PDA

View Full Version : Rumor/Report: Five Trades That Could Happen This Summer: Patrick Sharp to Rangers



CreaseCrusader91
07-06-2014, 03:18 PM
According to Capgeek, the Chicago Blackhawks find themselves more than $2-million over the salary cap, and it appears as though Patrick Sharp may be dangled as a potential trade chip to lighten that load.

Further complicating the situation is the impending contract extensions of franchise forwards Jonathan Toews and Patrick Kane, both of whom are excepted to bank $11-12-million a year on their new deals.

The 32-year-old is coming off a 34-goal, 44-assist season, with a contract worth $5.9-million through to the end of the 2016-17 NHL season.

The recent signing of Brad Richards at center pushed Chicago into the precarious cap position, and his former team may be a good fit for Sharp; the New York Rangers' forward core has taken a hit in free agency with the losses of Brian Boyle and Benoit Pouliot, and the addition of Sharp would serve to keep the reigning Eastern Conference champions afloat.

http://www.thescore.com/nhl/news/532784

--

This is simply conjecture on Ian McLaren's part, but thoughts on this suggestion?

Phil in Absentia
07-06-2014, 03:21 PM
I like Sharp, a lot. Solid player with a great skill set, but I'd still fear the cost (of acquisition) here with the Hawks already at the Cap ceiling and the Rangers not owning a first-rounder.

Drew a Penalty
07-06-2014, 03:21 PM
Would mean having to move some significant salary and assets.

Patrick Bateman
07-06-2014, 03:38 PM
He wouldn't be worth the ask here

Phil in Absentia
07-06-2014, 03:47 PM
He wouldn't be worth the ask here

That's the biggest kicker, for sure. Player-wise, I think he'd be just fine, but with the Hawks up against the Cap (as well as the Rangers), how do you pull this off without the Rangers' first-rounder involved? A whole slew of prospects we don't have to really give up on?

Pete
07-06-2014, 03:48 PM
I think he'd be a 25/25 guy here.

RangersFan
07-06-2014, 03:49 PM
Chicago is over the cap so they might not have leverage here

Phil in Absentia
07-06-2014, 04:04 PM
I think he'd be a 25/25 guy here.

Probably, but that's still solid production (goal-wise) to a team that wants to play offense.

Playing LW right now, so he steps right onto that Brassard/Zuccarello tandem IMO.

Phil in Absentia
07-06-2014, 04:04 PM
Chicago is over the cap so they might not have leverage here

Maybe. Depends on what he chooses to do with his No-Movement Clause. He controls his own destiny.

Pete
07-06-2014, 04:05 PM
Probably, but that's still solid production (goal-wise) to a team that wants to play offense.

Playing LW right now, so he steps right onto that Brassard/Zuccarello tandem IMO.

His contract would become a bit pricey for his output.

Phil in Absentia
07-06-2014, 04:07 PM
$5.9M? Not that bad. Assuming he truly does drop to 25/25, you are only slightly overpaying for the production he's giving you as a would-have-been UFA. Moulson is getting $5M for basically the same thing in Buffalo.

Valriera
07-06-2014, 04:39 PM
If they truly are over the cap, then they don't have much of a choice but to make moves for less than favorable returns. Their return of something is better than the alternative, which is losing players to waivers for nothing. I don't see any piece on our team worth this to the Hawks though, unless they really wind up tanking on this and taking a 2nd rounder or something.

TwoMinutesForNothing
07-06-2014, 04:57 PM
http://www.hockeybuzz.com/blog/John-Jaeckel/Hawks-Talking-To-Rangers/128/61154


I heard this morning that there is some chatter that the Hawks are talking trade with the New York Rangers.

No player names were mentioned, but the Rangers have some cap room and I was told the players the Hawks might be offering might be "the usual suspects."

TwoMinutesForNothing
07-06-2014, 05:00 PM
Btw that rumor is not Eklund, it's some other hockey buzz blogger that is fairly reliable according to what I'm reading.

josh
07-06-2014, 05:16 PM
A RH center for St. Louis.

RangersFan
07-06-2014, 05:34 PM
A RH center for St. Louis.


Who? Stepan?

JOHN
07-06-2014, 05:42 PM
To be fair, Sharp's 5.9m for 25 goals is a whole lot easier to swallow than Nash's 7.9 for about the same, but if we are in fact getting him I'd want to then go ahead and flip Nash for whatever we can get just to shed the salary.

RangersFan
07-06-2014, 05:46 PM
[QUOTE=Chappie;687755]To be fair, Sharp's 5.9m for 25 goals is a whole lot easier to swallow than Nash's 7.9 for about the same, but if we are in fact getting him I'd want to then go ahead and flip Nash for whatever we can get just to shed the salary.[/QUOTE

Not a bad idea but i actually like Nash. He has a habit of holding onto the puck for too long and messing up offensive zone possessions because of it. Either management needs to explain what they need from him or they need to trade him like you said. Sharp would be a nice replacement and he is also right handed and i think he would do real well with a guy like Zuccarello.

Kreider-Stepan-St.Louis
Sharp-Brassard-Zuccarello

JOHN
07-06-2014, 05:49 PM
Having both gives you real cap squeeze. Getting Sharp and shedding Nash is essentially not an upgrade, but it does give you more cap flexibility, plus Sharp is a much better post season player.

RangersFan
07-06-2014, 05:51 PM
I agree with trading Nash only if we get Sharp. Not sure how we would fit both but if we did then that will be a scary top 6.

Sharp-Stepan-St.Louis
Kreider-Brassard-Nash

my god lol

josh
07-06-2014, 05:55 PM
To be fair, Sharp's 5.9m for 25 goals is a whole lot easier to swallow than Nash's 7.9 for about the same, but if we are in fact getting him I'd want to then go ahead and flip Nash for whatever we can get just to shed the salary.

This make no sense...
Sharp is an upgrade over Miller or even Strpan/Brassard in the middle. It doesn't change the wing. You cant downgrade a position after a move like this.

AmericanJesus
07-06-2014, 05:56 PM
First, this article ignores that yes, Chicago is over the cap by $2M at the moment, but that is with $14 forwards, 7 defensemen and 2 goalies. They will most likely knock that down by at least 1 forward. The actual cap number is 2.217M. If they decided to part ways with Versteeg ($2.2M) then they could simply send down one of their young forwards for a handful of games and just not carry a spare, while they build up enough prorated cap hit to cover the other $17K.

Lets assume for argument the odd man out as a 14th forward is Peter Regin at $650K. The real number they're over the cap by is $1.567M. If they trade Sharp's $5.9M, they could take back up to $4.34M in salary for his replacement. A deal wouldn't have to be prospects/picks for Sharp. They could bring back a decent salary while getting under the cap. Now they may want to bank some cap space by the trade deadline, so it's possible they may not want to take it all back. They can certainly take back $3M.

So we could trade Stepan for Sharp, straight up, for instance and both sides would be OK under the cap.

JOHN
07-06-2014, 05:59 PM
This make no sense...
Sharp is an upgrade over Miller or even Strpan/Brassard in the middle. It doesn't change the wing. You cant downgrade a position after a move like this.

You're upgrading one and downgrading another. It's about managing what you have and what kind of value you are getting. Sharp is a better value than Nash, and wings are easier to get than centers.

Kevin
07-06-2014, 06:01 PM
Obviously, if we can swing this deal giving up McIlrath, Bourque, and one of our 2nds next year I'd do it in a heartbeat. But I'm not so sure we can give up anything else...and by trading those guys we really aren't alleviating our salary cap issues. Maybe Klein has to go the other way but I'm not big on giving him up yet.

RangersFan
07-06-2014, 06:02 PM
Sharp isnt a center. I dont think he even played center for Chicago. If we get him, i put him at LW

josh
07-06-2014, 06:03 PM
You're upgrading one and downgrading another. It's about managing what you have and what kind of value you are getting. Sharp is a better value than Nash, and wings are easier to get than centers.

So making move because you're bored? No, that doesn't make sense. You don't do that combo of moves.

RangersFan
07-06-2014, 06:04 PM
Obviously, if we can swing this deal giving up McIlrath, Bourque, and one of our 2nds next year I'd do it in a heartbeat. But I'm not so sure we can give up anything else...and by trading those guys we really aren't alleviating our salary cap issues. Maybe Klein has to go the other way but I'm not big on giving him up yet.


You would trade Klein because you dont wanna give up on him but you would trade McIlrath? Lol i think we keep McIlrath

JOHN
07-06-2014, 06:05 PM
So making move because you're bored? No, that doesn't make sense. You don't do that combo of moves.

I'm not even sure why you'd use him at center, but if you do, no it's not making moves out of boredom, it's trying to be cap-strategic.

Kevin
07-06-2014, 06:05 PM
I'd trade McIlrath to get a proven NHLer in Sharp in a heartbeat. What has McIlrath shown that gives you the confidence that he would perform better than Klein?

RangersFan
07-06-2014, 06:07 PM
I'd trade McIlrath to get a proven NHLer in Sharp in a heartbeat. What has McIlrath shown that gives you the confidence that he would perform better than Klein?


Where did i say he would perform better than Klein? I never said anything like that. I asked why would you keep Klein and trade McIlrath. I would keep him because there is no reason to trade him now

Phil in Absentia
07-06-2014, 06:09 PM
Sharp isnt a center. I dont think he even played center for Chicago. If we get him, i put him at LW

Yes he is. He plays both C and LW, though it should be noted that in the last two years, every time they moved him back to C, he struggled big time. He can't win draws, and doesn't really handle the defensive responsibilities of being the third man high well.

Kevin
07-06-2014, 06:11 PM
Where did i say he would perform better than Klein? I never said anything like that. I asked why would you keep Klein and trade McIlrath. I would keep him because there is no reason to trade him now

Your response was unclear to me. I would trade McIlrath because its going to take something to get Sharp and I'm not confident that he is ever going to pan out as an everyday NHLer.

RangersFan
07-06-2014, 06:11 PM
Yes he is. He plays both C and LW, though it should be noted that in the last two years, every time they moved him back to C, he struggled big time. He can't win draws, and doesn't really handle the defensive responsibilities of being the third man high well.



So he sucked at center which is why we dont put him there

RangersFan
07-06-2014, 06:12 PM
Your response was unclear to me. I would trade McIlrath because its going to take something to get Sharp and I'm not confident that he is ever going to pan out as an everyday NHLer.


Oh ok well i disagree with that. I would give him a little bit more time. Whats the rush? May as well trade J.T. Miller too then

Phil in Absentia
07-06-2014, 06:13 PM
Btw that rumor is not Eklund, it's some other hockey buzz blogger that is fairly reliable according to what I'm reading.

It would fall in line, loosely, with the report from Gorton that the Rangers still wanted another forward that wasn't necessarily a free agent (http://www.blueshirtsbrotherhood.com/showthread.php?14158-Jeff-Gorton-Rangers-Still-Want-Forward-(Not-Necessarily-UFA)-Center-Depth).

Phil in Absentia
07-06-2014, 06:14 PM
So he sucked at center which is why we dont put him there

We've been down this road before with this everything that isn't perfect "sucks" stuff, but my point is that he has played center. He just didn't excel in the role with the Hawks, for whatever the reason. Neither did Patrick Kane, which is why they moved him to LW as well. I'd certainly never use the word "sucks" to describe much of Kane's game either.

RangersFan
07-06-2014, 06:16 PM
We've been down this road before with this everything that isn't perfect "sucks" stuff, but my point is that he has played center. He just didn't excel in the role with the Hawks, for whatever the reason. Neither did Patrick Kane, which is why they moved him to LW as well. I'd certainly never use the word "sucks" to describe much of Kane's game either.


Sharp isnt a good center, he can play the position sure but he isnt good there. If we get Sharp and put him at center then god help us

Kevin
07-06-2014, 06:20 PM
Oh ok well i disagree with that. I would give him a little bit more time. Whats the rush? May as well trade J.T. Miller too then

What would you give up for Sharp then?

Pete
07-06-2014, 06:21 PM
To be fair, Sharp's 5.9m for 25 goals is a whole lot easier to swallow than Nash's 7.9 for about the same, but if we are in fact getting him I'd want to then go ahead and flip Nash for whatever we can get just to shed the salary.
Nash's more like 35 goals though.

First, this article ignores that yes, Chicago is over the cap by $2M at the moment, but that is with $14 forwards, 7 defensemen and 2 goalies. They will most likely knock that down by at least 1 forward. The actual cap number is 2.217M. If they decided to part ways with Versteeg ($2.2M) then they could simply send down one of their young forwards for a handful of games and just not carry a spare, while they build up enough prorated cap hit to cover the other $17K.

Lets assume for argument the odd man out as a 14th forward is Peter Regin at $650K. The real number they're over the cap by is $1.567M. If they trade Sharp's $5.9M, they could take back up to $4.34M in salary for his replacement. A deal wouldn't have to be prospects/picks for Sharp. They could bring back a decent salary while getting under the cap. Now they may want to bank some cap space by the trade deadline, so it's possible they may not want to take it all back. They can certainly take back $3M.

So we could trade Stepan for Sharp, straight up, for instance and both sides would be OK under the cap. They can't be up against the cap with Toews and Kane getting new deals. Seabrook after that.


Yes he is. He plays both C and LW, though it should be noted that in the last two years, every time they moved him back to C, he struggled big time. He can't win draws, and doesn't really handle the defensive responsibilities of being the third man high well.
He'd be fine in the right system, IMO. It was more like Quennville not caring for him there.

RangersFan
07-06-2014, 06:22 PM
What would you give up for Sharp then?


Nothing, i dont want him that bad because i'm sure Miller or McIlrath will have to be included. How about seeing what the kids got before trading all of them?

JOHN
07-06-2014, 06:23 PM
Nash's more like 35 goals though.
They can't be up against the cap with Toews and Kane getting new deals. Seabrook after that.


He'd be fine in the right system, IMO. It was more like Quennville not caring for him there.

I'm just going by what we've seen from Nash so far, and that's 26 goals, 13 assists, and a half season where he was very good for about half of it and not very good for the other half, plus the complete lack of showing in the playoffs.

Pete
07-06-2014, 06:25 PM
I'm just going by what we've seen from Nash so far, and that's 26 goals, 13 assists, and a half season where he was very good for about half of it and not very good for the other half, plus the complete lack of showing in the playoffs.

You forgetting the lockout year he paced 40? Or that he was hurt last year and would've likely cleared 30?

I have no issue with Nash's regular season production.

Phil in Absentia
07-06-2014, 06:25 PM
Sharp isnt a good center, he can play the position sure but he isnt good there. If we get Sharp and put him at center then god help us

Based on what evidence?

JOHN
07-06-2014, 06:27 PM
You forgetting the lockout year he paced 40? Or that he was hurt last year and would've likely cleared 30?

I have no issue with Nash's regular season production.

I'm going eye balls. He pace 40 in the half season, but it was a half season. Aside from the month stretch he had leading up to the Olympics, he was pretty bad last year and again, he has yet to do anything at all, ever in the playoffs.

RangersFan
07-06-2014, 06:29 PM
Based on what evidence?

What are you basing your evidence on? We agree he isnt good there right?

Pete
07-06-2014, 06:30 PM
I'm going eye balls. He pace 40 in the half season, but it was a half season. Aside from the month stretch he had leading up to the Olympics, he was pretty bad last year and again, he has yet to do anything at all, ever in the playoffs.

His P/G clearly say he's a 30+ guy. Until he fails to hit 30 in 82, you can't bend the that particular statistic.

And we're talking regular season. No telling how Sharp performs post season outside of Chicago. And I like Sharp.

josh
07-06-2014, 06:31 PM
It seems management is behind Nash, and I doubt a trade would bring back anything of value. That's not the issue being discussed, here

JOHN
07-06-2014, 06:32 PM
His P/G clearly say he's a 30+ guy. Until he faIls to hit 30 in 82, you can't bend the that particular statistic.

And we're talking regular season. No telling how Sharp performs post season outside of Chicago. And I like Sharp.

While I agree, he has a pedigree. His playoff abilities are definitely more of a known factor than Nash's.

And if Nash is a 30 goal scorer, which I agree he is, is his 30 with 2 mil more than Sharp's 25? I for necessarily think so.

Pete
07-06-2014, 06:34 PM
While I agree, he has a pedigree. His playoff abilities are definitely more of a known factor than Nash's.

And if Nash is a 30 goal scorer, which I agree he is, is his 30 with 2 mil more than Sharp's 25? I for necessarily think so.

Well Kessel's contract validates Nash's.

Phil in Absentia
07-06-2014, 06:35 PM
What are you basing your evidence on? We agree he isnt good there right?

No. We'd agree that he didn't fit with Chicago based on what Joel Quenneville has said about it. That doesn't mean he's a bad center, or that he "sucks" there. It means he wasn't a fit as one specifically for Quenneville.

I'm not the one making declarative statements about the player sucking or not, so I have no evidence I need to provide. If my counter to you was that, no, he's a great center, then I have some burden of proof to be met. When you say a player sucks and I say I don't believe you, it's not my job to prove you wrong. It's your job to prove your statement correct.

RangersFan
07-06-2014, 06:35 PM
Sather didnt even give Nash his salary, the Colombus GM did at the time lol

Phil in Absentia
07-06-2014, 06:35 PM
Well Kessel's contract validates Nash's.

They don't compare. Signed under two completely different CBA's, and Nash's deal was signed in Columbus where he was vastly overpaid because of how poor the market was.

JOHN
07-06-2014, 06:36 PM
Well Kessel's contract validates Nash's.

It does, but that's not really what I mean. I'm saying would you trade 25/25 for 30/15 or 30/20 and a 2 mil difference in our cap scenario? I would in a minute, especially if I knew that the 25/25 guy has a post season pedigree.

!br-avery!
07-06-2014, 06:38 PM
I'm on board with getting Sharp
don't know how we'd swing A deal though salary wise

RangersFan
07-06-2014, 06:40 PM
No. We'd agree that he didn't fit with Chicago based on what Joel Quenneville has said about it. That doesn't mean he's a bad center, or that he "sucks" there. It means he wasn't a fit as one specifically for Quenneville.

I'm not the one making declarative statements about the player sucking or not, so I have no evidence I need to provide. If my counter to you was that, no, he's a great center, then I have some burden of proof to be met. When you say a player sucks and I say I don't believe you, it's not my job to prove you wrong. It's your job to prove your statement correct.



Sharp isnt a good center but he is a great winger. Why do i think he sucks at center? Because a coach who won 2 cups doesnt play him there. I never see him at center and the fans dont like him at center. Why does Chicago need a center if Sharp can play it? His system? Sharp played in that system for years but doesnt get played at center.

Like Boyle, Brian Boyle is a great player but he sucks as a 3rd line center

Pete
07-06-2014, 06:40 PM
They don't compare. Signed under two completely different CBA's, and Nash's deal was signed in Columbus where he was vastly overpaid because of how poor the market was. I'm obviously well aware of the factors determining Nash's contract.

Sure they compare, for the purpose of this discussion. Not like Nash had retirement contract with dummy years. In fact, his salary escalates.

You can't just make a blanket statement that any contracts under different CBAs are incomparable. That's not true.

Pete
07-06-2014, 06:41 PM
It does, but that's not really what I mean. I'm saying would you trade 25/25 for 30/15 or 30/20 and a 2 mil difference in our cap scenario? I would in a minute, especially if I knew that the 25/25 guy has a post season pedigree.

I think the gap between Nash and Sharp is bigger than 5 goals. Either way, Nash isn't getting moved.

Phil in Absentia
07-06-2014, 06:42 PM
I'm obviously well aware of the factors determining Nash's contract.

Sure they compare, for the purpose of this discussion. Not like Nash had retirement contract with dummy years. In fact, his salary escalates.

You can't just make a blanket statement that any contracts under different CBAs are incomparable. That's not true.

No, but in most cases they do not. In this one it's right on the border, as it was an eight-year extension and wasn't front-loaded to hell to artificially lower his AAV.

Pete
07-06-2014, 06:43 PM
No, but in most cases they do not. In this one it's right on the border, as it was an eight-year extension and wasn't front-loaded to hell to artificially lower his AAV.

Right. Like you can't compare Keith's cap hit to Girardi, for just the reasons you stated.

Phil in Absentia
07-06-2014, 06:44 PM
Sharp isnt a good center but he is a great winger. Why do i think he sucks at center? Because a coach who won 2 cups doesnt play him there. I never see him at center and the fans dont like him at center. Why does Chicago need a center if Sharp can play it? His system? Sharp played in that system for years but doesnt get played at center.

Like Boyle, Brian Boyle is a great player but he sucks as a 3rd line center

You've done this before, and I've already illustrated why it's a poor tactic. It's called a strawman argument. You are establishing a non-existent group of people who cannot speak for the claims you are making "they" believe. There are no "the fans" who can defend or reject your assignment of opinion to them, so I'm just going to outright reject any claims you make that point to that. You either need to identify specific fans, or just not include what their opinion is in the first place, because frankly, it doesn't matter.

Phil in Absentia
07-06-2014, 06:45 PM
Right. Like you can't compare Keith's cap hit to Girardi, for just the reasons you stated.

Yup. We're on the same page. I actually didn't realize how close Nash's deal was, to be honest. It's just sort of a default position I take when people bring up old contracts to compare against new, since most of the old deals were structured so poorly.

Pete
07-06-2014, 06:45 PM
And who cares what the fans think?

Pete
07-06-2014, 06:48 PM
Yup. We're on the same page. I actually didn't realize how close Nash's deal was, to be honest. It's just sort of a default position I take when people bring up old contracts to compare against new, since most of the old deals were structured so poorly.

Yea, I feel you. Kinda crazy to think he signed an 8 year deal and he'll be 34 at the end of it.

People railed that deal, but it was smart for the Jackets at the time. In theory, they got his prime years and his cap hit is still appropriate for his goal output.

CreaseCrusader91
07-06-2014, 06:54 PM
Yea, I feel you. Kinda crazy to think he signed an 8 year deal and he'll be 34 at the end of it.

People railed that deal, but it was smart for the Jackets at the time. In theory, they got his prime years and his cap hit is still appropriate for his goal output.

That and it was an easy and justifiable amount for a franchise player that brought them to cap floor.

AmericanJesus
07-06-2014, 06:56 PM
Nash's more like 35 goals though.
They can't be up against the cap with Toews and Kane getting new deals. Seabrook after that.


He'd be fine in the right system, IMO. It was more like Quennville not caring for him there.

Sure, but they can figure out how to get back under the cap next year, next year. Now they're looking at another legitimate cup run I would imagine. What ever part of Kane/Toews' contracts push them up over next years' cap they can then move out guys like Bickell, Versteeg, etc and replace some of the defensemen that are up cheaper. Seabrook again, is another year down the road. I know they have to think about these things, but they don't really have a player on a contract that any team in the league wouldn't take besides Hossa and maybe Crawford.

momentum
07-06-2014, 07:00 PM
I think he'd be a 25/25 guy here.

This, a classic example of a player who would come here and not put up the same numbers imo. Still a good player though, problem is would it be worth it depending on what goes the other way.

josh
07-06-2014, 07:55 PM
This, a classic example of a player who would come here and not put up the same numbers imo. Still a good player though, problem is would it be worth it depending on what goes the other way.

25/25 with our depth is all we need. And that's still including a few guys under performing.

Cash or Czech?
07-06-2014, 08:10 PM
Say we stripped our system and traded a combination of McIlrath, Kristo, Fast and Miller. Have Chicago retain half his salary in the first year of the trade, because they'll still be under the cap and then we can make it affordable while they still take on no cap space due to minor leaguers. Then put Sharp on the wing with Brassard and MZA.

It's incredibly tight, but we have a legitimate top-6 then and the 3rd line ain't so bad.


FORWARDS
Chris Kreider ($2.200m) / Derek Stepan ($3.075m) / Rick Nash ($7.800m)
Patrick Sharp ($2.950m—50.00%) / Derick Brassard ($3.300m) / Mats Zuccarello ($4.000m)
Carl Hagelin ($2.250m) / J.T. Miller ($0.894m) / Martin St. Louis ($5.625m)
Tanner Glass ($1.450m) / Dominic Moore ($1.500m) / Ryan Haggerty ($0.925m)

DEFENSEMEN
Ryan McDonagh ($4.700m) / Dan Girardi ($5.500m)
Marc Staal ($3.975m) / Dan Boyle ($4.500m)
John Moore ($1.500m) / Kevin Klein ($2.900m)

GOALTENDERS
Henrik Lundqvist ($8.500m)
Cameron Talbot ($0.563m)

BUYOUTS
Wade Redden ($0.000m)
Brad Richards ($0.000m)

BONUS OVERAGE
$0
------
CAPGEEK.COM TOTALS (follow @capgeek on Twitter)
(estimations for 2014-15)
SALARY CAP: $69,000,000; CAP PAYROLL: $68,106,667; BONUSES: $633,333
CAP SPACE (20-man roster): $893,333

We get: A top-6 winger
They get: three good prospects (Fast, McIlrath and Kristo) and cap relief.

momentum
07-06-2014, 11:17 PM
Say we stripped our system and traded a combination of McIlrath, Kristo, Fast and Miller. Have Chicago retain half his salary in the first year of the trade, because they'll still be under the cap and then we can make it affordable while they still take on no cap space due to minor leaguers. Then put Sharp on the wing with Brassard and MZA.

It's incredibly tight, but we have a legitimate top-6 then and the 3rd line ain't so bad.

We get: A top-6 winger
They get: three good prospects (Fast, McIlrath and Kristo) and cap relief.

Not enough imo, they're not going to look at those prospects as 3 good ones imo...it would almost just be a salary dump from them, I think they want something REAL QUALITY in return for Sharp. And depending on what they ask for it might just not be worth it. BTW we'd still be without a top center since Sharp is better at wing....while that is a good top 6 because of the good wingers I'd rather try to find a real topline center, I think it would help the WHOLE TEAM more than upgrade the wing position.

Faiz
07-07-2014, 12:30 AM
Why are we even talking about trading Nash when Chicago is trying to CLEAR cap space, do you think they would really be looking to take on Nash's contract with their cap issues? Why would they not just keep Sharp knowing his chemistry with the team is good and has proven himself in Chicago if they were going to trade for $7.8mil in Nash while over the cap?

Also, Management and AV seem to be really behind Nash. Don't forget that he is a good two-way player, and can also be used on the PK (correct me if I'm wrong, but something Sharp would not be able to do as well)
Nash wasn't producing as much in the playoffs but was coming up good defensively, many blocked shots and good puck pressure. Although $7.8 million is high, and it was worth it to keep him in Columbus at the time, I believe Nash will have a stellar season this year 30+ (if he's not traded, and I doubt he will).

Phil in Absentia
07-07-2014, 01:19 AM
Why are we even talking about trading Nash when Chicago is trying to CLEAR cap space, do you think they would really be looking to take on Nash's contract with their cap issues? Why would they not just keep Sharp knowing his chemistry with the team is good and has proven himself in Chicago if they were going to trade for $7.8mil in Nash while over the cap?

Also, Management and AV seem to be really behind Nash. Don't forget that he is a good two-way player, and can also be used on the PK (correct me if I'm wrong, but something Sharp would not be able to do as well)
Nash wasn't producing as much in the playoffs but was coming up good defensively, many blocked shots and good puck pressure. Although $7.8 million is high, and it was worth it to keep him in Columbus at the time, I believe Nash will have a stellar season this year 30+ (if he's not traded, and I doubt he will).

He won't be traded, but no one was discussing trading him to Chicago -- I believe Chappie was saying he'd pull the trade off for Sharp, and then move Nash in an additional trade elsewhere.

Cash or Czech?
07-07-2014, 08:44 AM
Not enough imo, they're not going to look at those prospects as 3 good ones imo...it would almost just be a salary dump from them, I think they want something REAL QUALITY in return for Sharp. And depending on what they ask for it might just not be worth it. BTW we'd still be without a top center since Sharp is better at wing....while that is a good top 6 because of the good wingers I'd rather try to find a real topline center, I think it would help the WHOLE TEAM more than upgrade the wing position.

It's almost impossible for them to get real quality and dump a salary at the same time. Chicago is over the cap. They fucked themselves. Every GM is going to take advantage of that and try to get Sharp for as little as possible. I said that they'd cover 50% for the first year. After that, Sharp would have his $5.9M cap hit with us for the remaining two years on his deal. When you think about it, getting those three prospects is a good haul because they take on no cap space, can fit under the cap and get something of value in return for someone who is being traded because of a consequence as opposed to poor play.

AmericanJesus
07-07-2014, 09:27 AM
It's almost impossible for them to get real quality and dump a salary at the same time. Chicago is over the cap. They fucked themselves. Every GM is going to take advantage of that and try to get Sharp for as little as possible. I said that they'd cover 50% for the first year. After that, Sharp would have his $5.9M cap hit with us for the remaining two years on his deal. When you think about it, getting those three prospects is a good haul because they take on no cap space, can fit under the cap and get something of value in return for someone who is being traded because of a consequence as opposed to poor play.

This presumes that other teams in the league with better cap situations wouldn't offer more and take all the cap charge and salary. Just because Chicago has to free salary doesn't mean Sharp wouldn't have a bidding war from teams. Players of his ability and production on a reasonable deal considering what we just saw in free agency dont come up often and when they do it's at a premium.

Future
07-07-2014, 10:00 AM
While I agree, he has a pedigree. His playoff abilities are definitely more of a known factor than Nash's.

And if Nash is a 30 goal scorer, which I agree he is, is his 30 with 2 mil more than Sharp's 25? I for necessarily think so.
I don't think its fair to compare the two guys' playoff production. Sharp has never had to be the man like they asked of Nash. Its similar to Gabby in LA.

Besides, its not like Sharp has been dominant in the playoffs. The only year he was a PPG player was 2004. The last two seasons he had points in 23 games and 10 in 19.

Sharp would be a great 3rd liner for this team...but at what it would cost to A) acquire him and B) pay him, I don't think he'd be worth it.

Pete
07-07-2014, 10:28 AM
How is Sharp a great 3rd liner here when he's already a second liner on a better team?

RangersFan
07-07-2014, 11:02 AM
How is Sharp a great 3rd liner here when he's already a second liner on a better team?


The great Carl Hagelin might push him down the depth chart

Future
07-07-2014, 11:09 AM
How is Sharp a great 3rd liner here when he's already a second liner on a better team?
Well I just mean that more of who he'd play with....he'd fit with Brass and Zucc most likely which was essentially the third line last year. Add Sharp, and they're probably the #2, though I don't think there is much a difference between 2 and 3.

Phil in Absentia
07-07-2014, 11:13 AM
Well I just mean that more of who he'd play with....he'd fit with Brass and Zucc most likely which was essentially the third line last year. Add Sharp, and they're probably the #2, though I don't think there is much a difference between 2 and 3.

Who will be the teams' second line this year. By default. Regardless of Sharp.

Richards' buyout forces it unless they go center-shopping.

Future
07-07-2014, 11:18 AM
Who will be the teams' second line this year. By default. Regardless of Sharp.

Richards' buyout forces it unless they go center-shopping.
Not necessarily.

Without a grittier wing, there's a decent chance that Zucc and Brass don't play as well as they did last year...prompting Brass to get moved to the second line.

And I wouldn't count out Miller as a good center between Hags and STL. Marty could be really, really dangerous with the room that Hags and Miller's speed could give him.

Cash or Czech?
07-07-2014, 11:33 AM
This presumes that other teams in the league with better cap situations wouldn't offer more and take all the cap charge and salary. Just because Chicago has to free salary doesn't mean Sharp wouldn't have a bidding war from teams. Players of his ability and production on a reasonable deal considering what we just saw in free agency dont come up often and when they do it's at a premium.

This is very true. I only threw out a suggestion in a closed universe with no other options. Florida is always a target when it comes to Chicago. They have the cap space and have been making serious moves to try and jumpstart their rebuild.

Valriera
07-07-2014, 02:54 PM
Not necessarily.

Without a grittier wing, there's a decent chance that Zucc and Brass don't play as well as they did last year...prompting Brass to get moved to the second line.

And I wouldn't count out Miller as a good center between Hags and STL. Marty could be really, really dangerous with the room that Hags and Miller's speed could give him.

I was thinking about this yesterday in that Jeff Carter did the exact same thing when paired with two really fast wingers. St. Louis has just as much offense left in him as Carter does, albeit he's not quite as big. Could be interesting.

RangersFan
07-07-2014, 03:49 PM
You've done this before, and I've already illustrated why it's a poor tactic. It's called a strawman argument. You are establishing a non-existent group of people who cannot speak for the claims you are making "they" believe. There are no "the fans" who can defend or reject your assignment of opinion to them, so I'm just going to outright reject any claims you make that point to that. You either need to identify specific fans, or just not include what their opinion is in the first place, because frankly, it doesn't matter.


Whatever you say. The Blackhawks coach doesnt play him at center and i think he knows better than you and me so thats my evidence. I dont really care that much dude. Sharp is a great LW, he isnt a great center. Anybody with eyes can see that.Just because he can play the position doesnt mean he is good at it.

The Dude
07-07-2014, 06:14 PM
Umm? How about Brassard straight up for him?

Im not sure how the board feels about Brassard these days.

I think I like Sharp a lot more than Brassard.

RangersFan
07-07-2014, 06:19 PM
Umm? How about Brassard straight up for him?

Im not sure how the board feels about Brassard these days.

I think I like Sharp a lot more than Brassard.

Who replaces Brassard at center?

Cash or Czech?
07-07-2014, 07:06 PM
Umm? How about Brassard straight up for him?

Im not sure how the board feels about Brassard these days.

I think I like Sharp a lot more than Brassard.

Doesn't clear up the cap space Chicago is looking for.

Pete
07-07-2014, 07:18 PM
And they already have Richards at 2C.

The Dude
07-07-2014, 07:31 PM
Sharp.

Cash or Czech?
07-07-2014, 07:38 PM
Sharp isn't a solution for center. He's an upgrade over Pouliot and in doing so we essentially accept Stepan-Brassard-Miller as our centers.

The Dude
07-07-2014, 07:41 PM
Doesn't clear up the cap space Chicago is looking for.

Is Brassard gonna get more tha 4 mill? They would save 1.9 no?

And if Brassard is asking for more than 4 mill I think it would be best to trade him for a cheaper alternative. I like Brassard. Just dont like his price tag with his inconsistency.

The Dude
07-07-2014, 07:43 PM
How isnt he an upgrade at center? Not like Brassard is a face off king. In fact he is pretty bad on draws.

Sharp is more of a scoer and a bit more versatile.

RangersFan
07-07-2014, 07:53 PM
Sharp.


At center? Oh man

Cash or Czech?
07-07-2014, 08:18 PM
How isnt he an upgrade at center? Not like Brassard is a face off king. In fact he is pretty bad on draws.

Sharp is more of a scoer and a bit more versatile.

He's played wing primarily in Chicago because he's not that great at center. He's certainly not our solution nor an upgrade at the position over Stepan or Brassard, IMO. If you were to compare them as players, Sharp is the clear superior. However if you compare all three as centers, I consider Sharp the worst of the three. Plus, Chicago signed Richards to be their 2nd line center for a year while Teuvo Teravainen develops at a reasonable pace. They don't need a center.

The Dude
07-07-2014, 08:31 PM
Yeahhh, but Richards couldn't hack it as the Rangers 2nd or even third line center. I doubt they think of him as locked in as their #2.

But I guess you're right.

Pete
07-07-2014, 08:35 PM
He's played wing primarily in Chicago because he's not that great at center. He's certainly not our solution nor an upgrade at the position over Stepan or Brassard, IMO. If you were to compare them as players, Sharp is the clear superior. However if you compare all three as centers, I consider Sharp the worst of the three. Plus, Chicago signed Richards to be their 2nd line center for a year while Teuvo Teravainen develops at a reasonable pace. They don't need a center.

I think this needs clarification... He wasn't up to one coach's standard...This coach has also used almost every forward at center, from Shaw, to Kane, to Sharp, to Saad. So let's caveat this with — Just because Quenneville doesn't care for him at center, doesn't mean AV can't slot him in there with good results.

josh
07-07-2014, 09:12 PM
I think this needs clarification... He wasn't up to one coach's standard...This coach has also used almost every forward at center, from Shaw, to Kane, to Sharp, to Saad. So let's caveat this with — Just because Quenneville doesn't care for him at center, doesn't mean AV can't slot him in there with good results.

Exactly. Same as saying B Boyle cant play center.

josh
07-07-2014, 09:16 PM
Sharp isn't a solution for center. He's an upgrade over Pouliot and in doing so we essentially accept Stepan-Brassard-Miller as our centers.

I think you are downplaying how much of an upgrade over Pouliot he would be. Enough to offset any "downgrade" of Richards to Miller at 3C.

RichieNextel305
07-07-2014, 09:19 PM
Sharp would walk on this team and lead the team in goals. Calling him just an upgrade over Pouliot is insulting IMO. He'd walk in with championship pedigree and score more goals than anyone on the roster unless Nash has an eruption.

RangersFan
07-07-2014, 09:21 PM
I'm fine with going into the season with a lineup like this but i dont think its possible.

Kreider-Stepan-St.Louis
Hagelin-Brassard-Nash
Sharp-Miller-Zuccarello
Glass-Moore-Mueller for shits and giggles

Very good wing depth and 3 very good lines

ThirtyONE
07-07-2014, 10:12 PM
I'm fine with going into the season with a lineup like this but i dont think its possible.

Kreider-Stepan-St.Louis
Hagelin-Brassard-Nash
Sharp-Miller-Zuccarello
Glass-Moore-Mueller for shits and giggles

Very good wing depth and 3 very good lines

Mueller the bum we signed or Mueller the bum people want us to sign?

Either way, I'm not thrilled with bringing in Patrick Sharp. If you're going to make a deal, make a deal for either a young dude who has legs and years left in this league or an old man with a season left in the tank and could be had for cheap.

The Dude
07-07-2014, 10:34 PM
Sharp would walk on this team and lead the team in goals. Calling him just an upgrade over Pouliot is insulting IMO. He'd walk in with championship pedigree and score more goals than anyone on the roster unless Nash has an eruption.


Agreed. I think he would instantly fit and be a fan favorite.

RangersFan
07-07-2014, 10:45 PM
Mueller the bum we signed or Mueller the bum people want us to sign?

Either way, I'm not thrilled with bringing in Patrick Sharp. If you're going to make a deal, make a deal for either a young dude who has legs and years left in this league or an old man with a season left in the tank and could be had for cheap.



Mueller we signed...

Ranger Lothbrok
07-08-2014, 12:13 PM
Yeah, Patrick Sharp strikes me as one of those "fool's gold" acquisitions. I think this about says it all:
05-06: 50 games played with CHI, 23 points
06-07: 80 games played with CHI, 35 points
07-08: 80 games played with CHI, 62 points (36 of which goals)

Hmmm....why the sudden and drastic increase in points from 06-07 to 07-08? I mean, it's not like at 26-27 years old he suddenly found his legs. What could have happened? Well, 07-08 happens to be the year when two rookies showed up:

Patrick Kane: 82 games played, 72 points
Jonathan Toews: 64 games played, 54 points

He's a product of the team he's on. There's a reason nobody was talking about Patrick Sharp for the first 6-7 years of his career. Even if he wasn't consistently on a line with one of those guys, which he often was, they still draw the other teams' top D pairings and attract a lot of attention when they're on the ice. Sharp gets all kinds of time and space to cue up a shot with Chicago. Here, he would just be another overpaid and over-the-hill player coming in with massive expectations that set him up to disappoint. I think we'd be lucky to get 50 points out of him, but the price we pay in a trade will be for a 30-35 goal, 80 point player. And take a look around: those don't come cheap.

It would be a dumb, dumb move. The kind of move where the assets we give up go on to win a Cup or two, and severely strengthen another team's roster, while we scramble to fill the void (a tall order given the state of our farm team) and put up with mediocre (at best) production. No effin' thanks.

josh
07-08-2014, 12:18 PM
Yeah, Patrick Sharp strikes me as one of those "fool's gold" acquisitions. I think this about says it all:
05-06: 50 games played with CHI, 23 points
06-07: 80 games played with CHI, 35 points
07-08: 80 games played with CHI, 62 points (36 of which goals)

Hmmm....why the sudden and drastic increase in points from 06-07 to 07-08? I mean, it's not like at 26-27 years old he suddenly found his legs. What could have happened? Well, 07-08 happens to be the year when two rookies showed up:

Patrick Kane: 82 games played, 72 points
Jonathan Toews: 64 games played, 54 points

He's a product of the team he's on. There's a reason nobody was talking about Patrick Sharp for the first 6-7 years of his career. Even if he wasn't consistently on a line with one of those guys, which he often was, they still draw the other teams' top D pairings and attract a lot of attention when they're on the ice. Sharp gets all kinds of time and space to cue up a shot with Chicago. Here, he would just be another overpaid and over-the-hill player coming in with massive expectations that set him up to disappoint. I think we'd be lucky to get 50 points out of him, but the price we pay in a trade will be for a 30-35 goal, 80 point player. And take a look around: those don't come cheap.

It would be a dumb, dumb move. The kind of move where the assets we give up go on to win a Cup or two, and severely strengthen another team's roster, while we scramble to fill the void (a tall order given the state of our farm team) and put up with mediocre (at best) production. No effin' thanks.

Brassard - Zuccarello
Rick Nash
Martin St. Louis

which line would he not have talent around him?
We are not looking for THE guy. We're looking for the guy that can help the guys. You made a great case for him.

Go back and read my posts where I discuss why I would want Sharp.

Also, Sharp has been discussed by numerous posters here since he was in Philly.

Pete
07-08-2014, 12:28 PM
Brassard - Zuccarello
Rick Nash
Martin St. Louis

which line would he not have talent around him?
We are not looking for THE guy. We're looking for the guy that can help the guys. You made a great case for him.

Go back and read my posts where I discuss why I would want Sharp.

Also, Sharp has been discussed by numerous posters here since he was in Philly.Yea, I'm not seeing the point, either. He'd still be a support player. Even at 25/25, that's about what he's done his entire career, except for the last few years. Maybe it's his maturation as a player? Who knows, but either way we wouldn't be acquiring him to be the #1 option.

Also, those Chicago teams listed were all awful and couldn't score.

Cash or Czech?
07-08-2014, 01:05 PM
I think you are downplaying how much of an upgrade over Pouliot he would be. Enough to offset any "downgrade" of Richards to Miller at 3C.

I said in a previous post how it makes our top-6 very strong. We're accepting lesser centers but realizing how much better our wingers are. Replacing a third line LW (Pouliot) with a legitimate second line LW (Sharp) makes us a very dangerous team. Hagelin is one of the better 3rd liners in the league and had a good playoff, while St. Louis on the 3rd line also allows us a lot of flexibility because he'll be playing against weaker defenders. It'd be a great acquisition for us that would vastly improve our depth and make us that much more dangerous.

lefty9
07-08-2014, 02:06 PM
If the rangers don t have to give much to get him than i wouldn't mind, but if the price is kind of steep , I would rather pass

DiJock94
07-08-2014, 02:18 PM
Read something that the hawks aren't even considering moving sharp.

Pete
07-08-2014, 02:24 PM
Read something that the hawks aren't even considering moving sharp.

Can you post a link to the story, please?

josh
07-08-2014, 03:30 PM
Read something that the hawks aren't even considering moving sharp.

They don't want to. They almost have to. There is a reason whey Kane/Toews talks are heating up... they need to plan because those guys are asking for a lot. They need to fill holes this season, too.

RichieNextel305
07-08-2014, 07:05 PM
I'm sure they don't want to move Sharp. He's a key piece there. That being said, anyone on that roster that needs to go in order for them to re-sign Toews and Kane will go.

DiJock94
07-08-2014, 07:57 PM
http://prohockeytalk.nbcsports.com/2014/06/25/sharps-agent-shoots-down-hawks-trade-rumors/

DiJock94
07-08-2014, 07:58 PM
Sorry about not adding link I'm always on my iphone it's a pain

Phil in Absentia
07-08-2014, 08:03 PM
That's an older report from late June.

That "Toronto puke" was Nick Kypreos.

The Dude
07-08-2014, 08:16 PM
??? Sharp was a decent player prior to going to Chicago. If they can find a way, I think hes a solid fit for this team. A real interchangeable part that can play all forward positions, and a good set of hands. Doesn't play a total wuss perimeter game either, which is more of what the Rangers need in their top 6.

RangersFan
07-08-2014, 08:19 PM
??? Sharp was a decent player prior to going to Chicago. If they can find a way, I think hes a solid fit for this team. A real interchangeable part that can play all forward positions, and a good set of hands. Doesn't play a total wuss perimeter game either, which is more of what the Rangers need in their top 6.



Yep. It would be a good addition to a team that just made the SCF. Perfect veteran to add.

DiJock94
07-08-2014, 08:30 PM
That's an older report from late June.

That "Toronto puke" was Nick Kypreos.

I know what it was and when, but if his agent swears Stan bowman has no interest in moving him I'm going to lean towards him. Especially because the media is speculation driven this time of year.

Phil in Absentia
07-08-2014, 08:54 PM
I know what it was and when, but if his agent swears Stan bowman has no interest in moving him I'm going to lean towards him. Especially because the media is speculation driven this time of year.

Agents say and do things that act in the best interest of their clients. If Rick Curran feels that having Sharp's name circulating the rumor mill isn't benefiting his client, he will deny those rumors, regardless of their veracity. We've seen this time and again. We've seen agents vehemently deny claims that a player is going to be traded, or that a player has asked for a trade, only for that player to later (sometimes sooner) be traded or "formally" request that trade.

I believe Kesler was in this same boat prior to his move this summer, where his agent denied he asked to be traded, even though he did.

If I'm taking anyone at their word in this situation, it's Nick Kypreos, who has a longer track record of insider success. If Kypreos says Sharp is on the block, or has been discussed in trade scenarios, then as far as I'm concerned, he has, regardless of what his agent says publicly.

RangersFan
07-08-2014, 08:57 PM
I think the point is that Chicago is over the cap so anybody not named Toews or Kane and some other people are probably available for the right price

DiJock94
07-08-2014, 09:13 PM
Agents say and do things that act in the best interest of their clients. If Rick Curran feels that having Sharp's name circulating the rumor mill isn't benefiting his client, he will deny those rumors, regardless of their veracity. We've seen this time and again. We've seen agents vehemently deny claims that a player is going to be traded, or that a player has asked for a trade, only for that player to later (sometimes sooner) be traded or "formally" request that trade.

I believe Kesler was in this same boat prior to his move this summer, where his agent denied he asked to be traded, even though he did.

If I'm taking anyone at their word in this situation, it's Nick Kypreos, who has a longer track record of insider success. If Kypreos says Sharp is on the block, or has been discussed in trade scenarios, then as far as I'm concerned, he has, regardless of what his agent says publicly.

It just doesn't make sense to me. What could be negative about his player being on the trade block publicly that he would have to hide it? I feel as though Kypreos could have taken a good hunch on his part that the hawks are in a cap jam and a contract on a guy leaving his prime may be the first to go. Kind of a good estimate. And why would bowman lie to his agent, that would be very unprofessional.

Future
07-08-2014, 09:56 PM
Yep. It would be a good addition to a team that just made the SCF. Perfect veteran to add.
This is such a dangerous notion, and one I hope Sather doesn't have. Getting to the ECF in 2012 when they overachieved tricked fans and Sather alike into thinking that team was a serious contender. This year, there was such a perfect storm of things - including the entire conference being down and dodging Boston - that got them to the Finals. The reality is that the Rangers were probably only the 7th or 8th best team in the league, but this team is not another vet away.

They'd be better off adding youth and speed (a la Pearson and Toffoli in LA) in both the short and long run. You can't expect to bring in another 33 year old and expect to see the same results. The Rangers need more players who can dictate play, not be opportunists and put the puck in the net. The best way to do that is with guys like Miller, not Sharp.

RangersFan
07-08-2014, 09:58 PM
This is such a dangerous notion, and one I hope Sather doesn't have. Getting to the ECF in 2012 when they overachieved tricked fans and Sather alike into thinking that team was a serious contender. This year, there was such a perfect storm of things - including the entire conference being down and dodging Boston - that got them to the Finals. The reality is that the Rangers were probably only the 7th or 8th best team in the league, but this team is not another vet away.

They'd be better off adding youth and speed (a la Pearson and Toffoli in LA) in both the short and long run. You can't expect to bring in another 33 year old and expect to see the same results. The Rangers need more players who can dictate play, not be opportunists and put the puck in the net. The best way to do that is with guys like Miller, not Sharp.


I'm not sure how adding Sharp gets that response but ok. Nobody said trade the whole farm team for him but suit yourself.

If a team thats made the cup isnt a contender, then what is?

Kevin
07-08-2014, 09:58 PM
I think the point is that Chicago is over the cap so anybody not named Toews or Kane and some other people are probably available for the right price

You can throw Hossa in there, or rather Hossa's contract. No one is touching that!

JOHN
07-09-2014, 04:35 PM
I'd take Hossa like yesterday. his cap hit is amazing value for what he brings.

Phil in Absentia
07-09-2014, 04:47 PM
I'd take Hossa like yesterday. his cap hit is amazing value for what he brings.

Not on that contract. No way. Recapture out the ass.

Only way I'd have taken him is via buyout and then signed as a free agent.

http://capgeek.com/recapture-grid

Check out Hossa's line.

Morphinity
07-09-2014, 04:51 PM
Not on that contract. No way. Recapture out the ass.

Only way I'd have taken him is via buyout and then signed as a free agent.

http://capgeek.com/recapture-grid

Check out Hossa's line.

And Chicago didn't buy him out?! Woof.

Pete
07-09-2014, 04:57 PM
Not on that contract. No way. Recapture out the ass.

Only way I'd have taken him is via buyout and then signed as a free agent.

http://capgeek.com/recapture-grid

Check out Hossa's line.


And Chicago didn't buy him out?! Woof.

Not so bad if we traded for him and he retired after 2017 (38 years old).

http://capgeek.com/recapture-calculator/?contract_id=1370&player_id=291&recapture_submit=set&retirement_year=2017&trade=1&acquiring_team=22&in_season_trade=0&in_season_traded_year=2013&season_percentage=1&off_season_traded_year=2014

Phil in Absentia
07-09-2014, 05:09 PM
Bad for the Hawks, though, and they'd probably be weary of dealing him for exactly that reason, no?

Pete
07-09-2014, 05:12 PM
Bad for the Hawks, though, and they'd probably be weary of dealing him for exactly that reason, no?

Well if he demanded to come to the Rangers, and only the Rangers, Sather may just trade 4 first round picks for him...Make it worthwhile for CHI.

Phil in Absentia
07-09-2014, 05:16 PM
Ballsy.

CreaseCrusader91
07-09-2014, 06:06 PM
Not on that contract. No way. Recapture out the ass.

Only way I'd have taken him is via buyout and then signed as a free agent.

http://capgeek.com/recapture-grid

Check out Hossa's line.

Recapture only impacts the team that signed a player to the deal no?

Phil in Absentia
07-09-2014, 07:00 PM
Recapture only impacts the team that signed a player to the deal no?

No. It's shared by a team that trades for that player as well, albeit at a lesser hit.

Cash or Czech?
07-09-2014, 07:10 PM
So what would be our penalty if we were the acquiring team?

RangersFan
07-09-2014, 07:12 PM
Did i miss something with the Hossa talk?

Phil in Absentia
07-09-2014, 07:27 PM
So what would be our penalty if we were the acquiring team?

That all depends on when we acquire him and when he retires.

http://capgeek.com/recapture-calculator/?player_id=291&player_submit=on

For the Rangers, it's probably never too much to walk away from, but for the Hawks, it's probably too much to even consider.

Ranger Lothbrok
07-09-2014, 10:14 PM
Brassard - Zuccarello
Rick Nash
Martin St. Louis

which line would he not have talent around him?
We are not looking for THE guy. We're looking for the guy that can help the guys. You made a great case for him.

Go back and read my posts where I discuss why I would want Sharp.

Also, Sharp has been discussed by numerous posters here since he was in Philly.

Last season, the top 6 offensive players on Chicago put up 383 combined points. The top 6 on the Rangers put up 324, and that's being generous by including St. Louis' full season numbers, when he produced at a point per game clip for Tampa but put up 8 points in 19 with us. His ability to produce here at the same rate he produced in Tampa remains a possibility, but it's still a question. Now if you factor in that there's no more Richards, our number actually dips to 310 when you include the next highest player (Kreider).

I'm sorry, but numbers don't lie. If we had another forward contributing over 70 points, yeah, we'd be on the same level as Chicago with offensive talent up front. But Zook/Brass/Nash/MSL do NOT equal Toews/Kane/Hossa/Keith. We'd be paying for Patrick Sharp's full 34 goal, 78 points of production in a trade, costing valuable assets we don't have. If you don't think a guy like Kreider or Brass is going back, you're crazy. And in reality, we'd be lucky to get 50-60 points out of him.

And this isn't even factoring in the simple fact that he's 32, which means his best years are NOT ahead of him. His production will rapidly decrease, especially in the East Coast grind-it-out m matches, and he's locked in at $5.9 mil through 2017. No thanks.

Pete
07-09-2014, 10:30 PM
Last season, the top 6 offensive players on Chicago put up 383 combined points. The top 6 on the Rangers put up 324, and that's being generous by including St. Louis' full season numbers, when he produced at a point per game clip for Tampa but put up 8 points in 19 with us. His ability to produce here at the same rate he produced in Tampa remains a possibility, but it's still a question. Now if you factor in that there's no more Richards, our number actually dips to 310 when you include the next highest player (Kreider). I don't know what you're trying to prove with these stats. You're quoting them, but not showing how they support your argument.


I'm sorry, but numbers don't lie. If we had another forward contributing over 70 points, yeah, we'd be on the same level as Chicago with offensive talent up front. But Zook/Brass/Nash/MSL do NOT equal Toews/Kane/Hossa/Keith. We'd be paying for Patrick Sharp's full 34 goal, 78 points of production in a trade, costing valuable assets we don't have. If you don't think a guy like Kreider or Brass is going back, you're crazy. And in reality, we'd be lucky to get 50-60 points out of him. 60 points for $6 million is pretty much the going rate.


And this isn't even factoring in the simple fact that he's 32, which means his best years are NOT ahead of him. His production will rapidly decrease, especially in the East Coast grind-it-out m matches, and he's locked in at $5.9 mil through 2017. No thanks.Speculation, at best, and the West is far tougher to play in than the East. The teams are just...better...in almost every way.

Ranger Lothbrok
07-10-2014, 03:07 PM
I don't know what you're trying to prove with these stats. You're quoting them, but not showing how they support your argument.

60 points for $6 million is pretty much the going rate.

Speculation, at best, and the West is far tougher to play in than the East. The teams are just...better...in almost every way.

I thought it was pretty clear why I was posting those stats. It's been said that Sharp's numbers won't decrease here because he'll be playing around the same level of talent that he's been playing around in Chicago. The numbers say otherwise. Not to mention that one of our few forwards who managed over 50 points, Brad Richards, is actually now ON Chicago.

I'm sorry, I just don't see Patrick Sharp as in the "too good to fail" category. I do, however, see him as a very talented player who's in a good situation with his team and who would NOT have the same situation here. And we have seen plenty of those guys come here and fizzle. In fact, it seems to be the exception, not the rule. I have no reason to suspect Sharp will be any different.

Pete
07-10-2014, 03:44 PM
I thought it was pretty clear why I was posting those stats. It's been said that Sharp's numbers won't decrease here because he'll be playing around the same level of talent that he's been playing around in Chicago. The numbers say otherwise. Not to mention that one of our few forwards who managed over 50 points, Brad Richards, is actually now ON Chicago.

I'm sorry, I just don't see Patrick Sharp as in the "too good to fail" category. I do, however, see him as a very talented player who's in a good situation with his team and who would NOT have the same situation here. And we have seen plenty of those guys come here and fizzle. In fact, it seems to be the exception, not the rule. I have no reason to suspect Sharp will be any different.

Oh, well it wasn't clear, so thanks for clarifying.

Sharp scored 78 points this year. Even with a 20 point drop off, he'd still be fair market value at his salary. So I still don't see the issue.

Problem is, we don't have cap for him.