Larry Brooks: There might be Brad news

[Heyoooo*]

Im 100% behind buying out Richards and it was even something I was thinking of before the season even started. That contract is awful for a guy on the wrong side of 30.

Gaborik however, im on the fence about. I can go either way. If he can succeed here in a more open system theres no reason to trade him but if he can give us a good return im not against that either. Frankly, I wouldnt want him in this ****hole system anyway. Do him a favor and put him on a more offensive team. Im sure most of us will still follow Gabs on another team. Hes been one of our best FA signings in retrospect.

Gaborik on Vancouver or SJ would be great to watch. NOT Pittsburgh. Chicago has no room for him.

Only thing is, he would surely go back to torching us offensively.

 

[LaffyTaffyNYR]

Im 100% behind buying out Richards and it was even something I was thinking of before the season even started. That contract is awful for a guy on the wrong side of 30.

Gaborik however, im on the fence about. I can go either way. If he can succeed here in a more open system theres no reason to trader him but if he can give us a good return im not against that either. Frankly, I wouldnt want him in this ****hole system anyway. Do him a favor and put him on a more offensive team. Im sure most of us will still follow Gabs on another team. Hes been one of our best FA signings in retrospect.

Gaborik has one yr left we wont get a good enough return to justify trading our top goal scorer.

 

[Vitto79]

Im 100% behind buying out Richards and it was even something I was thinking of before the season even started. That contract is awful for a guy on the wrong side of 30.

Gaborik however, im on the fence about. I can go either way. If he can succeed here in a more open system theres no reason to trade him but if he can give us a good return im not against that either. Frankly, I wouldnt want him in this ****hole system anyway. Do him a favor and put him on a more offensive team. Im sure most of us will still follow Gabs on another team. Hes been one of our best FA signings in retrospect.

Gaborik on Vancouver or SJ would be great to watch.

Gaborik would get a TON back in a deal, dude has scored 40 goals in 2 of the last 3 yrs..........Rangers would have to get a boat load back for me to even consider that

 

[iamitter]

Many teams will be able to not use 2 compliance buyouts, or use them on lesser numbered guys (i.e., like if we had kept Rupp and used one on him).

We should try to trade Richards, his NMC notwithstanding, to a club that will use their compliance on him. That will allow us to keep our last compliance as emergency insurance in case somebody like Nash gets too injured to be worth his contract, but not injured enough to go on LRIR.

We have to pay a trade partner for the privilege of doing that.
I don't know how much we are allowed to eat of Richards salary both this year, next, and as to the cost of the buyout. Even assuming we could do most of the $$$, beyond such financing, we have to pay a team to do this for us.

That is the approach we should try, and we should do it without delay, not wait til the off season.

I called it on Richards. Sorry I had to, but the truth must be told.
Let's bite the bullet and move on.

You can only compliance buyout contracts you signed. So trading Richards to be bought out isn't an option.

 

[Hi ImHFNYR]

Completely agreed. To me, the core is:

Nash
Cally
Steps
Hags
Miller
Krieder
Staal
McD
Girardi
Hank
(I don't include MDZ, because I think he could be moved for a player of similar value and age who's a better fit - e.g. ROR - that could then be added to the group above.)

As long as you aren't moving guys off of that list and keep the majority of the top prospects in the system, you aren't blowing up the core. Indeed, in moving Gabs and/or Richie, you'd be looking to grow that core.

Agreed if we include the prospects one has to turn out good for us probably more than one between McI, Fasth, Lidberg, Thomas. (I still am suspect on kreider though he may not fit here) I'd still include MDZ because as long as he's here he's part of the answer for sure. We even still have Stralman here and he's clearly more of a benefit to this team. Anyway we both agree there is way too much here...what's more Richards has been so underwhelming and bad that essentially I consider it just getting rid of Gabs which is certainly not blowing it up.

Trade Hank, Gabs, Girardi, Nash, buyout Richards, trade Boyle, Kreider see NOW it's being blown to hell.

 

[Hi ImHFNYR]

Gaborik would get a TON back in a deal, dude has scored 40 goals in 2 of the last 3 yrs..........Rangers would have to get a boat load back for me to even consider that

What about something like what Philly got for Richards or Carter? I think gabs would pull in a little less than that

 

[SingnBluesOnBroadway]

What about something like what Philly got for Richards or Carter? I think gabs would pull in a little less than that

Less based purely on age.

 

[Heyoooo*]

Gaborik would get a TON back in a deal, dude has scored 40 goals in 2 of the last 3 yrs..........Rangers would have to get a boat load back for me to even consider that

I agree. It just sucks when trading one of the best goal scorers in Rangers history is becoming closer and closer to a real option.

Not many FAs have succeeded here, and hes scored 40+ twice in 3+ years. That kind of production isnt easy to give away.

At this point though its probably more exciting to watch him on a more offensive team than here.

 

[Heyoooo*]

Richards I cant justify keeping in any facet really.

 

[I Eat Crow]

Less based purely on age.

I don't buy the age argument when it comes to value. Look at what Teemu Selanne is doing in Anaheim. You're all talking as if Gaborik is some washed up player that just so happened to score 40 in 2 of the past 3 years. He's 31 and still has a lot of hockey left in him. I think he could absolutely return a top prospect and a 1st round pick, should the Rangers choose to shop him.

Back to the topic of Richards, he makes too much sense to amnesty. Nothing short of him bouncing back next season and scoring 80 points is going to save him from that.

 

[Krams]

All this fire-sale talk needs to end. Lundqvist is not getting any younger. Gaborik should not be going anywhere. Richards needs to go, yes. Beyond that, there's no reason to implode the franchise.

 

[Riverdale]

All this fire-sale talk needs to end. Lundqvist is not getting any younger. Gaborik should not be going anywhere. Richards needs to go, yes. Beyond that, there's no reason to implode the franchise.

Agreed.

 

[SupersonicMonkey*]

Glad to hear that Girardi's leg isn't broken, but a bone bruise of that magnitude can be pretty bad too. Regardless, if McD and Nash are concussed the season is done. In that case:

Trade Gabby before the deadilne.

Trade Richie before the deadline if you can. If you can't, compliance buyout this summer is a MUST.

Trade MDZ before the deadline for something of equal value where we can actually maximize that value.

Fire Torts.



If by some miracle G, McD and Nash can all return in the near future, keep the team together as-is and continue on to try to make a run at the Cup (unless you get a fantastic offer for MDZ, who is still an underutilized asset). Then, trade Gabby in the offseason. Torts's survival depends on how the team does.

Either way, Richie's contract needs to go in the offseason.

If the Rangers trade Richards and he retires any time before his contract expires, aren't the Rangers on the hook?

The original signing team.

If that's the case, trading him should not be an option. The only way to be completely free of that contract is to use the last compliance buy out on him.

 

[Heyoooo*]

All this fire-sale talk needs to end. Lundqvist is not getting any younger. Gaborik should not be going anywhere. Richards needs to go, yes. Beyond that, there's no reason to implode the franchise.

I agree.

 

[BBKers]

If the Rangers trade Richards and he retires any time before his contract expires, aren't the Rangers on the hook?

The original signing team.

If that's the case, trading him should not be an option. The only way to be completely free of that contract is to use the last compliance buy out on him.

True dat

 

[broadwayblue]

Barring a complete 180, it does appear that Richards will be bought out at the end of this season or next. The alternative is too scary to consider.

 

[Machinehead]

All this fire-sale talk needs to end. Lundqvist is not getting any younger. Gaborik should not be going anywhere. Richards needs to go, yes. Beyond that, there's no reason to implode the franchise.

So what if he's not getting any younger? People have to let go of this fantasy that he's gonna get ridiculously hot in May and carry a sub-par team to the Cup. We can't let Lundqvist prevent us from making the changes that need to be made. If this season continues the way it's going then things need to change. This idea that we have to compete now because Lundqvist is 30 is just hampering the team.

 

[Krams]

So what if he's not getting any younger? People have to let go of this fantasy that he's gonna get ridiculously hot in May and carry a sub-par team to the Cup. We can't let Lundqvist prevent us from making the changes that need to be made. If this season continues the way it's going then things need to change. This idea that we have to compete now because Lundqvist is 30 is just hampering the team.

I never implied he was going to carry this current team to the Cup. But with the proper supporting cast, Lundqvist will do just that. The Rangers were extremely close last year. The framework of this current club is mostly the same as last year's. We ought to work with it, not implode it.

Remind me in five seasons when Lundqvist is on the decline how blowing up the foundation of a team that made the ECF and missed out on the President's Trophy by a point the year prior was a prudent course of action.

 

[bernmeister]

You can only compliance buyout contracts you signed. So trading Richards to be bought out isn't an option.

Thank you.
Was not aware of that.

No dis. like they said my cousin Vinny, "Are you sure?"

If that is true, and I fear you are correct and not misinformed, then indeed we are stuck with Richards until the compliance at a later date.


I assume we couldn't pay him a little more than the official buyout, lump sum and get rid of him now as a voluntary retire or other parting of the ways --- he'd still be on our cap, I assume no matter what...

 

[Machinehead]

I never implied he was going to carry this current team to the Cup. But with the proper supporting cast, Lundqvist will do just that. The Rangers were extremely close last year. The framework of this current club is mostly the same as last year's. We ought to work with it, not implode it.

Remind me in five seasons when Lundqvist is on the decline how blowing up the foundation of a team that made the ECF and missed out on the President's Trophy by a point the year prior was a prudent course of action.

Exactly how long do we let them live off of last year before we do what needs to be done? Gaborik and Richards aren't cutting it as the centerpieces of the offense and they're useless when they're not scoring. The team has gone from the hardest working in the NHL to one of the softest, so you have to wonder if the coach has lost them. If some of these guys need to go they shouldn't be kept around because Lundqvist will be 35 someday.

 

[Kreider Typical]

too soon to decide anything with richards. he had a huge end to last season. if we're going to get rid of him, we need to replace him. i'm not too content with boyle being our 2nd line center...

 

[Krams]

Exactly how long do we let them live off of last year before we do what needs to be done? Gaborik and Richards aren't cutting it as the centerpieces of the offense and they're useless when they're not scoring. The team has gone from the hardest working in the NHL to one of the softest, so you have to wonder if the coach has lost them. If some of these guys need to go they shouldn't be kept around because Lundqvist will be 35 someday.

I can assure you it's more than 17 games.

Richards is done and should be bought out. If the coach has lost them, then make a coaching change. Gaborik is a streaky player, he always has been. There is absolutely no reason to destroy the core of this team. It's a ridiculous sentiment and one that Rangers fans would regret for years to come.

 

[Krams]

too soon to decide anything with richards. he had a huge end to last season. if we're going to get rid of him, we need to replace him. i'm not too content with boyle being our 2nd line center...

No, it's not. The paperwork is probably already filed. You obviously make a move to replace him in the off-season.

 

[Machinehead]

I can assure you it's more than 17 games.

Richards is done and should be bought out. If the coach has lost them, then make a coaching change. Gaborik is a streaky player, he always has been. There is absolutely no reason to destroy the core of this team. It's a ridiculous sentiment and one that Rangers fans would regret for years to come.

And what should we do for a new center? Be patient and bring one up, or sign another Richards because Lundqvist is getting older?

 

[Samuel Culper III]

I never implied he was going to carry this current team to the Cup. But with the proper supporting cast, Lundqvist will do just that. The Rangers were extremely close last year. The framework of this current club is mostly the same as last year's. We ought to work with it, not implode it.

Remind me in five seasons when Lundqvist is on the decline how blowing up the foundation of a team that made the ECF and missed out on the President's Trophy by a point the year prior was a prudent course of action.

They were also extremely close to getting knocked out in the first round by the 8th seed, and then in the second round by the 7th seed. Maybe that's not entirely relevant - it's drawing straws that may or may not have been meaningful, but for as close as we supposedly were, we didn't make it easy. Moreover, I would argue that the framework is not as similar as you believe it is. Dubinsky, Anisimov, Feds, Prust, Mitchell were all playing fairly large roles. Not only are they gone, but they're replaced by strange new faces. The dynamic is changed. It doesn't matter if MOST of the personnel is the same; the dynamic is changed. The identity is changed. The impact of losing those players has changed the framework, evidently enough that this team is now severely lacking.

What if Dubinsky was a bigger leader and presence in the locker room than anyone could have guessed? And his intensity, whether he was producing or not, was invaluable to the team's psyche, because he got them riled up? What if Prust was the motor that that motivated the team every time he got on the ice and brought his energy to the game? What if AA was the lockerroom clown who provided a break in the tension in tight games that the team needed to stay calm and get the job done? This is all, very obviously, complete speculation, but it's impossible to say the framework is the same just because many of the same faces remain. Nash, Pyatt, Halpern, Asham, Powe, Miller and to some extent Kreider are new faces in the room. Gilroy wasn't here last year either. That's 8 of the 18 skaters we dress most nights. That's not really the same team at all. That's not the same frame work and it's not the same identity and this team is clearly not close to being a serious threat right now.