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

[One Winged Angel]

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.

Yes there's a HUGE difference between 30 and 100 games. It's the difference between one guaranteed playoff run then hitting free agency and a guaranteed playoff run and another guaranteed season after and time to negotiate a new deal and another possible playoff run depending on how that season goes. It's 20+ games to finish this season, plus playoffs (a non playoff team isn't trading for McDonagh, so the preface of trading for him is to put you in that elite tier of teams in terms of chances to win it all) and then 82 games next year and possibly (most likely) playoffs next year.

I've had my differences with you in many threads over the years, but I know you're more than smart enough to know that you're reaching here. You can't possibly be telling me that there's not a huge difference between 30 to roughly 130-150, depending on performance. To further illustrate my point, conditions are often applied to draft picks in trades for this very reason.

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.

108 would be the bare minimum of games that he has left, provided he was traded to Winnipeg and Winnipeg does not make the playoffs next season and gets swept in 4 games in the first round this year. If Winnipeg were to sweep through the playoffs, he would have 38 games left this year and 82, which is 120 next season, provided they don't make the playoffs next season, 124 if they get swept in the first round next year and 136 if they sweep through the playoffs and win again.

You're selling the numbers far too short. If you have a problem with the age, that's fine, but the argument that you have about his term is simply not valid. There is a HUGE difference, because it not only gives you another season, it gives time to agree to a new deal and if necessary, move cap to facilitate that new deal.

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.

That's fine, I respect that. It just doesn't make the other things you've said accurate. You could have said this from the start and not said the other things and we wouldn't have even had this discussion.

 

[Petes2424]

But do they have any top 4 dmen for Anaheim

I think Anaheim is a sneaky team when it comes to Mike Green. If they have a prospect or two Detroit likes, who knows. Dont think they'll move a first but could be the Green Sleeper. I think to many people pass off the Ducks as not needing because of their historical depth on D recently, but that depth has thinned out and they do need a guy.

 

[Hunter368]

Yes there's a HUGE difference between 30 and 100 games. It's the difference between one guaranteed playoff run then hitting free agency and a guaranteed playoff run and another guaranteed season after and time to negotiate a new deal and another possible playoff run depending on how that season goes. It's 20+ games to finish this season, plus playoffs (a non playoff team isn't trading for McDonagh, so the preface of trading for him is to put you in that elite tier of teams in terms of chances to win it all) and then 82 games next year and possibly (most likely) playoffs next year.

I've had my differences with you in many threads over the years, but I know you're more than smart enough to know that you're reaching here. You can't possibly be telling me that there's not a huge difference between 30 to roughly 130-150, depending on performance. To further illustrate my point, conditions are often applied to draft picks in trades for this very reason.



108 would be the bare minimum of games that he has left, provided he was traded to Winnipeg and Winnipeg does not make the playoffs next season and gets swept in 4 games in the first round this year. If Winnipeg were to sweep through the playoffs, he would have 38 games left this year and 82, which is 120 next season, provided they don't make the playoffs next season, 124 if they get swept in the first round next year and 136 if they sweep through the playoffs and win again.

You're selling the numbers far too short. If you have a problem with the age, that's fine, but the argument that you have about his term is simply not valid. There is a HUGE difference, because it not only gives you another season, it gives time to agree to a new deal and if necessary, move cap to facilitate that new deal.



That's fine, I respect that. It just doesn't make the other things you've said accurate. You could have said this from the start and not said the other things and we wouldn't have even had this discussion.

Sorry I think you might have me confused with someone else, I don’t ever recall exchanging posts with you in the past.....never mind many times in the past.

I agree there is a difference I never stated there wasn’t a difference but....how big is the difference and how much that difference costs is the real question. Example

Team trades for McD pays a premium to get him. They can keep him for 100 games including two playoff runs and then risk losing him for nothing. Big risk

Team can trade for McD for this playoff run and trade him this summer or before next TDL to get some of the cost they spent to get him originally albeit it will be less for sure. A bit less risky.

Of course either option assumes no contract agreement happens which is possible but far from a sure thing. Plus both options above assumes the team has cap room to fit him on the team which can be an issue, currently is a bit of a problem with the jets who are a cap now and moving forward. Not impossible to fix, but not a given either.

I have repeated said we can’t and imo wouldn’t pay that much for a ren...I mean short term contract.

Chevy has stated it just a couple days ago, he will not trade certain prospects/players regardless of the offer....simply are untouchable. Our 1st and B/C/D level prospects are the only thing being offered and he clearly stated if that doesn’t work then he won’t make a deal.

 

[Syckle78]

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"

It's almost like different fans of different teams are looking at different situations. Difficult concept, I know.

 

[One Winged Angel]

Sorry I think you might have me confused with someone else, I don’t ever recall exchanging posts with you in the past.....never mind many times in the past.

My name has changed a few times over the years, no worries. Shouldn't have said many, but we've had a few discussions.

I agree there is a difference I never stated there wasn’t a difference but....how big is the difference and how much that difference costs is the real question. Example

Team trades for McD pays a premium to get him. They can keep him for 100 games including two playoff runs and then risk losing him for nothing. Big risk

Team can trade for McD for this playoff run and trade him this summer or before next TDL to get some of the cost they spent to get him originally albeit it will be less for sure. A bit less risky.

A team making this kind of trade isn't looking to flip a player like McDonagh to another team in the offseason.

Unless my memory is failing me, I can't ever recall that happening. I remember Thomas Vanek being flipped midseason to Montreal after being traded to the Islanders, but that's because it was common knowledge that he wanted to sign with Minnesota, but the Islanders also wanted to get something for Matt Moulson, who was set to be an unrestricted free agent at the end of that year as well.

Of course either option assumes no contract agreement happens which is possible but far from a sure thing. Plus both options above assumes the team has cap room to fit him on the team which can be an issue, currently is a bit of a problem with the jets who are a cap now and moving forward. Not impossible to fix, but not a given either.

That's why I try not to speak in absolutes. I don't know what any GM or organization for that matter is thinking. I might have an idea, but how many times have we all been wronged or even lied to in the past?

Do I think the Jets will trade for McDonagh? Most likely not, due to reasons already discussed in your post that I'm currently replying to and said previously. However, I wouldn't rule anything out and if a team has a plan to trade for a player of that caliber, logic would dictate that they would have it mapped out that they have a plan to either move salary if necessary or move that player elsewhere when the times comes. It's a calculated risk more than anything. As much as we think some GM's can be boneheaded and hindsight is always 20/20, when these moves are made, they're carefully plotted out by the executives who make them, down to every last detail.

I have repeated said we can’t and imo wouldn’t pay that much for a ren...I mean short term contract.

Chevy has stated it just a couple days ago, he will not trade certain prospects/players regardless of the offer....simply are untouchable. Our 1st and B/C/D level prospects are the only thing being offered and he clearly stated if that doesn’t work then he won’t make a deal.

That's fine and I understand that.

It was just the rest of what you were saying previously that I did not agree with. It's usually that people on here like to create false narratives to lead crusades against said players in an attempt to drop their "perceived value."

Not gonna lie though, this was one of the more constructive, thorough and fun arguments I've had on here and at no point, did it come down to potshots.

 

[Gardner McKay]

It's almost like different fans of different teams are looking at different situations. Difficult concept, I know.

It is the same fans. When its their guy, term has value. When looking at another teams guy, term is a negative.

 

[blood gin]

this should go well...

No Ranger fan here but...yes that's the point to blow it up, rebuild, and hope it goes well. Rangers fans are prepared and clamoring for it too. It's not like they're in denial and want to go for it this year. They're ready for a rebuild and can certainly stomach it

I'd like McDonagh on the Devils

 

[Hunter368]

My name has changed a few times over the years, no worries. Shouldn't have said many, but we've had a few discussions.



A team making this kind of trade isn't looking to flip a player like McDonagh to another team in the offseason.

Unless my memory is failing me, I can't ever recall that happening. I remember Thomas Vanek being flipped midseason to Montreal after being traded to the Islanders, but that's because it was common knowledge that he wanted to sign with Minnesota, but the Islanders also wanted to get something for Matt Moulson, who was set to be an unrestricted free agent at the end of that year as well.



That's why I try not to speak in absolutes. I don't know what any GM or organization for that matter is thinking. I might have an idea, but how many times have we all been wronged or even lied to in the past?

Do I think the Jets will trade for McDonagh? Most likely not, due to reasons already discussed in your post that I'm currently replying to and said previously. However, I wouldn't rule anything out and if a team has a plan to trade for a player of that caliber, logic would dictate that they would have it mapped out that they have a plan to either move salary if necessary or move that player elsewhere when the times comes. It's a calculated risk more than anything. As much as we think some GM's can be boneheaded and hindsight is always 20/20, when these moves are made, they're carefully plotted out by the executives who make them, down to every last detail.



That's fine and I understand that.

It was just the rest of what you were saying previously that I did not agree with. It's usually that people on here like to create false narratives to lead crusades against said players in an attempt to drop their "perceived value."

Not gonna lie though, this was one of the more constructive, thorough and fun arguments I've had on here and at no point, did it come down to potshots.

Agreed, we both bring up fair points from both pov. I agree most times a deal like this is done with the intent to keep the player permanently, not for just 30 or 100 games. My only point was chevy being possible the most risk adverse GM in the entire nhl....likely won’t take that risk who knows, times have changed and now we’re a top 5 team so the cup is no longer an impossibility like it was in the past. Maybe this year he becomes more aggressive in his trades and less risk adverse. Good chat, cheers and best of luck to the Rangers.

 

[One Winged Angel]

Agreed, we both bring up fair points from both pov. I agree most times a deal like this is done with the intent to keep the player permanently, not for just 30 or 100 games. My only point was chevy being possible the most risk adverse GM in the entire nhl....likely won’t take that risk who knows, times have changed and now we’re a top 5 team so the cup is no longer an impossibility like it was in the past. Maybe this year he becomes more aggressive in his trades and less risk adverse. Good chat, cheers and best of luck to the Rangers.

Absolutely.

When the Rangers finally don't suck again, maybe we'll see a Rangers/Jets final.

I can only imagine the headlines on the NY papers... "At least one team named the Jets is playing for a championship... too bad they're from Winnipeg"

 

[Hunter368]

Absolutely.

When the Rangers finally don't suck again, maybe we'll see a Rangers/Jets final.

I can only imagine the headlines on the NY papers... "At least one team named the Jets is playing for a championship... too bad they're from Winnipeg"

Nice one, that’s funny.

 

[One Winged Angel]

Nice one, that’s funny.

Yeah, the New York jets are a laughing stock.