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

[Hunter Gathers]

Paying a premium for roughly 30 games at the TDL and then forced to trade him during the summer due to the fact you can't afford him....for lesser pieces during the summer is bad asset management. Do you agree on this point?

No, because I couldn't care less what your team does. I neither agree nor disagree. It's meaningless to me.

 

[Hunter368]

No, because I couldn't care less what your team does. I neither agree nor disagree. It's meaningless to me.

Cool, we both agree, neither cares about each other’s teams pov. Cheers

 

[FireGerardGallant]

Paying a premium for roughly 30 games at the TDL and then forced to trade him during the summer due to the fact you can't afford him....for lesser pieces during the summer is bad asset management. Do you agree on this point?

Still not a rental

 

[One Winged Angel]

As I stated if we're forced to trade him this summer we paid a premium for less then 30 games which is like a rental to us which is what I've stated from the start. We can't trade for him, we can't afford him, we don't need him, we can't resign him.....no interest in him.

Sell him to someone who needs and can afford him and is willing to pay the premium to get him.

Who says that they'll be forced to trade him? How do you know exactly what management is going to do? You speak as if your word is absolute, but yet none of us can be certain.

I understand having no interest and even the situation that Winnipeg is in. However, even with that said he's not a rental. You can twist it anyway you want, but he's not.

 

[Hunter368]

Who says that they'll be forced to trade him? How do you know exactly what management is going to do? You speak as if your word is absolute, but yet none of us can be certain.

I understand having no interest and even the situation that Winnipeg is in. However, even with that said he's not a rental. You can twist it anyway you want, but he's not.

As stated call it what you like, really doesn’t matter....the fact is he has about 100 games left on his contract which creates huge risk for any team trading for him and negatively affects his value compared to if he had multi years term. Barring multi unlikely trades we can’t afford him if ELC’s are traded to get him. Trouba for McD might work, shared risk and we could use the cap reserved for Trouba on McD. But trading blue chip prospects only creates risk for the Jets which Imo we wouldn’t do and based on chevys MO for the last seven years highly unlikely he would do either. He just stated multi high end prospects are untouchable regardless of the trade which is smart asset management ...he’s only looking at trading 1st and maybe B/C/D level prospects which is exactly what Im saying as well. Blue chips are untouchable

 

[Mancini79]

I wonder if MIN is interested in Grabner or Desharnais. The Wild could use either one.

What would the expected return be on each?

 

[One Winged Angel]

As stated call it what you like, really doesn’t matter....the fact is he has about 100 games left on his contract which creates huge risk for any team trading for him and negatively affects his value compared to if he had multi years term. Barring multi unlikely trades we can’t afford him if ELC’s are traded to get him. Trouba for McD might work, shared risk and we could use the cap reserved for Trouba on McD. But trading blue chip prospects only creates risk for the Jets which Imo we wouldn’t do and based on chevys MO for the last seven years highly unlikely he would do either. He just stated multi high end prospects are untouchable regardless of the trade which is smart asset management ...he’s only looking at trading 1st and maybe B/C/D level prospects which is exactly what Im saying as well. Blue chips are untouchable

I'm not calling it what I like, I'm calling it what it is.

He isn't a rental. He has term left on his deal beyond this season.

You're the one that either doesn't understand or thinks that semantics will prove you to be correct so you can drag down on his value.

I tell it how it is, you tell it how it might be.

 

[Hunter368]

I'm not calling it what I like, I'm calling it what it is.

He isn't a rental. He has term left on his deal beyond this season.

You're the one that either doesn't understand or thinks that semantics will prove you to be correct so you can drag down on his value.

I tell it how it is, you tell it how it might be.

Telling it is how it is.....he has about 100 games left, that's it. That hurts his value significantly compared to signed with long term. No interest, way too much risk. Good luck on the rebuild, hope it goes faster then most.

 

[Flukeshot]

Start blowing already would ya Rangers!

 

[5cotland]

Start blowing already would ya Rangers!

Didn't you see the Holden trade? We Nuked the hell of it!

 

[chethejet]

I think there are a couple players that can be moved. But the timing is they have to move Nash as a FA. He will return a Ok deal at best. Other will be offered for trying to max the pick and prospect return. I think the Rangers are far better of dealing who they can and not going full that rebuild. Drafting and development are key. That is why this management teams needs to go for that reason.

 

[DelZottoHitTheNetJK]

Telling it is how it is.....he has about 100 games left, that's it. That hurts his value significantly compared to signed with long term. No interest, way too much risk. Good luck on the rebuild, hope it goes faster then most.

HF Boards:

"He gets paid too much for too long, we're not eating that contract"

"He only has 1.5 years left on his deal at $3M below what he should be getting paid, hes a rental and his value is low"

 

[haveandare]

I think there are a couple players that can be moved. But the timing is they have to move Nash as a FA. He will return a Ok deal at best. Other will be offered for trying to max the pick and prospect return. I think the Rangers are far better of dealing who they can and not going full that rebuild. Drafting and development are key. That is why this management teams needs to go for that reason.

The management needs to go because we're not drafting a developing? Both their first round picks from last year are further along than anyone could have imagined.

 

[Hunter368]

HF Boards:

"He gets paid too much for too long, we're not eating that contract"

"He only has 1.5 years left on his deal at $3M below what he should be getting paid, hes a rental and his value is low"

That’s what buyers rightfully say.

Sellers be like: Don’t worry we know we’re asking a kings ransom but he’s a good guy, we guarantee he will resign with you guys at reasonable cap hit & term. Don’t worry.

Buyer: But he will be 30 years old when he becomes ufa and we’ve all seen most players play starts declining around 30, I’m concerned about what he will demand for term.

Seller: Don’t worry he’s an exception to that rule, he will be top pairing guy for at least 5-6 more years and for the last couple years he will still be top 4.....heck he will be top 4 guy at 40 years old still. Stop worrying, just give us that kings ransom.

 

[Rodgerwilco]

We'll take Grabner in Pittsburgh, please.

 

[Ori]

this should go well...

Maybe L. Brooks lost all patience - he is not that young and agile journalist as he once was, and each year without a cup in NYR seems like a lifetime?
Well this topic was created in January - maybe someone bumped it. `sigh kind of old article..

 

[Ori]

We'll take Grabner in Pittsburgh, please.

1st pls. with a bottle of milk.

 

[Rodgerwilco]

1st pls. with a bottle of milk.

We'd have to dump some cap somehow in the deal, though. not sure how much we're paying the bottle of milk, but I doubt it's enough to fit Grabner under our tight cap.

 

[Ori]

How is Hagelin playing now - moving him to get cap for Grabner make sense, and they are similar players with speed and great on pk? NYR could probably take a cap dump if we get a good draft pick for Grabner in return.

 

[One Winged Angel]

Telling it is how it is.....he has about 100 games left, that's it. That hurts his value significantly compared to signed with long term. No interest, way too much risk. Good luck on the rebuild, hope it goes faster then most.

And again, he's still not a rental.

You're playing semantics to support an argument that you don't have.

No one is saying that he's going to have the same value as someone with 3-4 years left on his deal. He's still not a rental.

 

[Kaapo di tutti capi]

And again, he's still not a rental.

You're playing semantics to support an argument that you don't have.

No one is saying that he's going to have the same value as someone with 3-4 years left on his deal. He's still not a rental.

I have a spare wall you can talk to if you like - it could potentially be way more productive.

 

[Hunter368]

And again, he's still not a rental.

You're playing semantics to support an argument that you don't have.

No one is saying that he's going to have the same value as someone with 3-4 years left on his deal. He's still not a rental.

Where in my post you quoted did i even mention the word rental? I didn’t you’re moving the goal posts now. 100 games on his contract hurts his value significantly. Fact

 

[One Winged Angel]

Where in my post you quoted did i even mention the word rental? I didn’t you’re moving the goal posts now. 100 games on his contract hurts his value significantly. Fact

I'm moving the goalposts? After a chain of responses in which you've done so several times, now you're going to accuse me of that when I'm repeating the same things I've said in just about every reply to you?

Come on man, you can't be serious with that.

 

[Hunter368]

I'm moving the goalposts? After a chain of responses in which you've done so several times, now you're going to accuse me of that when I'm repeating the same things I've said in just about every reply to you?

Come on man, you can't be serious with that.

You want to draw some kind of big difference in value between a player with 30 games on his contract vs a guy with 100 games on his contract just b/c a generally accepted term in hockey like “rental” makes no sense.....but to avoid that debate around the definition or understanding of a word i’ll just not use the word and talk games on a contract so there is zero semantics or bias from either side.

He has roughly 100 games on his contract....that’s it. I’m saying it is very unlikely chevy pays a kings ransom like we’ve seen here for a guy with a 100 games on his current contract and the significant chance the player signs elsewhere at the end of his deal. Add to that fact he will be 30 at the time of his new deal starting and we’ve all seen many guys play start to fall off starting at 30.

Don’t get me wrong or misunderstand my posts i like McD he’s a good player, love to have him but not willing to mortgage the future for the huge risk that he represents. But i hope you get someone to pay you what you want, i just hope it’s not the jets.

 

[Cousin Eddie]

Anyone think Kreider gets moved?