Sick of looking at that game 5 thread and envisioning a happy hudson and Steelgiant jumping up and down for joy with their Crosby and "Kristopher Allen" Letang blow-up dolls.
Lets discuss early offseason news and our golf and summer plans here, but lets also see the hatred flowing as we root against ....well... everybody. The only worse EC final 4 i can think of would be to swap in Flyers or Devils for Tampa, and that's impossible under the new playoff format. And Tampa sucks too.
So fuck 'em all - I want to see pain, inept officiating as we saw in NYI/FL games 5 & 6, coaches challenges and long delays, 3 OT games with the home team losing, *lulz* quotes from kwhite2250 that the 'sky is falling' on NYI threads, and of course, a Western Conference Champion.
So they'd likely be adding other meaningful pieces in your scenario MAB.
(Obviously, expecting a successful unload of 61 and 5 is very optimistic)
If you can't get at least a first and a good prospect, I think you pass.
I am sure that it is not worth it. You cant pay a 70 point center the Kane contract or higher. And Stamkos is getting more than double Brassard's 5 per season.
Brass's deal is positively valuable. He might be a guy who gets shopped, just because he will give you a real return and cap relief. They would have to have faith in Hayes though, and I cant speak to that. Or maybe you use that savings to resign Staal and pocket the Brassard return in the transaction (not advocating that, just throwing it out there). One of the real stupidities of the recent Rangers offseasons is that they didnt resign the guys that were free, and trade the guys under contract. E.g. they could have resigned Stralman and traded Klein for a late #1 or #2 plus.
Lets say you get a late #1 (which is what 2nd liners and sometimes 3rd liners return at the deadline). But the $$ lets you resign Yandle. Yandle + #1 > Nash. Though Im not sure I want to commit to Yandle for 6 or more years, which is what he'll demand.
I view the remaining term as good value. 2 years is a perfect option maturity. Pretty low risk with high upside. If somebody doesn't want to give something of value for that, you hold on to it.
Separate topic, if Yandle walks (which, the more I think about it, the more I think it might be smart to just let him), thoughts on signing Jason Demers?
UFA, will be 28 years old, really strong player defensively. Advanced stats also favorable. As much as the knee-jerk reaction may be to replace Yandle's offense, I'm inclined to start renovating the defense from the back - the play in our own end just absolutely has to be better. Right handed and could play alongside McDonagh on on 2nd pair.
If you can't get at least a first and a good prospect, I think you pass.
Well for starters Nash has a full NMC so he'd likely only agree to a small number of teams. Second, i think you can get one of a first or a good prospect (or maybe someone like Nails in Edmonton, or Shattenkirk in STL if they lose to Dallas) but highly doubt both... he's $8 million a year, not exactly a bargain.
If you dont trade Nash, and Staal stays here and at absolute best you are somehow able to unload Girardi either by buying him out (unlikely as much as it might make sense because 8 years of DEAD cap money is a very long time) or trading him - you are eating at least $2 million per year off that contract...
You've only freed up $6 million or so of space (remember, Yandle only cost us $2.6 million as Arizona ate half). Miller/Kreider/Hayes/McIlraith are due roughly that in raises.
So you go into next season with the same team sans Yandle and Girardi, adding only hopefully Buch. Not a Cup contender IMO.
I should have said late first plus
I would also be for cap room for Stamkos.
So you go into next season with the same team sans Yandle and Girardi, adding only hopefully Buch. Not a Cup contender IMO.
That could be a cup contender. Honestly, I thought talent wise we should have been one this season. Lots of elements are to blame. But I buy into addition by subtraction for Girardi, plus more importantly development by Kreider, Hayes, and Miller. Big bodies take longer. Skjei and McIlrath could be better than the rookie combo of McDonagh and Sauer, and very similar, and if paired together will get more sheltered minutes.
I dont have a great explanation for this season. The Kings and Hawks havent been super consistent playoff after playoff. Maybe it just takes a big toll, guys get sloppy and assume they'll just get it together for the playoffs etc. Getting knocked out early could just give us the rest we need for next year.
It's incredible to watch this team totally screw themselves from what seemed to be a great position. Since 07, I feel like this team has had a mixture of bad luck and poor trades that if individually prevented, could have led us to a cup already.
I know its quite a long time go back, but the What-Ifs kill me...
What if Cherepanov didn't die? Would we have the elite playoff goal scorer we've been chasing? (that Gaborik wasn't able to do for us but did for the Kings, and that Nash has so miserably failed at?)
What if Sauer didn't get hurt? What Girardi have been given the same contract?
Why did we have to throw in THREE first round picks for half a season of an
effective St Louis?
Would Staal be a more effective player if had he never suffered his eye injury?
Would we have had the cap room to retain Hagelin?
If Zucc doesn't get hurt last year, do we get even closer to the cup?
Did we get max value for Talbot? (I honestly have no idea how he has performed in Edmonton)
If Yandle walks, that trade will look even worse in retrospect.
Just sucks to see a team that was on the cusp of breaking through and is in the midst of the window slamming shut, while having the ability to point at 4-5 things that happened over the previous 6+ years that could have changed everything.
Also, MAB, I'm wondering what you mean by full rebuild. Clearly "going for it" has ended up setting us back to begin with, but how long can we expect Hank to perform as a top level goalie?
If you can't get at least a first and a good prospect, I think you pass.
To Nashville for Kevin Fiala
Quote:
What are your expectations for a Nash trade?
If you can't get at least a first and a good prospect, I think you pass.
To Nashville for Kevin Fiala
Quality young prospect that's probably ready for the big leagues? I'm down.
Some of the European Twitter guys are bitching that the Penguins signed Lukas Bengtsson, who was in the Rangers development camp (and apparently had continued interest in). Apparently a small, quality puck-moving defenseman. I know nothing about him. I suspect NYR couldn't guarantee playing time like the Penguins can.
I love his game, but he'll be 30 years old the next time he plays in a meaningful game, and he's likely to get a contract that takes him to 36 or 37.
Sadly, I think that if they really want to rebuild on the fly, you let him walk and use some of that money to buy years from Miller or Kreider beyond their bridge deals.
If Yandle wants to listen to a 3 or 4 year deal, perhaps I feel a little differently, but I'm thinking he gets something like 6 years $45m.
Mike Sauer was a better defenseman than Girardi when he was still good, and likely would still be a very good defenseman today if healthy. He would have gotten one of the big contracts instead of Staal or Girardi.
The eye injury didn't help, but the injury that really seemed to significantly hamper his career is when his brother gave him a concussion. Staal was never a banger, but he was much more physical before that. Ever since he's been almost completely finesse.
Would you do Nash for Yakupov? I would imagine Nash is more likely to agree to go to Edmonton / McDavid... than to want to play in Nashville. But I do agree that Nashville on the surface is a good fit for him.
I don't do Nash for Yakupov. There's a decent chance Yakupov just isn't that good.
Nash and McDonagh for Yakupov and Draisaitl - who says no? With the money saved, the Rangers re-sign Yandle .
As part of a package, sure. But no way straight up.
Quote:
In comment 12924718 BrettNYG10 said:
Quote:
What are your expectations for a Nash trade?
If you can't get at least a first and a good prospect, I think you pass.
To Nashville for Kevin Fiala
Quality young prospect that's probably ready for the big leagues? I'm down.
Of course, Buch is a left winger too so being we're loaded at LW with Tanner Glass . . . .
Would you do Nash for Yakupov? I would imagine Nash is more likely to agree to go to Edmonton / McDavid... than to want to play in Nashville. But I do agree that Nashville on the surface is a good fit for him.
Why would you do that, just to free up cap space to sign others? Nash is ridiculously better than Yakupov (who is rapidly approaching bust status IMO) on your 2016 - 2017 roster at least. Would you need Edmonton's first round pick too?
IMO, let him go to Boston. Just b/c the Rangers backend is desperate doesn't make this a good move. 29 yr old plays well, gets a huge contract, etc. We've seen how this works out. Let him go IMO.
I don't do Nash for Yakupov. There's a decent chance Yakupov just isn't that good.
Nash and McDonagh for Yakupov and Draisaitl - who says no? With the money saved, the Rangers re-sign Yandle .
Maybe I'm crazy, but I don't make that trade.
Quote:
With a preference for 3-4 years. Even at 34-35 he'll probably still be fairly productive. The cap will probably continue to increase as well, so even if he's getting $6m per year, it won't be that intimidating of a price in 2020-21.
IMO, let him go to Boston. Just b/c the Rangers backend is desperate doesn't make this a good move. 29 yr old plays well, gets a huge contract, etc. We've seen how this works out. Let him go IMO.
My main preference for keeping him is that he's already shown that he's the puck-moving defenseman/PP QB that the team has been looking for since they signed Wade Redden. It's not an easy player to find, and we have one that we know can play well in NY. One in the hand is worth two in the bush, after all.
Probably hard to turn that one down, but to me, trading McDonagh means full blown rebuild, and there are too many difficult-to-move contracts that make it feel far-fetched. We'll still be here watching Girardi and Staal making snow angels in front of a Hank that starts to look like a European version of Dan Boyle.
Dallas and Anaheim immediately come to mind, but teams like Calgary, Winnipeg, Columbus, Toronto all could trade for Hank.
Get a young NHL roster player back, a high pick, and clear space.
At his age it might be the most impactful trade the Rangers can make, that helps long-term even if they suffer short-term a little.
Getting rid of Staal and Giradi turns the Rangers into a positive possession team. They will be a contender at a ~50% CF%.
My main preference for keeping him is that he's already shown that he's the puck-moving defenseman/PP QB that the team has been looking for since they signed Wade Redden. It's not an easy player to find, and we have one that we know can play well in NY. One in the hand is worth two in the bush, after all.
I understand yet let's keep some things in mind. This is as good as he's going to be. He's ranked 15th in defensemen scoring at 29 years old. He's not going to get better so those numbers are going to slide and it's a quick drop to being ranked around 25th in defenseman scoring.
He's never going to have a good shot so he's no real thread as opponents know he's a pass first defenseman. He skates well but he's hardly fast, he's really physical and he's ok defensively. IKD, sounds like we're desperate and we've been down these roads for decades with high dollars to players on the back end of their careers. IF he had a awesome shot I would say yes. Not a fan of a guy who we need b/c he passes well while the others can pass at all. If we had a competent defenseman we wouldn't hesitate to let him walk.
Brett, I just don't see any way that the brass wants to ax both of them.
Quote:
I don't know. There aren't a lot of avenues for improving right now.
Getting rid of Staal and Giradi turns the Rangers into a positive possession team. They will be a contender at a ~50% CF%.
Great, but how do you do it?
Even aside from the NMCs, at what cost?
Would you include Hayes to entice a team to take one of them? For me, that one is a yes.
Keep $2.5m per year to dump the other? Does that even get a deal done?
Take back an equally bad contract for a forward?
Greg, AV made a few comments yesterday that make me think he knows how bad the D was and that they'll make corrective actions going forward. His player deployments contradict that, but I suspect the front office doesn't have their heads in the sand.
Quote:
My main preference for keeping him is that he's already shown that he's the puck-moving defenseman/PP QB that the team has been looking for since they signed Wade Redden. It's not an easy player to find, and we have one that we know can play well in NY. One in the hand is worth two in the bush, after all.
I understand yet let's keep some things in mind. This is as good as he's going to be. He's ranked 15th in defensemen scoring at 29 years old. He's not going to get better so those numbers are going to slide and it's a quick drop to being ranked around 25th in defenseman scoring.
He's never going to have a good shot so he's no real thread as opponents know he's a pass first defenseman. He skates well but he's hardly fast, he's really physical and he's ok defensively. IKD, sounds like we're desperate and we've been down these roads for decades with high dollars to players on the back end of their careers. IF he had a awesome shot I would say yes. Not a fan of a guy who we need b/c he passes well while the others can pass at all. If we had a competent defenseman we wouldn't hesitate to let him walk.
You're right about his ceiling; it's basically a question of how fast his play will tail off. In terms of his ranking this year, remember that AV didn't figure out how to use him until after the All-Star break. If he'd been on the top PP unit from October, I think his numbers would've been a lot better.
I don't think the draft would be until next summer, since there's definitely no expansion team ready to play until 2017-18 at the earliest.