Speculation: Trade Rumors/Speculation Part X: Sather Falls Asleep on the Phone

[Blue Blooded]

They need to trade Cally. The guy is a shell of his former self and was never a real difference maker to begin with. He's a classic overvalued asset. Unfortunately Cally is the type of player that the team and even the league has been brainwashing casual Rangers fans into thinking he walks on water. I feel like trading him would be a PR hit.

The upside is that other GM's seem to like him, so we could get a good return. The same goes for Girardi.

The moves would be hated by a large part of the fanbase though, there is no getting around that.

 

[Ola]

Actually, Ola, respectfully - you need to think that thinking through.

I think everyone has agreed that this team is not winning the cup with:
A) the current squad this year;
B) the current squad plus whatever tweaks they make, plus Girardi and Callahan on major UFA contracts over the next couple of years; or
C) the current squad plus whatever tweaks they make, with Girardi and Callahan signing major UFA contracts elsewhere over the next couple of years.

Ergo, your most logical choice is to trade them to get the best possible return and look to build a roster that CAN compete in the next couple of years. It IS that digital.

Now, we all agree that you're not going to get sure-fire superstars in return for the assets we have to offer, especially in a cap league. But since this team will never be willing to go full-on firesale (including Lundqvist) and tank for a top five pick, your next best option is to accumulate as many lottery tickets as possible. Maybe you get lucky and draft another Corey Perry with one of those picks in the 20s. Maybe one of the prospects you acquire turns out to be another McDonagh. Your odds of that happening are SIGNIFICANTLY better if you deal guys who you know aren't going to put you over the top for 2-3 pieces each that might. Best case, several of those guys pan out as top line/top pair players. Worst case, you've got a boatload of midlevel guys that you can use to make another Nash trade - while still retaining depth.

Any other route, and you're just guaranteeing mediocrity until Hank retires.

Ergo my ass, WTF is option D and how does option D rank against a)-c)?????????

How hard is simple logic? You know odds aren't good for option a)-c), that's life we haven't done many great things in NY lately, but is it impossible to understand that we -- might -- actually have less chance to win with your option d) as opposed to a)-c)???

Because from my point of view, when I look through option "d)" I definitely can't rule out that it sucks more than a)-c). Less potential, much deeper miserable worst scenario.

I don't know how many Cally/Girardi dumps I've seen over the last 20 years. Most of the time, you end up getting crap. In hindsight, unbelievable crap.

 

[Ola]

So Ola basically wants to keep the same team, the same core-that has led us nowhere in their many years in NY. Just pay them all more money as they get older.

Brilliant plan.

Yeah, and you live in your fantasy that Colorado would trade us Landeskog for Girardi lol.

What's becoming of these boards?

You are just too spoiled. It's like you think someone will give us a cup.

I am sorry, but tearing things apart also put us in a really tough situation...

 

[Samuel Culper III]

Ergo my ass, WTF is option D and how does option D rank against a)-c)?????????

How hard is simple logic? You know odds aren't good for option a)-c), that's life we haven't done many great things in NY lately, but is it impossible to understand that we -- might -- actually have less chance to win with your option d) as opposed to a)-c)???

Because from my point of view, when I look through option "d)" I definitely can't rule out that it sucks more than a)-c). Less potential, much deeper miserable worst scenario.

I don't know how many Cally/Girardi dumps I've seen over the last 20 years. Most of the time, you end up getting crap. In hindsight, unbelievable crap.

All that really means, if option D sucks and provides less chance to win, is that we are finally forced to draft inside the top 10 a couple of times. The window for when we're even considering competing is pushed back by several years but we're actually looking at the kind of top end talent we clearly lack and require to actually be anything but a pretender. We can hang around and talk "hot at the right time", etc. as a 5-8 seed with a team similar to our current one for the next however many years, with Cally and G as centerpieces, but if we want to actually build a chance at winning, we probably have to embrace sucking at some point first.

 

[Raspewtin]

Yeah, and you live in your fantasy that Colorado would trade us Landeskog for Girardi lol.

What's becoming of these boards?

You are just too spoiled. It's like you think someone will give us a cup.

I am sorry, but tearing things apart also put us in a really tough situation...

I'd rather be in the really tough situation, with a plan for the future, than the cesspool of mediocrity that we're in now.

 

[Amazing Kreiderman]

I'm confused why people don't like Palmieri.

They might confuse him with the other Palmieri

 

[The Gloaming]

Yeah, and you live in your fantasy that Colorado would trade us Landeskog for Girardi lol.

What's becoming of these boards?

You are just too spoiled. It's like you think someone will give us a cup.

I am sorry, but tearing things apart also put us in a really tough situation...

Are you that thick? I said multiple times that that's exactly NOT WHAT I THINK. Brian Boyle backed me up on that too. What is your problem?

I see you enjoy this washed up core that leads us to mediocrity year after year.

 

[Samuel Culper III]

I'd rather be in the really tough situation, with a plan for the future, than the cesspool of mediocrity that we're in now.

Basically. Instead of salivating at some 28 year old hitting UFA so we can give them their retirement contract it would be nice to draft a hungry 18 year old with all world talent for once. Or even a few times in a 5 year period or so. It's clear as day that we're a team of support players from top to bottom (outside McD). You know how you get players who are better than support players? Draft them.

 

[richardsequalscup*]

Vatanen would stink here

 

[HatTrick Swayze]

The harsh reality is that the Rangers will be in a cesspool of mediocrity for the next 5-10 years at least, regardless of if they sign Callahan and Girardi or not.

1. Henrik Lundqvist. Nuff said. They are absolutely not a bottom 5 and probably not a bottom 10 team as long as he is in net.
2. If you really think Dolan and Sather/GM are going to sit out of the UFA market and let this team fall down the standings for a period of years I've got a bridge to sell you.
3. There is no well oiled "plan" that could be executed for success with limited top talent. Aside from the latest "let AV copy the Red Wings" idea. To which I say good luck, and which I expect will change again in 3-4 years if not sooner.

Unless there is a "Seguin trade" out there the Rangers are in for some tough sledding over the next few years. Just not tough enough "unfortunately".

 

[Samuel Culper III]

The harsh reality is that the Rangers will be in a cesspool of mediocrity for the next 5-10 years at least, regardless of if they sign Callahan and Girardi or not.

1. Henrik Lundqvist. Nuff said. They are absolutely not a bottom 5 and probably not a bottom 10 team as long as he is in net.
2. If you really think Dolan and Sather/GM are going to sit out of the UFA market and let this team fall down the standings for a period of years I've got a bridge to sell you.
3. There is no well oiled "plan" that could be executed for success with limited top talent. Aside from the latest "let AV copy the Red Wings" idea. To which I say good luck, and which I expect will change again in 3-4 years if not sooner.

Unless there is a "Seguin trade" out there the Rangers are in for some tough sledding over the next few years. Just not tough enough "unfortunately".

I think deep down we all know this which is why their can be such rough attitudes on these boards sometimes. We're damned if we keep our guys and stay mediocre on the low end of good and we're damned if we let them go because our goaltending/management will keep us mediocre on the high end of bad. There is no actually drafting in the top three or making the 'tough calls' on this team. It's going to be same old, same old, seemingly for as long as Sather has breath to draw cigar smoke from. We all want to see improvement and feel there's some sort of plan, whether it's building on what's here to reach something better or tearing it down to create something fresh. Unfortunately neither seems likely. We'll just stagnate right here in the middle.

 

[haveandare]

Reading the US Olympic team decision thing with the GMs, it seems like Callahan is held in extremely high regard among GMs in the league. They said he was having a good year, despite the fact that we think he's playing like trash. If he got traded, I feel like he would gather us a mini-fortune. They all love him.

Kinda makes you wonder who knows better - a bunch of people on a board who hate everyone who isn't playing their best hockey ever at the exact moment they're being discussed, or professional GMs who actually run NHL teams and have lifetimes of experience between them?

 

[Thirty One]

Kinda makes you wonder who knows better - a bunch of people on a board who hate everyone who isn't playing their best hockey ever at the exact moment they're being discussed, or professional GMs who actually run NHL teams and have lifetimes of experience between them?

From what I've seen from the U.S. selection committee, I think I'd go with the angry mob.

 

[Steve Kournianos]

Brassard is a PP specialist and versatile. Why in the world would you want him moved?

Boyle, Girardi, Stralman and D. Moore can be replaced after the deadline to continue a playoff push. Callahan is so bit overrated but he's deserving of a New contract with the Rangers. The problem is I can see Buffalo make a hard run at him and we lose him for nothing.

I like the playoffs. They can make smart moves to improve the teams future and still compete.

Full blown rebuild will never happen. They have enough talent to prevent that.

 

[Brooklyn Rangers Fan]

Ergo my ass, WTF is option D and how does option D rank against a)-c)?????????

How hard is simple logic? You know odds aren't good for option a)-c), that's life we haven't done many great things in NY lately, but is it impossible to understand that we -- might -- actually have less chance to win with your option d) as opposed to a)-c)???

Because from my point of view, when I look through option "d)" I definitely can't rule out that it sucks more than a)-c). Less potential, much deeper miserable worst scenario.

I don't know how many Cally/Girardi dumps I've seen over the last 20 years. Most of the time, you end up getting crap. In hindsight, unbelievable crap.

Er, okay, not sure why the word "ergo" sparked such a reaction. In any event, as the phrase implies, "simple logic" isn't that hard - I just don't think you're applying it.

The implication from your post is that somehow, someway, this team is going to sign both Cally and Girardi to long-term deals AND figure out a way to compete for the cup at some point while they are both still under contract as core players. This, despite the fact that you've agreed that the team as currently composed ain't going anywhere.

So, by that (simple) logic, somehow drafting in the mid teens and signing the (unbelievable) crap that makes it to UFA in the cap world, this team will figure out by magic and ancient alchemy a way to compete for the cup. As far as I can see, the only way to do that is to draft incredibly well and hope that our prospects pan out into better players than Cally and Girardi.

The only logical way to disagree with that proposition - at least as far as I can see - is if you actually believe that Cally and Girardi are core pieces to a cup winning team, along the lines of a Malkin/Crosby or a Toews/Kane. If that's the case (and it would be at odds with what you've posted previously), we can stop the conversation and agree to disagree.

If, however, you agree that they are nice team players that play important roles, but are not the core of a cup-winning team - and that the way to get the core is to draft it/trade for it - then, I quite simply do not understand why you don't see the logic in moving them to get (many) more chances at finding guys who CAN be the core of a cup winner.

We all know that you're not going to get Landeskog for either player. We also know that some of those trades might wind up like Armstrong and Christensen. However, if you're EVER going to try to make a go of it, you need to take as many shots at getting a McDonagh type prospect in a deal, or drafting a Perry late in the 1st or even drafting another Callahan in the fourth as you can get.

Because once you've determined that your current core is not good enough, you need to start working to upgrade that core.

Will there be debris left by the side of the road? Sure. That's why you need as many lottery tickets as possible - that debris is just as likely to come from guys drafted in the Rangers' allotted slots as it is from the Ducks' 3rd best prospect or the Bruins 27th overall 1st round pick.

I think that's pretty logical reasoning - not sure why you don't agree.

 

[haveandare]

From what I've seen from the U.S. selection committee, I think I'd go with the angry mob.

Aside from inviting media to places that they never, ever should have been, I don't really see much to mock them about. They didn't build an all-star team, but they didn't do that last Olympics either and they had great results.

 

[alkurtz]

You make it sound so easy. The draft is one big crap shoot. You just never know how 18 year olds will develop. You might think you know or hope you know, but you never really know. The history of the draft is full of high picks that teams did their due dilgence on that didn't pan out. And that's not even taking injuries into account. Even with excellent scouting and a first class developmental program, many high picks never pan out.

It also works the other way. Look at the Bruins and two unique players, Lucic and Bergeron. Both taken in the second round. Some would give the Bruins high marks for drafting these guys. But the Bruins never thought they would develop as they did, otherwise they would have taken them in the first round. 29 other teams passed on them in the first round and many teams didn't pick them is the second. The Bruins got lucky.

Bottom line in the draft is: You never, ever know. Every team wants to build through the draft. Every team drafts players they hope will excel in the NHL. But it remains one big roulette game.

Given their UFA status I am not adverse to trading Cally or Girardi. But I'm not willing to give them away. The deal must be right. I'm not willing to give up on this season unless we are getting top 10 picks or young proven talent back.

My expectations are realistic for this team: hopefully make the playoffs and win a round. Come April, I want to be in the playoffs.

Having high draft picks is no guarantee of success: look at the Oilers, how many high picks have the Panthers had?

Yes, build through the draft. But you can have 5 picks in the top 10 and still not be successful.

It's not easy, especially when you are drafting kids. Its easier, but still not a sure thing in the NFL or NBA. Just as hard in MLB which requires years of developmental time. But just to say that all we need to do is draft high end players does not guarantee success or winning the Cup.

 

[Thirty One]

Aside from inviting media to places that they never, ever should have been, I don't really see much to mock them about. They didn't build an all-star team, but they didn't do that last Olympics either and they had great results.

Agree to disagree on this one.

 

[haveandare]

Agree to disagree on this one.

Care to explain?

 

[Thirty One]

Care to explain?

Well I think Byfuglien should be on the first pairing with Suter. Looks like he was barely considered.

There's a lot of countries I think Brooks Orpik would be the top 8 in, but not USA.

 

[haveandare]

Well I think Byfuglien should be on the first pairing with Suter. Looks like he was barely considered.

There's a lot of countries I think Brooks Orpik would be the top 8 in, but not USA.

Can't disagree about Orpik. I have no idea how anybody could possibly look at the Pens' D the past few years and say "let's put 1/3rd of those guys on team USA" - they've been carved up by lesser offenses than they'll see in Sochi many, many times.

I wanted Buff on the team as well, though probably not that high. I just think a guy with his unique skill set and the ability to play forward and D would be very useful.

Honestly though, every olympic selection is going to have sites of conflict and disagreement. I really don't think this is that bad. I guess we'll see soon enough.

 

[silverfish]

There's a lot of countries I think Brooks Orpik would be the top 8 in, but not USA.

Yes. Like Afghanistan, Iraq, Japan, and Uganda

 

[Trxjw]

New thread.

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?p=77250801