News Article: Rangers Chose Girardi, Not Boyle, Over Stralman

egelband

Registered User
Sep 6, 2008
15,852
14,386
Interesting. Never thought of it like that. I can see the thinking. I suppose I'd prefer Stralman, but it's hard to argue that they should have jettisoned Girardi for Stralman. Particularly at that time. And I also expect Girardi to have a better year next year. I think he was pretty banged up this season. But that's a different story.
 

mandiblesofdoom

Registered User
May 24, 2012
2,240
1,213
Rangers were six kinds of dumb in that painful-to-recall sequence of events. One bad decision led to another, which led to another. Yet the same people kept making decisions in the same blind-to-reality way.

Not only did they miss that Girardi was already starting to decline, and that Stralman made our team better - they also miscast Stralman as "not good on the power play" without really giving him a chance.

On the other hand, Stralman wasn’t viewed as someone who could help the power play. During the 2013-2014 season, the Rangers used Stralman on the man advantage for just 22:32. That’s a total accumulated in 81 games played that season. Granted, it’s possible or even likely the Rangers missed the boat on their evaluation of Stralman’s abilities as he has tallied 23 PP points in two years since joining Tampa. While not the production of an elite performer it’s still solid.

And they thought 38-yr-old Boyle would be the answer! Boyle was no good either, so we had to give up more of the future to get Yandle.

If I were the boss, I'd get new people to make decisions after that trainwreck.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

haohmaru

boomshakalaka
Aug 26, 2009
16,513
10,717
Fleming Island, Fl
It's the same argument I've been making for two years - they were addressing losing Brad Richards on the PP (which they clearly thought they were going to improve) and Boyle was coming off decent PP season coming in. Sign him instead of Boyle and you've got 3 RD - none of which are PP players. Rangers were addressing a need.

Sure, hindsight you trade or let Girardi walk, keep Klein, sign Stralman, and sign another top 4 RD via UFA two years ago.
 

Raspewtin

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
May 30, 2013
42,753
17,910
what odd timing for this article

And I'll forever maintain that trading for Klein would set the alarm bells that Stralman wasn't coming back.
 

Made Dan

Registered User
Jul 15, 2007
14,520
50
The Bronx, NY
This was always the case. At the time because Boyle was an unknown to me, didn't think it'd be as huge of a deal as it turned out to be. Boy was I wrong.


Can't help but think what would've been if Boomer was accurate. Vatanen and Stralman on the right side? Oh my.
 

pld459666

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
25,777
7,803
Danbury, CT
never felt they let Stralman walk to sign Boyle.

Always felt they chose Girardi over Stralman.

I guess the article seems to think it was the other way around.

the article also feels a bit like closing of the barn doors loong after the horse left.
 

ReggieDunlop68

hey hanrahan!
Oct 4, 2008
14,441
4,434
It’s a rebuild.
I got to hand it to the writer for effectively stirring up the muck withe current gripe from the fandom, but this team would have been out in five with Stralman even if he weren't injured in the playoffs.
 

mandiblesofdoom

Registered User
May 24, 2012
2,240
1,213
It's the same argument I've been making for two years - they were addressing losing Brad Richards on the PP (which they clearly thought they were going to improve) and Boyle was coming off decent PP season coming in. Sign him instead of Boyle and you've got 3 RD - none of which are PP players. Rangers were addressing a need.

Well, they thought they were addressing a need. In reality they weren't.

The need wasn't a big as they thought, since Stralman has shown in TB than he can play the power play OK (not brilliantly, but OK - better than Girardi).

And even if there were a need, Boyle wasn't the answer. One day I hope the Rangers learn not to expect so much from old players coming off a decent season elsewhere.

That's the problem here - the Rangers didn't ID their needs properly & they didn't ID how to address them. The entire sequence is an indictment of our management.

Did they learn anything?

The net effect of "addressing the need" was to replace a player who was good at everything with one who wasn't.
 

Made Dan

Registered User
Jul 15, 2007
14,520
50
The Bronx, NY
I got to hand it to the writer for effectively stirring up the muck withe current gripe from the fandom, but this team would have been out in five with Stralman even if he weren't injured in the playoffs.

Replace Girardi's minutes with Stralman over the course of the year and it changes everything. Maybe we win every game against Pitt and avoid them in the 1st round. At the very least, we'd have home ice (which I guess really isn't much of a benefit :laugh:)
 

ReggieDunlop68

hey hanrahan!
Oct 4, 2008
14,441
4,434
It’s a rebuild.
Replace Girardi's minutes with Stralman over the course of the year and it changes everything. Maybe we win every game against Pitt and avoid them in the 1st round. At the very least, we'd have home ice (which I guess really isn't much of a benefit :laugh:)

I think the Rangers would have been in nearly the same position, and unless Stralman demanded and convinced management to tank in order to play Florida, the Rangers would still have been out in five.

Perhaps, had Stalman been on the team and dressed, the Rangers would have lost the last game of the Penguin series 5-3.
 

kovazub94

Enigmatic
Aug 5, 2010
12,298
8,097
what odd timing for this article

And I'll forever maintain that trading for Klein would set the alarm bells that Stralman wasn't coming back.

Seriously? Trading for Klein was to address a weak link in DZ and his regression as a Ranger.

I always thought and agree with the article that it was always G vs Stralman. The front office made a series of wrong decisions on D including this. However what everyone with the benefit of hindsight forgets is that Girardi signing came before the trade deadline. Thus, it was very understandable at that time. The brass might have reached a different conclusion if they waited until after the Rangers were eliminated and had a benefit of another 1/3 of a regular season plus play-offs that would've made it clearer that keeping Stralman was a better move.
 

Mac n Gs

Gorton plz
Jan 17, 2014
22,580
12,822
Seriously? Trading for Klein was to address a weak link in DZ and his regression as a Ranger.

I always thought and agree with the article that it was always G vs Stralman. The front office made a series of wrong decisions on D including this. However what everyone with the benefit of hindsight forgets is that Girardi signing came before the trade deadline. Thus, it was very understandable at that time. The brass might have reached a different conclusion if they waited until after the Rangers were eliminated and had a benefit of another 1/3 of a regular season plus play-offs that would've made it clearer that keeping Stralman was a better move.

Maybe, I'm just misreading what you're trying to say here, but the Klein traded happened in late January and the Girardi extension happened a month after that.
 

mandiblesofdoom

Registered User
May 24, 2012
2,240
1,213
I always thought and agree with the article that it was always G vs Stralman. The front office made a series of wrong decisions on D including this. However what everyone with the benefit of hindsight forgets is that Girardi signing came before the trade deadline. Thus, it was very understandable at that time. The brass might have reached a different conclusion if they waited until after the Rangers were eliminated and had a benefit of another 1/3 of a regular season plus play-offs that would've made it clearer that keeping Stralman was a better move.

Was there a reason they signed G at that time?

I remember reading the analytics people saying at the time that it was a questionable move.
 

silverfish

got perma'd
Jun 24, 2008
34,644
4,353
under the bridge
Points made by this article claiming the Rangers chose Girardi over Stralman and not Boyle:

Case for Girardi:

- The Rangers believed Girardi and Stralman did the same things. Having them both on long-term deals plus Kevin Klein didn't make sense.

Case for Boyle:

- He was viewed as better on the PP
- He'd sign for a lesser-term
Opening a pathway for Skjei and McIlrath​
Rangers had roster moves to make down the line that a long-term deal for Stralman would have hindered​
- Wanted a more offensively inclined player

If the Rangers really wanted Stralman more than Boyle, they could've moved Klein to make it work. They could've signed both of them.

The Rangers being perceived as choosing Girardi over Stralman is nonsense, IMO.
 

Tawnos

A guy with a bass
Sep 10, 2004
28,820
10,397
Charlotte, NC
Points made by this article claiming the Rangers chose Girardi over Stralman and not Boyle:

Case for Girardi:

- The Rangers believed Girardi and Stralman did the same things. Having them both on long-term deals plus Kevin Klein didn't make sense.

Case for Boyle:

- He was viewed as better on the PP
- He'd sign for a lesser-term
Opening a pathway for Skjei and McIlrath​
Rangers had roster moves to make down the line that a long-term deal for Stralman would have hindered​
- Wanted a more offensively inclined player

If the Rangers really wanted Stralman more than Boyle, they could've moved Klein to make it work. They could've signed both of them.

The Rangers being perceived as choosing Girardi over Stralman is nonsense, IMO.

:laugh: Yeah, I read that article and thought... isn't this the case for the opposite?
 

Miamipuck

Al Swearengen
Dec 29, 2009
7,411
2,693
Take a Wild Guess
IDGAFF if it's Boyle over Stalman or Girardi over Stralman or Stephen Hawking over Stralman it was a bad move.

By bad I mean absolutely terrible- confidence in front office killing inept decision.


I hope something that dumb doesn't happen again after the Staal trade. lol
 

Hi ImHFNYR

Registered User
Jan 10, 2013
7,173
3,087
Wherever I'm standing atm
I can say that pigs fly and it doesn't make it true. At least I hope the front office is smart enough to be too embarrassed to admit that they chose a 38 year old geezer over an established, young, still great D man. I don't know how you can look at sathers history and not think anything other then he was enamored with a big name. The entire argument in this article makes no sense. It's not backed up by anything that you could have inferred at the time without being utterly wrong about a 38 year old who hadn't done much of a damn. And seriously fix the PP? With one guy? Who's 38 years old? That's completely idiotic. Sacrificing the overall game of stralman to do it. Just asinine.

I love how the article says it wasn't Stralman for Boyle and then talks about how we took boyle because his PP skills were better than stralman.

Article sucks. Talking about the idiocy of this move pisses me off so keep in mind I'm excessively cranky when discussing it.

What shocks me is how many people buy this line of crap that it was about girardi.
 
Last edited:

mandiblesofdoom

Registered User
May 24, 2012
2,240
1,213
IDGAFF if it's Boyle over Stalman or Girardi over Stralman or Stephen Hawking over Stralman it was a bad move.

By bad I mean absolutely terrible- confidence in front office killing inept decision.


I hope something that dumb doesn't happen again after the Staal trade. lol

thank you.
 

Off Sides

Registered User
Sep 8, 2008
9,755
5,585
That is bunk

They also signed Glass that same off-season

If they were worried about cap space for Stepan, Brassard, Zucc (which happened while Boyle and Glass were on the books) or about planning for future contracts to RFAs, a 3 year to Glass (where he is still on the book when they need new deals) does not make any sense either.


I'll always believe Sather felt slighted that Stralman wanted to negotiate a contract instead of just accepting the one he offered because Sather felt as if he helped Stralman resurrect his career, and on top of that Sather already knew Boyle wanted to sign here partially because Boyle's agent just said as much and probably because back when the Clowe deal happened he was asking about Boyle then and asked if there was any chance he would waive his clause back then.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->