set of hands, or the ability to dangle past 3 guys can’t.
As much as people on here love players for their work ethic, or hustle, those are the types of players who can be easily replaced if you have the right system, which I keep hearing we have.
by BuckarooClub on Feb 19, 2012 12:36 PM EST up reply actions
We know you are. We know you are more worried about paying 3 forwards, 2 defensemen, and a goalie 7 million each than actually building a team team. You have made that fairly obvious. We know you value players by how big their name is instead of how good they actually are.
The Rangers did what you are preaching for 70 fucking years and won ONE cup. For the first time they built up the team through depth and drafting, and now we are in first place. I highly doubt that’s a coincidence.
Let’s try something different for once.
"Mr. Madison, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."
LET'S GO RANGERS!!!
by Moshe52792 on Feb 19, 2012 3:56 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
So your signing a guy with the express purpose of using the amnesty clause on someone else who has been more productive over the course of his career?
So now it becomes.. trade Dubi, MDZ, Prospect, 1st, AND amnestry Gaborik is order to get Nash here. How in the world does that make us better?
"Mr. Madison, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."
LET'S GO RANGERS!!!
Chris Rock had a bit in one of his comedy shows about arguments with women. The exact same thing applies here about Buck.
“See, when men argue, we have a need to make SENSE. When women argue, they’re just in it for distance and irritation.”
Blueshirt Banter
"Oils like he's getting a himmer!"
by Caerid11 on Feb 19, 2012 7:14 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
What doesn’t make sense about the team better?
by BuckarooClub on Feb 19, 2012 8:03 PM EST up reply actions
not if those 20 goals
are solo goals in which he created the chances himself, we DO NOT HAVE any of those guys, we do not have a malkin,datsyuk, stamkos, or giroux
by rain-g-errs on Feb 17, 2012 12:42 PM EST up reply actions
Absolutely.
"Mr. Madison, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."
LET'S GO RANGERS!!!
You are so delusional.
Getting Nash means losing Dubi, Step or McD, Kreider (YES HE WILL BE AN EFFECTIVE PLAYER), a quality prospect that will most likely BE AN EFFECTIVE PLAYER, then another one of our vital RFAs in the near future.
I have a man-crush on Anisimov
Every time McDonagh plays a game in a Rangers jersey, a Canadiens fan sets a car on fire.
"I'm not a screamer or yeller. If I would try to scream and yell at people, it's not what I'd naturally do. So if I tried to do that, it would be awkward, I think." - Eli Manning
by Tripodi on Feb 16, 2012 11:31 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
personally I rather have Kreider than an over paid 30 goal scorer who will cost us either mcd or stepan and I’m not talking about in a trade
by Prustyballs94 on Feb 16, 2012 3:57 PM EST via Android app up reply actions 1 recs
Exactly. Bye-bye Dubi, bye-bye Kreider, bye-bye 1st rounder, and bye-bye McD or Step in 2 years.
"Mr. Madison, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."
LET'S GO RANGERS!!!
I wouldnt do the deal if they want Step/McDonagh totally agree. But if its Dubi and Kreider and a 1st I do it.
by DieselCane22 on Feb 16, 2012 4:18 PM EST up reply actions
we specifically said stepan/mcd is not in the deal for the umpteenth time but by trading for Nash indirectly makes us loose one of them…….
by Prustyballs94 on Feb 16, 2012 4:24 PM EST via Android app up reply actions
You dont know that for a fact. Its hypothetical.
by DieselCane22 on Feb 16, 2012 4:34 PM EST up reply actions
It’s not. Unless they raise the cap substantially, which is quite doubtful.
It’s not hypothetical, it’s looking more than 3 months ahead. If we bring in Nash in two years when those guys are RFA’s we will not have the money to sign them all. Simple as that.
23 year olds aren’t going to take a pay-cut to stick with a team.
"Mr. Madison, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."
LET'S GO RANGERS!!!
It IS. You dont know what the new CBA does. What the landscape will be. What the salary cap is, what amnesty there may be. IMPOSSIBLE TO TELL>
by DieselCane22 on Feb 16, 2012 4:42 PM EST up reply actions
And you’re assuming that the new CBA will have like 4 amnesty clauses, and that’s how you are affording McD and Stepan.
Come on. If anything the salary cap goes down, not up.
"Mr. Madison, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."
LET'S GO RANGERS!!!
You dont need 4 amnesty clauses only 1. You can shed Nash or Gabby or Richards. That gives you Step and McD at 3.5 each. Also there is lots of talk the Owners want ONE contract per team to NOT count towards the cap. Lots of moving parts.
by DieselCane22 on Feb 16, 2012 5:05 PM EST up reply actions
So we trade for Nash so we can trade him later?
by Zuppa Di Pesce on Feb 17, 2012 10:28 AM EST up reply actions
One contract per team to not count? You honestly think that’ll go through? Really?
Yeah, let’s trade for Nash so in two years we can use an amnesty clause on him. Don’t you see the faulty logic in that. Why not go after someone who produces the same with a lesser cap hit?
"Mr. Madison, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."
LET'S GO RANGERS!!!
But trading for Nash necessitates losing one of them.
"Mr. Madison, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."
LET'S GO RANGERS!!!
You already have an overpaid player in Richards who is older and scores less goals yet noone complains about his deal. You have to overpay for goals in this league unless you can secure a Bobby Ryan type younger, cost controlled guy.
Were going in circles. We can all agree to disagree. I would do the deal. You wouldnt. Ity doesnt matter it wont happen anyway.
Lets go Rangers.
by DieselCane22 on Feb 16, 2012 4:43 PM EST up reply actions
So because we have one overpaid guy its okay to have two?
"Mr. Madison, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."
LET'S GO RANGERS!!!
No its not OK but IMO Nash is better for the money than Richards is and he is 4 years younger is so if you need to shed one he would be the guy. My point was noone is bitching about Richards not living up to his deal yet EVERYONE throws Nash’s deal in everyones face.
I get that noone wants Nash’s deal. I DONT LOVE IT. But I think getting him is worth the price and it makes us better and more likely to win the cup. We dont agree. Its cool.
Lets go Rangers.
by DieselCane22 on Feb 16, 2012 5:11 PM EST up reply actions
The previous two years before he came here Richards put up over a PPG. 91 points in 2010. Nash doesn’t even break 80.
I’m not saying one way or another Nash is better, but he’s less cost effective AND just because you ahve one bad contract doesn’t mean you should bring in another one.
"Mr. Madison, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."
LET'S GO RANGERS!!!
No one is bitching about Richards’ deal because he’s already fucking here. In 2 years people we be bitching, and we know this.
But that isn’t a reason to bring in another contract to bitch about.
"Mr. Madison, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."
LET'S GO RANGERS!!!
by Moshe52792 on Feb 17, 2012 12:25 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
unless you can secure a Bobby Ryan type younger, cost controlled guy.
You mean like draft a player with that potential?
Aucune clause de Mouvement
by Blueshirt in Paris on Feb 16, 2012 4:53 PM EST up reply actions
No. Trade for him, not talking draft. And no theres no guarantee Krieder is Ryan either I know where your going with this. Again it doesnt matter this trade won’t happen.
Lets go Rangers.
by DieselCane22 on Feb 16, 2012 5:07 PM EST up reply actions
And there was no guarantee that Ryan would be Ryan or Nash would be Nash; They all come from this thing you like to call a crap shoot. But yet you want players like that but don’t want to roll the dice in the crap shoot.
Aucune clause de Mouvement
by Blueshirt in Paris on Feb 17, 2012 9:56 AM EST up reply actions
You mean like draft a player with that potential
Why not? I mean, there’s always next year.
by BuckarooClub on Feb 16, 2012 7:20 PM EST up reply actions
Yes, Buck, things that happen more than 3 weeks from now actually sitll happen.
"Mr. Madison, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."
LET'S GO RANGERS!!!
McD and Step aren’t seeing any real money until after Gabby is off the books, then there’s $7.5 million to pay those guys with.
by BuckarooClub on Feb 16, 2012 7:17 PM EST up reply actions
Yes
Gabby will be off the books. So you replace Gabby with Nash (whose cap hit is more than Gabby’s; while you can’t disagree Gabby is a better player given his production) and you pay Step and McD more. So essentially you’re proposing the Rangers replace their best scorer with a lesser scorer, while now paying more to Step and McD and hope they can fill in the blanks? Might I inquire as to what you’ve done with the captain? In two years, I doubt he’ll be getting paid $4.275 million (will also be an UFA). Did you also cut Anisimov from the team? Because he’ll also be an RFA (like Step and McD). See, you CAN bring in Nash. No one is saying it’s impossible. But, that $7.8 million cap hit can be better distributed throughout the entire team.
If the Rangers could be constructed solely of Nash, Step and McD then he’d fit perfectly. You need another 20 contracts however. See what happened to the Devils when they signed Kovalchuk to that 15-year/$100 million contract. They had 21 contracts and were OVER THE CAP (sorry for caps). I’d say having one too many big contracts will kill a team’s cap flexibility, wouldn’t you?
Nash would be nice. But with a $7.8 million cap hit, he’s not worth it. Because the game can’t be played with 21 players under contract. Haven’t you learned your lesson from the Devils just two short years ago?
by thepeon on Feb 17, 2012 1:01 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
while you can’t disagree Gabby is a better player given his production
Gaborik has 283G 288A 571PTS in 640 NHL games
Nash has
by BuckarooClub on Feb 17, 2012 9:40 AM EST up reply actions
Sorry cut off
Nash has 259G 229A 488PTS in 592 NHL games.
Nash has put up his numbers in perhaps the worst run franchise in the league, with almost zero help. He’s also younger then Gabby, and doesn’t have the injury history. It’s pretty easy to disagree that Gabby is the better player.
As far as all your contract concerns, we’ve been over them plenty, but here they come again
Derek Stepan and Ryan McDounagh are both coming off ENTRY LEVEL CONTRACTS. It’s their 1st trip into RFA, and they have no leg to stand on in negotiations. All they can do is hold out. If they hold out, they don’t get paid, they don’t get credit for a year of service, to get them closer to UFA status, and if they aren’t signed by December, they can’t play for the entire season. Our last three deals for players coming off ELC’s were all 2 year deals for roughly $2 mil per year and those were for AA, Cally, and Dubi. Step, McD, MDZ, and Hagelin’s contracts will be not be any problem to get done. Let’s all stop worrying about them.
Might I inquire as to what you’ve done with the captain? In two years, I doubt he’ll be getting paid $4.275 million (will also be an UFA)
What DO you think Cally will be getting paid? For the sake of arguement, let’s say that Cally keeps producing at the rate he’s been going this year and last year, and becomes a legit 30 goal scorer. It’s tough to project exactly what he’ll get, because the deal will be made under a new CBA, and it will depend on how teams use the new rules to beat the cap. I’d say Cally will be looking at a jump in his cap hit of about 2.5 mil tops though. His hit will probably look alot like BR’s.
Did you also cut Anisimov from the team?
No, but he could be looking at getting cut if he doesn’t step up with ice being tougher to get with Rick Nash in town. If you’ve got Nash, Gabby, and BR committed for 2 more seasons. We’ve gotta keep money for Cally, because he’s going to be a 30 goal guy looking for a nice raise on his $4.2 salary. Step and Hagelin are looking for cash too, so I’m guessing your pegging them for top 6.
I’m assuming Kreider and Dubi are gone in a deal for Nash, so we won’t put them in the mix, but that’s OK, cause there’s already 6 guys for 6 spots and JT, Christian Thomas, and a slew of other prospects looking to break into the league. There’s plenty of time and plenty of bodies to fill those holes, AA needs to show he deserves one before we worry about his raise.
Gabby will be off the books. So you replace Gabby with Nash
You’re not replacing Gabby with Nash, because Nash’s money is already accounted for under the cap. Gabby and Nash will play together for the next 2 years. If Dubi is the roster player that goes that’s $4.2 mil per year, and you can include WW and his expiring $3.8 cap hit to get the space we need to bring on Nash this season. When Gabby’s contract is over, the $7.5 per we have committed to him becomes available, and is 100% free money, to be used to hand out raises, sign FA’s or whatever the team wants to do with it.
See what happened to the Devils when they signed Kovalchuk to that 15-year/$100 million contract. They had 21 contracts and were OVER THE CAP (sorry for caps). I’d say having one too many big contracts will kill a team’s cap flexibility, wouldn’t you?
What killed the Devils wasn’t overpaying for Kovi (I think they have him at a great price) it was overpaying to retain their “homegrown talent”, namely Martin Brodeur. Marty isn’t worth anything CLOSE to $5.2 per, and sadly Lou will give it to him again if wants to come back for another season in the fall. They also overpaid for middle of the road talent like Tallinder and Greene and are still eating money on the deal they gave Colin White.
. I’d say having one too many big contracts will kill a team’s cap flexibility, wouldn’t you?
If you’re not getting the results they definatly are. Which is why Dubi and his $4.2 mil cap are being talked about as the player to send back to Columbus, and I’ve also suggested trying to send back Staal’s $4 mil cap hit to give us 2 less big contracts to deal with.
by BuckarooClub on Feb 17, 2012 10:27 AM EST up reply actions
By the Numbers . . .
Kreider:
GP G A Pts PIM +/-
2009–10 Boston College 40 17 9 26 20 +25
2010–11 Boston College 32 11 13 24 37 0
2011-12 Boston College 30 19 16 35 52 +4
Total 102 47 38 85 109 +29
Boyle:
2003–04 Boston College 35 5 3 8 36
2004–05 Boston College 40 19 8 27 64
2005–06 Boston College 42 22 30 52 90
2006–07 Boston College 42 19 34 53 104
Total 159 65 75 140 294
by Michael Tricario on Feb 16, 2012 2:46 PM EST reply actions
The difference is the type of players they are. At his size, Boyle could dominate. Kreider’s speed isn’t going anywhere, and neither is his shot.
Also, outlier or not, Boyle put up 20 goals last year and is a great defensive presence. If his shooting percentage was at a career average this year he’d be at 10 goals. Nothing great, but considering his defensive zone start %, its pretty impressive.
"Mr. Madison, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."
LET'S GO RANGERS!!!
Thats not worth NOT trading him for a proven NHL scorer.
by DieselCane22 on Feb 16, 2012 3:45 PM EST up reply actions
Look at the whole issue. No one is saying Kreider is better or will be better than Nash. He has the potential sure, but who knows.
But your failing to see the whole issue. As George and many other have said, no one is arguing what we would have to give up. EVERYONE is arguing against the contract of the player we are getting.
It doesn’t match his production and it never will. if we trade for Nash within 2 years the entire fan base is going to want to buy him out.
"Mr. Madison, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."
LET'S GO RANGERS!!!
when I first hear rumors of Nash I was like ooooo RICK NASH than I went and looked up highlights and was like OMG WE NEED HIM….than I saw his contract and I became pretty turned off
by Prustyballs94 on Feb 16, 2012 4:07 PM EST via Android app up reply actions
I agree it doesnt match his production but NONE of these guys match what that contract says. Its just the going rate. And as I said before, your better with him, will porbably get 3-4 good years from him and there ARE going to be remedies availablt if he is awful. New CBA, amnesty, Redden him whatever. My point is there is TOO much emphasis on the contract. I get its important, but so is making a legit run at the cup. The risk is real but so is the reward.
Also it IS possible he performs at a higher level than he has in Cloumbus but noone wants to adress that. Everyone only looks at the negatives.
by DieselCane22 on Feb 16, 2012 4:21 PM EST up reply actions
Going rate? Winning teams don’t just say, yeah let’s take that guy because other teams would. They find gems, and they find players who routinely outperform their contracts. By doing that they compile the deepest teams, which lead to success. Look at the Bruins, Canucks, Red Wings, us, etc.
You are so set on this new CBA being some type of miracle worker where every team can just throw away 3 bad contracts. If that were the case, EVERYONE would be signing players to bad contracts because their would be no repercussion. And if it doesn’t, we lose McD/Step and all possibilities of cap flexibility.
We are looking at the negatives because historical references show that when great players switch from bad to good teams their production generally stays the same. Given Nash’s age, if it moves it’s going down and not up. You for some reason won’t address that.
The emphasis is on the contract because that is truly what matters. In a cap world you can’t afford to bring in players who underperform their contract.
"Mr. Madison, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."
LET'S GO RANGERS!!!
You already brought one in that doesnt perform to his contract. NOONE performs to their deal now except young guys who explode. NONE OF THE VETRANS DO, they are getting paid for what they did yesterday not for what they are going to do tomorrow. Goal scorers get paid more its a fact.
You win. Your right. Im wrong. Were better off without Nash.
I just hope your right come playoff time when we we need a big goal in a big spot and we dont get it because we have 3 lines of grinders.
And then we lose next year due to no CBA and a lockout.
by DieselCane22 on Feb 16, 2012 5:15 PM EST up reply actions
So now there’s no hockey next year?
"Mr. Madison, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."
LET'S GO RANGERS!!!
I will never fault Satger for trying to improve the team. I think Nash is a huge improvement. I get people are worried about his cap number but there will be maneuverability and the Rangers may not be in this good of a position again. If Crosby comes back full speed were screwed. IMO we need to strike NOW! We have a real chance to win but we need more scoring. I’m
Agressive I want to go after it. Not hope it falls in my lap and hope someone we have in the system turns out to as good as the guy we can have today.
by DieselCane22 on Feb 16, 2012 6:52 PM EST up reply actions
I agree with your point that you have to pay a premium to acquire top flight talent. LIke we had to do with Gaborik and Richards. The problem is that the Rangers currently have 32% of the cap invested in Gaborik, Richards and Lundqvist, to add in Nash to that it jumps their investment to 45% of the cap to 4 players.
Just looking at capgeek, the “elite” teams have no more than 3 players over 6 Mil each year. While I agree with you Diesel that you have to pay a guy like Nash 7+ Mil per to get his services, I think that our slots for high priced talent are filled by Gaborik, Richards and Lundqvist.
Exactly.
"Mr. Madison, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."
LET'S GO RANGERS!!!
Also here are Hagelin’s junior and senior year stats
2009-10 45 19 31 50
2010-11 44 18 31 49
Hag’s wasn’t the same prospect as Kreider but I think it is useful to compare them because Hag’s was captain and leader of his team (lead team in points senior year – a team that lost in NCAA final)
yes.
I have a man-crush on Anisimov
Every time McDonagh plays a game in a Rangers jersey, a Canadiens fan sets a car on fire.
"I'm not a screamer or yeller. If I would try to scream and yell at people, it's not what I'd naturally do. So if I tried to do that, it would be awkward, I think." - Eli Manning
hahaha a thought just struck me, we might be having a conversation about
signing/trading for Chris Krieder 5 years from now…
"Fantasy, reality, science Fiction. Which is which? Who can tell?"
Rick Nash, MDZ, and a 2nd rounder for Kreider. OMFG do it slats!
Blueshirt Banter
"Oils like he's getting a himmer!"
Yeah
he will probably want to go to Law School after Med School and then get a pHD in pscyhology or something.
by rain-g-errs on Feb 17, 2012 12:45 PM EST up reply actions
I agree that our past drafting has been less than successful. However, by the same token our big name free agents / signings and trades have been more disastrous than our draft picks. Luckily most of that damage was done pre cap era. Now there are bigger consequences for picking up undesirable contracts.
by Dizzybizzy on Feb 20, 2012 1:07 AM EST via mobile reply actions

by 

























