Rumor: [Brooks] The Rangers are going to blow it all up

[Hunter Gathers]

Not to you....but to us he would be which is the only thing that matters.

If McD is traded this year before the deadline, he is literally not a rental. Any team acquiring him would have a full year after this season. So unless you have some brand new definition of a rental (one that would be completely wrong, mind you), you're simply incorrect.

 

[Nanaki]

If you acquire McDonagh you don't even have to keep him the 2 years. You can always keep him for this playoff run and trade him at the draft. I mean this is so much fun discussing it this time, think about getting to do it again in a few months.

 

[Hunter368]

Factually incorrect.

Call it what you like, it’s really just semantics. We can’t afford his cap this year or next year or with his new deal....never mind the fact he will be 30 when this contract is over. No interest in big ticket aging players or rentals at the cost of our future well being. Not mortgaging our future for one (cant afford his cap) ill advised playoff push. Pass

 

[Hunter368]

If McD is traded this year before the deadline, he is literally not a rental. Any team acquiring him would have a full year after this season. So unless you have some brand new definition of a rental (one that would be completely wrong, mind you), you're simply incorrect.

You’re arguing semantics which is silly as stated above. No interest, pass.

 

[Hunter Gathers]

You’re arguing semantics which is silly as stated above. No interest, pass.

No. I’m arguing a very common definition. Sorry that you’re factually incorrect, though.

It would appear you didn’t realize he had term. It’s OK to just say that.

 

[FoxysExpensiveNYDigs]

Call it what you like, it’s really just semantics. We can’t afford his cap this year or next year or with his new deal....never mind the fact he will be 30 when this contract is over. No interest in big ticket aging players or rentals at the cost of our future well being. Not mortgaging our future for one (cant afford his cap) ill advised playoff push. Pass

Rental player
A rental player is a player that is traded, usually on the last year of his contract, by a team that has little to no chance to either re-sign him or go into the playoffs. The "lessee" is usually a team that hopes to go deep into the playoffs or, better yet, to win the Stanley Cup or the Gagarin Cup. What the "lessor" gets for a rental player is usually considered its "rent".

 

[Hunter368]

No. I’m arguing a very common definition. Sorry that you’re factually incorrect, though.

It would appear you didn’t realize he had term. It’s OK to just say that.

Go look at all my posts, I knew exactly how much term he had stated it many times in the other thread...nice try though...no interest in a rental like him....which he would be to us. Pass

I never understand why can't people just accept no thx as an answer.....no means no. Not giving up blue chip prospects for a rental like Nash or McD. Easy pass

Only interested in bottom pairing D and bottom six C as our rentals.

 

[Hunter Gathers]

Go look at all my posts, I knew exactly how much term he had stated it many times in the other thread...nice try though...no interest in a rental like him....which he would be to us. Pass

I never understand why can't people just accept no thx as an answer.....no means no. Not giving up blue chip prospects for a rental like Nash or McD. Easy pass

Only interested in bottom pairing D and bottom six C as our rentals.

No one cares whether you want him or not. We care that you’re being factually incorrect and too stubborn to acknowledge it.

To quote you, “nice try[,] though.”

 

[Hunter368]

Rental player
A rental player is a player that is traded, usually on the last year of his contract, by a team that has little to no chance to either re-sign him or go into the playoffs. The "lessee" is usually a team that hopes to go deep into the playoffs or, better yet, to win the Stanley Cup or the Gagarin Cup. What the "lessor" gets for a rental player is usually considered its "rent".

semantics...... Already stated he would be a rental to us. Are you reading the posts? Pass....no interest in rental player for us.

We have no interest or chance to resign him as stated.....not giving but blue chip prospects for a handful of games. We can't even afford his cap this year never mind next year or year after that with new deal.

 

[Vipers31]

No. I’m arguing a very common definition. Sorry that you’re factually incorrect, though.

It would appear you didn’t realize he had term. It’s OK to just say that.

Some Ducks fans have used the "1.5 year rental" type definition for a while, as well. It's being used for everyone who is anticipated to not be able to be resigned by a bunch of people now. I understand the underlying reservations about paying non-rental value, but it's not a very reasonable thing to just use the same label for 2/3 and 14/15 months. And that doesn't even account for how quickly things can develop to open up space. And the option to still trade a player as an actual rental the next year.

 

[Hunter368]

No one cares whether you want him or not. We care that you’re being factually incorrect and too stubborn to acknowledge it.

To quote you, “nice try[,] though.”

Not wrong....he would be a rental......to us. Can't sign him, can't even accept his cap this year.... Makes it pretty hard to trade for him

 

[FoxysExpensiveNYDigs]

semantics...... Already stated he would be a rental to us. Are you reading the posts? Pass....no interest in rental player for us.

We have no interest or chance to resign him as stated.....not giving but blue chip prospects for a handful of games. We can't even afford his cap this year never mind next year or year after that with new deal.

It's not semantics if you are FACTUALLY INCORRECT about the definition which you are indeed.

 

[FireGerardGallant]

semantics...... Already stated he would be a rental to us. Are you reading the posts? Pass....no interest in rental player for us.

We have no interest or chance to resign him as stated.....not giving but blue chip prospects for a handful of games. We can't even afford his cap this year never mind next year or year after that with new deal.

How is he rental if he still has a year on his deal?
Is Erik Karlsson also a rental than by whatever stupid definition of rental you're using?

 

[Hunter Gathers]

Not wrong....he would be a rental......to us. Can't sign him, can't even accept his cap this year.... Makes it pretty hard to trade for him

Except that’s not a rental. Again. This has been gone through. He has term. He’s a player for over a season. I’m not sure what not you’re not getting.

 

[Hunter368]

Some Ducks fans have used the "1.5 year rental" type definition for a while, as well. It's being used for everyone who is anticipated to not be able to be resigned by a bunch of people now. I understand the underlying reservations about paying non-rental value, but it's not a very reasonable thing to just use the same label for 2/3 and 14/15 months. And that doesn't even account for how quickly things can develop to open up space. And the option to still trade a player as an actual rental the next year.

Agreed.....if the Rangers sign him long term or take a big contract back then it's a different story....but neither will happen so mute point.

 

[Hunter Gathers]

Some Ducks fans have used the "1.5 year rental" type definition for a while, as well. It's being used for everyone who is anticipated to not be able to be resigned by a bunch of people now. I understand the underlying reservations about paying non-rental value, but it's not a very reasonable thing to just use the same label for 2/3 and 14/15 months. And that doesn't even account for how quickly things can develop to open up space. And the option to still trade a player as an actual rental the next year.

Yep. At that point, EVERYONE is a rental. You can theoretically choose to not sign anyone after their term. “Rental” has had a definition for years in the NHL.

A “rental” player is Grabner. Nash. Holden. Someone who is gone after a couple of months. This isn’t some new word.

 

[Hunter Gathers]

How is he rental if he still has a year on his deal?
Is Erik Karlsson also a rental than by whatever stupid definition of rental you're using?

I mean, the dude is just too stubborn to admit he was wrong. May as well move on.

 

[GoAwayPanarin]

semantics...... Already stated he would be a rental to us. Are you reading the posts? Pass....no interest in rental player for us.

We have no interest or chance to resign him as stated.....not giving but blue chip prospects for a handful of games. We can't even afford his cap this year never mind next year or year after that with new deal.

It's not semantics.

If another team has no interest or lacks the ability to sign him, thats totally fine. But you can't redefine what a rental player is in order to fit your agenda.

You're better than this.

 

[Hunter368]

Except that’s not a rental. Again. This has been gone through. He has term. He’s a player for over a season. I’m not sure what not you’re not getting.

Not hard to understand.....

- can't even afford to trade for him....what do you not understand....we don't have cap space for him. Zero space

- can't afford his cap hit next year even if some how we cleared cap space this year.....so we would be forced to trade him or others....

- not giving up blue chip prospects for a gamble a guy MIGHT sign after 1.3 years.....that's just dumb asset management. Have you watched the Jets? steady sure moves....not risk takers which has paid off big time. No big gambles

- PMO stated he expects us to have a quite TDL

- Chevy stated he would consider trading a 1st and/or certain (lesser) prospects but certain high value prospects are untouchable no matter what. So forget about our blue chip guys, untouchable.

No interest in any big moves.

 

[Hunter Gathers]

Not hard to understand.....

- can't even afford to trade for him....what do you not understand....we don't have cap space for him. Zero space

- can't afford his cap hit next year even if some how we cleared cap space this year.....so we would be forced to trade him or others....

- not giving up blue chip prospects for a gamble a guy MIGHT sign after 1.3 years.....that's just dumb asset management. Have you watched the Jets? steady sure moves....not risk takers which has paid off big time. No big gambles

- PMO stated he expects us to have a quite TDL

- Chevy stated he would consider trading a 1st and/or certain (lesser) prospects but certain high value prospects are untouchable no matter what. So forget about our blue chip guys, untouchable.

No interest in any big moves.

Are you writing a wall of text that I couldn’t care less about for your own sake? I read none of that. None of this has anything to do with why we are telling you you’re wrong.

 

[Hunter Gathers]

It's not semantics.

If another team has no interest or lacks the ability to sign him, thats totally fine. But you can't redefine what a rental player is in order to fit your agenda.

You're better than this.

I love the ability to redefine words when I need to! I wish it worked when drafting a contract.

 

[Hunter368]

It's not semantics.

If another team has no interest or lacks the ability to sign him, thats totally fine. But you can't redefine what a rental player is in order to fit your agenda.

You're better than this.

Redefine what? You realize it's not a real thing right? It's just a generally accepted understanding.....which in our case we can't trade for him or keep him we would be forced to trade him....not to mention how risky giving up big value for a guy who is under contract for about 100 games or so.

 

[Hunter Gathers]

Redefine what? You realize it's not a real thing right? It's just a generally accepted understanding.....which in our case we can't trade for him or keep him we would be forced to trade him....not to mention how risky giving up big value for a guy who is under contract for about 100 games or so.

It’s “not a real thing” even though it’s a term that those of us familiar with have known how to use for years without you redefining it.

 

[Hunter368]

Are you writing a wall of text that I couldn’t care less about for your own sake? I read none of that. None of this has anything to do with why we are telling you you’re wrong.

Your comments don't even make sense now. I'm talking about the Jets POV, don't care about your teams POV. If you think you will get value for a guy under contract for about a 100 games or so vs a guy signed long term is silly.

 

[Hunter368]

It’s “not a real thing” even though it’s a term that those of us familiar with have known how to use for years without you redefining it.

Which means nothing...he has about 100 games under contract only. No interest.