PDA

View Full Version : [Brooks] Rangers Want Brassard Multi-Year; Moore Expected to Sign For Less Than $1M



Pages : [1] 2

Phil in Absentia
07-24-2014, 09:25 AM
A long-term deal for Brassard is likely to come with a cap hit in the neighborhood of $5.2 million to $5.6 million per season. If, however, the parties can’t agree on a multi-year contract and indeed do go to arbitration, a one-year award would likely be closer to $4.5 million.

The Rangers would then have to negotiate a long-term extension with Brassard in order to keep him off next summer’s open market as they are now charged with doing with Zuccarello, who signed a one-year, $3.5 million deal on Tuesday in advance of an arbitration hearing that had been scheduled for Friday.

John Moore, who lacks meaningful leverage, is expected to sign a one-year deal for close to his $850,000 qualifier. There is no reason for the Rangers, who are going to need to conserve space throughout the year in order to be players at the trade deadline, to throw even an extra nickel at their sixth defenseman. There is no upside to being “nice guys” in this case.

http://nypost.com/2014/07/23/rangers-kreider-agree-on-2-47m-deal-at-last-minute/

--

And Brassard Backlash in 3, 2, 1...

jsm7302
07-24-2014, 09:26 AM
He is our #2 now so.... Give him his 5.

TwoMinutesForNothing
07-24-2014, 09:29 AM
No problem with it if it locks him up for like 5 years.

jrc64
07-24-2014, 09:31 AM
I can live with $5.2 X 3. He's worth it.

Phil in Absentia
07-24-2014, 09:31 AM
No problem with it if it locks him up for like 5 years.

Same, but this thread is going to fill up shortly with a lot of people decrying it.

The guy is gonna be a UFA next season. This is the cost of doing business.


"Quite frankly, all the players are getting paid too much and all the contracts are too long," general manager Lou Lamoriello said. "But if you want to compete in this market and you want to win, there are some things you have to do."

Future
07-24-2014, 09:32 AM
Not a bad idea to lock up Brassard, though I think you have to be concerned about whether or not he can earn that $5 mil for the length of a contract.

jrc64
07-24-2014, 09:33 AM
Not a bad idea to lock up Brassard, though I think you have to be concerned about whether or not he can earn that $5 mil for the length of a contract.

That's why I'm good with 3 years. It's rolling the dice, but I feel 3 is good.

Phil in Absentia
07-24-2014, 09:34 AM
Not a bad idea to lock up Brassard, though I think you have to be concerned about whether or not he can earn that $5 mil for the length of a contract.

Define "earn".

He's a 0.56 career P/G player who has fluctuated up and down from that year-to-year. 45-50 points over 82 games. That's what your expectations should be set at for him for the next few years. For UFA players, it's basically $1M per every ten points, so that's right in line with the market.

TwoMinutesForNothing
07-24-2014, 09:34 AM
$5 mil seems like a lot because people are still looking at it as a representation of what it was a few years ago. Put it in context with what Kane and Toews just got and it's not bad at all for a 2nd line center.

Morphinity
07-24-2014, 09:38 AM
No idea why it's perceived he's worth $5.5M for multiple years. His 46 points per season are not worth $5.5M - maybe he hits 50. He's also going to be 27 at the start of next season, so it's not like the growth argument that exists for Stepan also pertains to him.

I know, I know - he's going to be a UFA. Sometimes, you just have to say NO. And I want to say NO to Brassard at that price.

Pete
07-24-2014, 09:39 AM
For the offense he gives you getting basically third line minutes, I'm not sure why he isn't worth 5?

CreaseCrusader91
07-24-2014, 09:43 AM
For the offense he gives you getting basically third line minutes, I'm not sure why he isn't worth 5?

In addition, I look at him and Zuke as a package deal to an extent. They are solid in their own accord, but stand to benefit from being with each other.

Just a thought.

Pete
07-24-2014, 09:45 AM
In addition, I look at him and Zuke as a package deal to an extent. They are solid in their own accord, but stand to benefit from being with each other.

Just a thought.

I agree, if you are getting them both long term, then you do it.

Morphinity
07-24-2014, 09:48 AM
This is practically the same thing as the Grabovski deal. Nearly the same p/g production .56 (Brassard) vs. .59 (Grabovski) and the same money.

Grabovski's deal was seen as overpayment.

CreaseCrusader91
07-24-2014, 09:55 AM
This is practically the same thing as the Grabovski deal. Nearly the same p/g production .56 (Brassard) vs. .59 (Grabovski) and the same money.

Grabovski's deal was seen as overpayment.

Well the Islanders have to pay more to get FA. He was a UFA and we'd have one RFA year of Brass.

In addition, Grabo is a player that doesn't get enough credit and TOR probably wishes they still had him.

Morphinity
07-24-2014, 09:57 AM
Well the Islanders have to pay more to get FA. He was a UFA and we'd have one RFA year of Brass.

In addition, Grabo is a player that doesn't get enough credit and TOR probably wishes they still had him.

Yes, so why would we pay Brassard the same amount of money when we can agree that Grabovski is overpaid due to NYI and UFA? Brassard is RFA for a year, so we shouldn't have to pay him that price of $5.5M or $5.6M that Brooks keeps bringing up.

CreaseCrusader91
07-24-2014, 10:01 AM
Yes, so why would we pay Brassard the same amount of money when we can agree that Grabovski is overpaid due to NYI and UFA? Brassard is RFA for a year, so we shouldn't have to pay him that price of $5.5M or $5.6M that Brooks keeps bringing up.

He holds leverage. Do we have a viable backup option? Who can we sign or trade for?

TwoMinutesForNothing
07-24-2014, 10:01 AM
Grabovski is 30. Brassard still does have upside despite his age because his development was stalled a bit in Columbus.

AmericanJesus
07-24-2014, 10:02 AM
This is practically the same thing as the Grabovski deal. Nearly the same p/g production .56 (Brassard) vs. .59 (Grabovski) and the same money.

Grabovski's deal was seen as overpayment.

Grabovski got 5 years, $5M per at age 30 (30 - 35).

Brassard would be getting 5 years, $5M per at age 26 (26-31).

Grabovski also got bought out after a sub-par lockout year (16p in 48 games, (.33 PPG) then had a shortened bounce back season with the Capitals putting up 35p in 58gp (.60). The Islanders then paid him as if he never had that down year during the lockout. Not so much a bad contract as a gamble because of his recent inconsistency and locking him up for 5 years at 30 years old.

Brassard has been fairly consistent in his production and is 4 years younger.

DiJock94
07-24-2014, 10:03 AM
agreed definitely dont need Brassard for 5 years either. I am stammering now thinking of what a 32 year old on a 5.5 mil deal will be like when he can only put up 45 points in his prime. id give him a one year and possibly say goodbye to him after depending on the growth of Miller and Lindberg. He simply isnt worth that chunk of our cap space. We are also going to need money to retain Hagelin Stepan and Staal, all of which are more important to keep.

Pete
07-24-2014, 10:11 AM
If we're going to say that everyone on the team had a down year stats-wise due to the new coach/system and growing pains, why is it so outrageous to think that Brassard is going to be a 50 point player for the next few years, especially if he can continue his chemistry with Zuccarello...It's just 5 more points...That's what I call a "better hands LW than Pouliot" away from 50.

Plus, realistically he has shown to be a playoff producer, one of the most offensively creative players on the team (unless you enjoy Stepan's safe, vanilla, straight-line, make telegraphed pass only to wide open guys, through clear lanes, play), and probably has the best vision on the team. I would rather pay him a little bit more for actually maintaining his P/G in the playoffs, unlike everyone else on the team.

DiJock94
07-24-2014, 10:17 AM
If we're going to say that everyone on the team had a down year stats-wise due to the new coach/system and growing pains, why is it so outrageous to think that Brassard is going to be a 50 point player for the next few years, especially if he can continue his chemistry with Zuccarello...It's just 5 more points...That's what I call a "better hands LW than Pouliot" away from 50.

Plus, realistically he has shown to be a playoff producer, one of the most offensively creative players on the team (unless you enjoy Stepan's safe, vanilla, straight-line, make telegraphed pass only to wide open guys, through clear lanes, play), and probably has the best vision on the team. I would rather pay him a little bit more for actually maintaining his P/G in the playoffs, unlike everyone else on the team.

It isnt. Its just outrageous to pay him because he seems to have the potential to be better. i put him at 4.5 i feel as though thats a fair cap hit for both parties

Pete
07-24-2014, 10:20 AM
It isnt. Its just outrageous to pay him because he seems to have the potential to be better. i put him at 4.5 i feel as though thats a fair cap hit for both parties

That wouldn't be why we are paying him. We're buying UFA years, and he's shown he performs in the playoffs, and we're talking a difference of $500k —*And the first thing you mentioned was 5 years...Not salary. We'll have him until he's 32, which means we get his prime years.

Slobberknocker
07-24-2014, 10:26 AM
i hope brassard signs. i really like looking at his sister at ranger games.

DiJock94
07-24-2014, 10:35 AM
That wouldn't be why we are paying him. We're buying UFA years, and he's shown he performs in the playoffs, and we're talking a difference of $500k —*And the first thing you mentioned was 5 years...Not salary. We'll have him until he's 32, which means we get his prime years.

Ok we get his prime years, but the most hes shown through his prime years (hes almost 27) is to be a sub 20 goal scorer, 45 point player. He deserves to be paid as such.

Pete
07-24-2014, 10:37 AM
Ok we get his prime years, but the most hes shown through his prime years (hes almost 27) is to be a sub 20 goal scorer, 45 point player. He deserves to be paid as such.

Well Dubinsky just got a $6 million deal, as did Cally, for hovering around the 50-55 point mark, so I'm not sure how $5 million for 45 points is an issue.

Phil in Absentia
07-24-2014, 10:41 AM
On the UFA market, the general rule of thumb is $1M for every ten points. Give or take.

TwoMinutesForNothing
07-24-2014, 10:42 AM
Brassard put up 45 points getting only 15:47 per game. With Richards gone, who got 3 minutes more per game, he could easily hit 50. Not to mention he has already had a season where he put up 47 points in 74 games.

DiJock94
07-24-2014, 10:43 AM
yes agreed. best comparison i could come up with is Bryan Little. Same age as Brassard slightly better player. 4.7AAV

Morphinity
07-24-2014, 10:45 AM
On the UFA market, the general rule of thumb is $1M for every ten points. Give or take.

Alright, so his career average over 403 games is .56 p/g, which works out to 46 points per season. He plays 15 minutes per night and he doesn't kill penalties. He's not regarded as a "leader in the room".

That $5.5M figure just doesn't add up.

Pete
07-24-2014, 10:52 AM
Alright, so his career average over 403 games is .56 p/g, which works out to 46 points per season. He plays 15 minutes per night and he doesn't kill penalties. He's not regarded as a "leader in the room".

That $5.5M figure just doesn't add up.

What would you pay him?

Morphinity
07-24-2014, 10:55 AM
What would you pay him?

$4.8M - $5M. Especially if it's long term - like 5 years. If we're giving you term, you come down on your price.

DiJock94
07-24-2014, 10:57 AM
$4.8M - $5M. Especially if it's long term - like 5 years. If we're giving you term, you come down on your price.

id be lower..... say 4.5-4.8. but in the same ballpark.

Pete
07-24-2014, 11:00 AM
$4.8M - $5M.Dude, don't mail it in...Tell me years, too. Tell me why.

IF we but more years of UFA, $5.5 isn't out of line. Less years would be $5.2. $22k more than your high number. It's not outlandish. We don't have to like it (and I've already stated I don't, and why), but you can't argue it's out of line, really.

EDIT: You edited...No, you don't come down on price if you're giving term to an RFA entering UFA. You're buying those UFA years at a premium.

Morphinity
07-24-2014, 11:01 AM
Dude, don't mail it in...Tell me years, too. Tell me why.

IF we but more years of UFA, $5.5 isn't out of line. Less years would be $5.2. $200k more than your high number. It's not outlandish. We don't have to like it (and I've already stated I don't, and why), but you can't argue it's out of line, really.

$5M for 5 years. Boom.

TwoMinutesForNothing
07-24-2014, 11:02 AM
$4.8M - $5M. Especially if it's long term - like 5 years. If we're giving you term, you come down on your price.

When you give term to young players you usually have to go up in price, not down.

Morphinity
07-24-2014, 11:03 AM
When you give term to young players you usually have to go up in price, not down.

Well, I don't necessarily agree with you that there's more upside to Brassard. He's 27 by the start of next season. He's had 5 full NHL seasons. He's played 400 NHL games. We know what we're getting out of him.

Pete
07-24-2014, 11:03 AM
When you give term to young players you usually have to go up in price, not down.

Correct. And to be clear, rarely to players trade dollars for years. Those extra years tacked on at a lowered salary just lower the cap number, like Gaby.

Future
07-24-2014, 11:07 AM
Define "earn".

He's a 0.56 career P/G player who has fluctuated up and down from that year-to-year. 45-50 points over 82 games. That's what your expectations should be set at for him for the next few years. For UFA players, it's basically $1M per every ten points, so that's right in line with the market.
Well, I think to earn something like 5.5, he's got to not only maintain that, but get better. Much like assuming Stepan will improve to earn the $6 million, Brassard probably has to give you a bit more to justify the contract.

Phil in Absentia
07-24-2014, 11:33 AM
Alright, so his career average over 403 games is .56 p/g, which works out to 46 points per season. He plays 15 minutes per night and he doesn't kill penalties. He's not regarded as a "leader in the room".

That $5.5M figure just doesn't add up.

Sure it does. "Give or take".

His career average is 0.56, but he fluctuates year-to-year. Really, if you average the last four years of his career, where he's shown the most consistency year-to-year, he's 0.6 P/G, which is 49 points over 82 games, or basically, to round up, 50 points.

What do you think 50 points costs on the UFA market?

Morphinity
07-24-2014, 11:34 AM
Sure it does. "Give or take".

His career average is 0.56, but he fluctuates year-to-year. Really, if you average the last four years of his career, where he's shown the most consistency year-to-year, he's 0.6 P/G, which is 49 points over 82 games, or basically, to round up, 50 points.

What do you think 50 points costs on the UFA market?

$1M per point, which is exactly what you said! LOL

TwoMinutesForNothing
07-24-2014, 11:36 AM
$1M per point, which is exactly what you said! LOL


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=84CH0FMFfw4

DiJock94
07-24-2014, 11:36 AM
4.7 is what Bryan Little got on a 5 year deal one year ago same age as Brassard. with a 30 goal season under his belt averaging 49 points over 82 games. perfect comparison

Pete
07-24-2014, 11:36 AM
$1M per point, which is exactly what you said! LOL

YOU WANT TO GIVE BRASSARD $50 MILLION?!?!?!

Morphinity
07-24-2014, 11:36 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=84CH0FMFfw4


YOU WANT TO GIVE BRASSARD $50 MILLION?!?!?!


:rofl: :rofl: Oops

Pete
07-24-2014, 11:38 AM
4.7 is what Bryan Little got on a 5 year deal one year ago same age as Brassard. with a 30 goal season under his belt averaging 49 points over 82 games. perfect comparison

He was coming off $2.3 million, not $3.2...So add in that $900k and you come to $5.6 for Brassard, comparably the same contract.

Phil in Absentia
07-24-2014, 11:43 AM
$1M per point, which is exactly what you said! LOL

Per ten points, and that's $5M. The extra $600K is negligible, and falls in line with the "give or take" aspect of it.

Among his peers who signed legal contracts, or contracts that would be considered legal under this CBA:

Grabovski — 0.58 P/G the last four seasons. $5M AAV.
Bolland — 0.5 P/G the last four seasons. $5.5M AAV.
Zajac — 0.49 P/G the last four seasons. $5.75M AAV.

DiJock94
07-24-2014, 11:44 AM
Previous contract is irrelevant we didn't give it to him. And little is a better player.

DiJock94
07-24-2014, 11:46 AM
Per ten points, and that's $5M. The extra $600K is negligible, and falls in line with the "give or take" aspect of it.

Among his peers who signed legal contracts, or contracts that would be considered legal under this CBA:

Grabovski — 0.58 P/G the last four seasons. $5M AAV.
Bolland — 0.5 P/G the last four seasons. $5.5M AAV.
Zajac — 0.49 P/G the last four seasons. $5.75M AAV.

Zajac has gone over 70 on I believe multiple occasions. Bolland brings much more intangibles. Grabovski I agree compares but he signed as a UFA

DiJock94
07-24-2014, 11:48 AM
Sorry zajac went over 60 twice

CreaseCrusader91
07-24-2014, 11:48 AM
Sorry zajac went over 60 twice

Since a 67 point season he's gone down hill.

Phil in Absentia
07-24-2014, 11:51 AM
Zajac has gone over 70 on I believe multiple occasions. Bolland brings much more intangibles. Grabovski I agree compares but he signed as a UFA

60, but again, this is the average P/G over the last four seasons for all these players.

I realize there will be better players listed as comparables. There are also worse ones, like Bolland, from a point-production aspect.

DiJock94
07-24-2014, 11:51 AM
Since a 67 point season he's gone down hill.

Still 20 points more than brassards best.

TwoMinutesForNothing
07-24-2014, 11:52 AM
Inflation. Simple as that.

Morphinity
07-24-2014, 11:53 AM
Per ten points, and that's $5M. The extra $600K is negligible, and falls in line with the "give or take" aspect of it.

Among his peers who signed legal contracts, or contracts that would be considered legal under this CBA:

Grabovski — 0.58 P/G the last four seasons. $5M AAV.
Bolland — 0.5 P/G the last four seasons. $5.5M AAV.
Zajac — 0.49 P/G the last four seasons. $5.75M AAV.

And every single one of those contracts is laughable. Bolland's contract has been criticized heavily since it was signed.

Let's see the Zajac reactions...
http://www.blueshirtsbrotherhood.com/showthread.php?8090-NJD-Re-Sign-C-Travis-Zajac-to-8-Year-46M-Extension-5-75M-AAV&highlight=zajac

Yup. It's a lot of money, but they had to pay to keep him. My guess is his market value was probably $5M base anyway, so they didn't pay that much more to retain him.

:p

I don't think we have to pay to keep Brassard. We're a better franchise than the Devils, in a better spot to succeed, and Brassard has a good thing going here.



$600K is not negligible in the cap era. That $600K could swing a free agent toward coming here vs. another team.

Pete
07-24-2014, 11:58 AM
Previous contract is irrelevant we didn't give it to him.Absolutely not.
And little is a better player.In your opinion. What's "better"? Little is on a shit team playing more than 4:00 more per game. What do you think he would do placed on our third line, playing just over 15:00 a night instead of 20:00?

Brassard scored .0304 points per minute played.

Little scored .0390.

Over 20:00, per 82 games, that's 50 points for Brassard and for 15:00/82 games for Little is 47 points. And Brassard is a proven playoff performer.

DiJock94
07-24-2014, 12:01 PM
And brassards never eclipsed 20 goals and little has multiple times with a 30 goal season. Surrounded by less talent. They are the most similar players age and skill so contract should be too

Phil in Absentia
07-24-2014, 12:03 PM
And every single one of those contracts is laughable.

Dude, do I really need to post the Lamoriello quote again? :doh:


I don't think we have to pay to keep Brassard. We're a better franchise than the Devils, in a better spot to succeed, and Brassard has a good thing going here.

So you are letting him walk? Who are you replacing him with, and at what cost? This is actually the same argument I used to argue that the Rangers probably need to keep Marc Staal barring a tremendous showing from Conor Allen and/or Brady Skjei in the A this/next year.

You can argue that the player is going to be overpaid and not be worth the deal over the total term, and you may even be right, but what you aren't accounting for is the fact that that's the price of doing business in a supply and demand market, and unless you can illustrate how the team is better off production-wise in not giving him the contract, I'm not sure how you really justify it based only on dollars. Someone has to play that role and fill those minutes, and one way or another you have to make up those points lost.


$600K is not negligible in the cap era. That $600K could swing a free agent toward coming here vs. another team.

As a UFA player, yes it is. It matters with RFA's where you (the GM) control the players' cost, versus UFA, where he controls it.

CreaseCrusader91
07-24-2014, 12:06 PM
And brassards never eclipsed 20 goals and little has multiple times with a 30 goal season. Surrounded by less talent. They are the most similar players age and skill so contract should be too

Brassard isn't a goal scorer primarily. He's a playmaker.

Pete
07-24-2014, 12:06 PM
And brassards never eclipsed 20 goals and little has multiple times with a 30 goal season. Surrounded by less talent. They are the most similar players age and skill so contract should be too

Don't you think your numbers are way off considering the Rangers are actually considering $5.2-$5.6?

DiJock94
07-24-2014, 12:07 PM
Brassard isn't a goal scorer primarily. He's a playmaker.

I watch the team too I know who brassard is. I didn't say they were the exact same player but they are easily the most compatible. The contract should come in similar to littles. That all I'm saying.

DiJock94
07-24-2014, 12:10 PM
Don't you think your numbers are way off considering the Rangers are actually considering $5.2-$5.6?

No I don't. His arbitration award has been estimated to be 4.5

RangersFan
07-24-2014, 12:11 PM
I guess the Rangers are really going to have Stepan and Brassard as 1 and 2 centers. I just hope they improve

Pete
07-24-2014, 12:11 PM
No I don't. His arbitration award has been estimated to be 4.5

For one year. We are buying UFA years, therefore the cost goes up.

CreaseCrusader91
07-24-2014, 12:11 PM
No I don't. His arbitration award has been estimated to be 4.5

That number buys one RFA year. UFA years=$$$$

TwoMinutesForNothing
07-24-2014, 12:13 PM
No I don't. His arbitration award has been estimated to be 4.5

So he would get $4.5 on a one or two year deal through arbitration. In order to buy 3 more years of free agency from him I would think an additional mil would be necessary.

DiJock94
07-24-2014, 12:13 PM
Ok the bought 3 of Littles years at 4.7 how is this not the closest comparison and where we should be looking to be. If Brassard gets 5.5 he will be a bad contract as a bubble 50 pt scorer

Pete
07-24-2014, 12:14 PM
Ok the bought 3 of Littles years at 4.7 how is this not the closest comparison and where we should be looking to be. If Brassard gets 5.5 he will be a bad contract as a bubble 50 pt scorer

Maybe Little has a shitty agent, ever think of that?

DiJock94
07-24-2014, 12:18 PM
Maybe Little has a shitty agent, ever think of that?

Yea I guess him and McDonagh have the same agent.

Pete
07-24-2014, 12:19 PM
Yea I guess him and McDonagh have the same agent.

I don't know what McD has to do with this...? But OK.

RangersFan
07-24-2014, 12:19 PM
How is Brassard a bad deal at 5.5 with the cap going up?

DiJock94
07-24-2014, 12:20 PM
I don't know what McD has to do with this...? But OK.

I was making a rhetorical joke based on your rebuttal which was in no way factual or relevant.

TwoMinutesForNothing
07-24-2014, 12:21 PM
Ok the bought 3 of Littles years at 4.7 how is this not the closest comparison and where we should be looking to be. If Brassard gets 5.5 he will be a bad contract as a bubble 50 pt scorer

Little was 25 when that deal was signed, so they were buying less UFA years. We are buying 4 from Brassard, they bought 2 from Little.

DiJock94
07-24-2014, 12:24 PM
Little was 25 when that deal was signed, so they were buying less UFA years. We are buying 4 from Brassard, they bought 2 from Little.

He was almost exactly one year younger than brassard.

Pete
07-24-2014, 12:26 PM
I was making a rhetorical joke based on your rebuttal which was in no way factual or relevant.

Well, we don't know if it's factual or not. It's relevant because you can only find 1 deal to support your theory, and the deal you are using isn't comparable, to boot. So I don't know what to tell you.

TwoMinutesForNothing
07-24-2014, 12:28 PM
He was almost exactly one year younger than brassard.

The season starts in October. Brassard has a Sept birthday before the season starts, Little is in Nov after it starts. Brass hits 27 before this season therefore this was his last RFA year. Little will still be 27 when next season begins.

Pete
07-24-2014, 12:29 PM
He was almost exactly one year younger than brassard.
Brassard's 2nd deal was 4 years, Little's was 3.

DiJock94
07-24-2014, 12:33 PM
The comparison is the best one there is. And if you don't like it try Cogliano Gagne or Weiss

Pete
07-24-2014, 12:34 PM
Yes, and all of them subject to inflation.

DiJock94
07-24-2014, 12:38 PM
Weiss signed as a UFA one year ago at 4.9 for 5 yrs and he has eclipsed 50 three times and 60 once. How's that comparison? Better than zajac and bolland

AmericanJesus
07-24-2014, 12:40 PM
The season starts in October. Brassard has a Sept birthday before the season starts, Little is in Nov after it starts. Brass hits 27 before this season therefore this was his last RFA year. Little will still be 27 when next season begins.

I think that the player's age on July 1st is the date they use for Free Agency, Entry Level Contract age and Waiver Status.

RangersFan
07-24-2014, 12:41 PM
Weiss signed as a UFA one year ago at 4.9 for 5 yrs and he has eclipsed 50 three times and 60 once. How's that comparison? Better than zajac and bolland

Why are you comparing contracts anyway? McDonagh got 4.7 mil. I guess every dman should take that now. All contracts are different and all GMs are different and players have different roles. Its hard to determine what a player should make even if you point out similar players

DiJock94
07-24-2014, 12:45 PM
Tyler bozak 5 yr 21 mil 4.2aav .61 ppg 28 yrs old

AmericanJesus
07-24-2014, 12:46 PM
Weiss signed as a UFA one year ago at 4.9 for 5 yrs and he has eclipsed 50 three times and 60 once. How's that comparison? Better than zajac and bolland

Weiss was coming off an injury shortened season where he played just 17 games during the lockout year. That probably shaved down his contract some. He was also 30 years old when he signed with Detroit for that deal. The cap also went up $4.7M. That's a 9.3% increase. That equates, on a $4.9M contract, to $441K. So Weiss' contract in today cap dollars would be approximately $5.3M.

DiJock94
07-24-2014, 12:47 PM
Why are you comparing contracts anyway? McDonagh got 4.7 mil. I guess every dman should take that now. All contracts are different and all GMs are different and players have different roles. Its hard to determine what a player should make even if you point out similar players

That's negotiating 101

RangersFan
07-24-2014, 12:50 PM
That's negotiating 101

Ok but there are lots of things that can determine salaries. Teams use players for different things

DiJock94
07-24-2014, 12:54 PM
Ok brassard isn't a team leader doesn't kill penalties or play physical. Plays on the PP but wouldn't say he's a specialist.

Pete
07-24-2014, 12:55 PM
Ok brassard isn't a team leader doesn't kill penalties or play physical. Plays on the PP but wouldn't say he's a specialist.

Those things should not effect cap number.

DiJock94
07-24-2014, 12:57 PM
Those things should not effect cap number.

Sure seems like they affected Dubinsky and Callahans

RangersFan
07-24-2014, 12:58 PM
Ok brassard isn't a team leader doesn't kill penalties or play physical. Plays on the PP but wouldn't say he's a specialist.

Nash isnt physical either and he is getting almost 8 mil a year. Gaborik wasnt physical and we paid him 7 mil. Stepan isnt physical either and he will make 6 mil next contract. What do YOU want to give Brassard?

DiJock94
07-24-2014, 01:00 PM
I guess 40 goal scorers shouldn't get paid now? That's a pretty off based comment.

Pete
07-24-2014, 01:03 PM
Sure seems like they affected Dubinsky and Callahans

Dubi's contract is a direct hit off of Callahan's. Callahan's comparables do have guys like that —*Dustin Brown, but they also have guys who aren't physical (Pominville/Steen), aren't leaders (Clarkson), and neither (Zajac). No one is giving a player $1 million dollars to "lead". That's expected from "leaders".

RangersFan
07-24-2014, 01:04 PM
I guess 40 goal scorers shouldn't get paid now? That's a pretty off based comment.

What do you want to pay Brassard?

DiJock94
07-24-2014, 01:05 PM
Dubi's contract is a direct hit off of Callahan's. Callahan's comparables do have guys like that —*Dustin Brown, but they also have guys who aren't physical (Pominville/Steen), aren't leaders (Clarkson), and neither (Zajac). No one is giving a player $1 million dollars to "lead". That's expected from "leaders".

They just intangibles that if Brassard had them he would be able to bring to the bargaining table. Brassard for 5.5 Callahan for 5.8...... Don't bother asking me who I would rather have

RangersFan
07-24-2014, 01:06 PM
They just intangibles that if Brassard had them he would be able to bring to the bargaining table. Brassard for 5.5 Callahan for 5.8...... Don't bother asking me who I would rather have

I take Brassard at 5.5 all day

DiJock94
07-24-2014, 01:08 PM
What do you want to pay Brassard?

What do I want to pay him ? 0 but that's not happening. What I'd be ok with and what would be bearable to swallow would be a 3 or 4 yr 4.25 - 4.75

Pete
07-24-2014, 01:09 PM
They just intangibles that if Brassard had them he would be able to bring to the bargaining table. Brassard for 5.5 Callahan for 5.8...... Don't bother asking me who I would rather have

A 26 year old Brassard who plays 82 games or a 30 year old Callahan who plays 65? Easy choice for me, too.

Phil in Absentia
07-24-2014, 01:16 PM
What do I want to pay him ? 0 but that's not happening. What I'd be ok with and what would be bearable to swallow would be a 3 or 4 yr 4.25 - 4.75

Not gonna happen. You could get him at $4.5M (the middle ground) at one year. Anything more and you are eclipsing $5M.

DiJock94
07-24-2014, 01:20 PM
Then I'd take my one year see how Miller an Lindberg do, and if they weren't ready I'd re negotiate

NYR2711
07-24-2014, 01:21 PM
I'm in the minority that I don't want to pay him anywhere near $5.5M right now. For me, that's too much. He hasn't hit the 20 goal mark yet, and this season he has to show that last year wasn't a product of the line he was on. With Pouliot gone, I still want go see what he can do without him. I would be more comfortable with $4.5M, especially with Stepan up for a contract next summer, I'd like to save room under the cap for him. Brassard needs to prove more to me before giving him that much.

RangersFan
07-24-2014, 01:22 PM
Then I'd take my one year see how Miller an Lindberg do, and if they weren't ready I'd re negotiate

You would let Brassard walk and go with Miller and Lindberg at center?

NYR2711
07-24-2014, 01:23 PM
A 26 year old Brassard who plays 82 games or a 30 year old Callahan who plays 65? Easy choice for me, too.

To me it's hard to compare the two because they are two totally different style players. To me, Cally brings more to the table, but I am also against paying Cally as much as he got.

DiJock94
07-24-2014, 01:24 PM
Or walk depending on how Brassard fares as a 2nd line center

DiJock94
07-24-2014, 01:26 PM
You would let Brassard walk and go with Miller and Lindberg at center?

Not this year. I would take my one year arbitration at 4.5 and at the end of 2014-2015 depending on Miller and Lindberg is renegotiate or walk

Pete
07-24-2014, 01:27 PM
Miller or Lindberg are going to be our 2nd line centers? Wow.

DiJock94
07-24-2014, 01:30 PM
Miller or Lindberg are going to be our 2nd line centers? Wow.

How do you know what Miller will be like at the end of next year? The potential is there for him to be a second line center. And if he isn't you can plan accordingly when the time comes.

Pete
07-24-2014, 01:36 PM
How do you know what Miller will be like at the end of next year? The potential is there for him to be a second line center. And if he isn't you can plan accordingly when the time comes.This doesn't sound like a very good plan, to me. It's short sighted, to let an asset who you have under control (RFA not UFA) walk when you don't have a viable option. We don't.

DiJock94
07-24-2014, 01:39 PM
This doesn't sound like a very good plan, to me. It's short sighted, to let an asset who you have under control (RFA not UFA) walk when you don't have a viable option. We don't.

Better plan is to hamstring yourself under the cap and risk not having space to resign hagelin staal and stepan? I think not

Pete
07-24-2014, 01:41 PM
Better plan is to hamstring yourself under the cap and risk not having space to resign hagelin staal and stepan? I think not

Except Brassard at $5.5 isn't hamstringing anyone.

DiJock94
07-24-2014, 01:41 PM
My idea is almost the exact opposite of short sighted

DiJock94
07-24-2014, 01:43 PM
Cap goes up by 4 mil next year you need to re up hagelin 2.25 Stepan 3.whatever Staal 3.9 Zucc 3.5. Try fitting them under with 4 mil of room.

Pete
07-24-2014, 01:45 PM
My idea is almost the exact opposite of short sighted

No, it's very definition of it, and it's based on personal feeling about a player, not facts.

Let Brassard walk, or sign him for 1 year based on hoping that 1 of 2 players — 1 with 10 NHL points, the other with zero and zero games played, both who are currently projected to be bottom 6 players — can fill the hole left by a legit second line player? Short sighted plain and simple.

RangersFan
07-24-2014, 01:46 PM
My idea is almost the exact opposite of short sighted

No disrespect but your idea is bad. Its a good way to miss the playoffs. You wanna put Miller and Lindberg at center behind Stepan for what reason? We are nowhere near contending with that center depth. The cap space will be there so i dont know what youre worried about. Look at this team. Is it any good?

Kreider-Stepan-Nash
Hagelin-Miller-St Louis
Stempniak-Lindberg-Zuccarello
Glass-Moore-Lombardi

A team with center depth like that gets eaten alive and probably doesnt make the playoffs. Its just not the right thing to do

DiJock94
07-24-2014, 01:47 PM
Not a proven second line center at all. Other hand overpay him and risk losing Zucc Staal Stepan or Hagelin

Pete
07-24-2014, 01:48 PM
Cap goes up by 4 mil next year you need to re up hagelin 2.25 Stepan 3.whatever Staal 3.9 Zucc 3.5. Try fitting them under with 4 mil of room.

The cap is projected to go up by $5 million and MSL comes off, Staal comes off, Stempniak comes off. That's about $15 million to work with, total. We're good.

RangersFan
07-24-2014, 01:49 PM
Cap goes up by 4 mil next year you need to re up hagelin 2.25 Stepan 3.whatever Staal 3.9 Zucc 3.5. Try fitting them under with 4 mil of room.

So the answer is giving 2 unproven rookies big minutes? May as well rebuild then. Trade Hank, St Louis. Nash, Girardi, even trade Zuccarello. No need to do destroy the teams center depth. Its already a question mark

DiJock94
07-24-2014, 01:49 PM
No disrespect but your idea is bad. Its a good way to miss the playoffs. You wanna put Miller and Lindberg at center behind Stepan for what reason? We are nowhere near contending with that center depth. The cap space will be there so i dont know what youre worried about. Look at this team. Is it any good?

Kreider-Stepan-Nash
Hagelin-Miller-St Louis
Stempniak-Lindberg-Zuccarello
Glass-Moore-Lombardi

A team with center depth like that gets eaten alive and probably doesnt make the playoffs. Its just not the right thing to do

Once again because I love repeating myself take brassard for the year watch the development of miller and Lindberg if they aren't ready plan accordingly. Just because I like typing things over and over.

Pete
07-24-2014, 01:49 PM
Not a proven second line center at all. Other hand overpay him and risk losing Zucc Staal Stepan or Hagelin

Of course he is. And we aren't at risk of losing anyone.

DiJock94
07-24-2014, 01:51 PM
The cap is projected to go up by $5 million and MSL comes off, Staal comes off, Stempniak comes off. That's about $15 million to work with, total. We're good.

So lose Staal and St. Louis to keep Brassard? I can't even continue this.

RangersFan
07-24-2014, 01:51 PM
Once again because I love repeating myself take brassard for the year watch the development of miller and Lindberg if they aren't ready plan accordingly. Just because I like typing things over and over.

No need to get nasty dude. So give Brassard one year and then what? If Miller or Lindberg suck, what do we do?

jjweimar
07-24-2014, 01:52 PM
The cap is projected to go up by $5 million and MSL comes off, Staal comes off, Stempniak comes off. That's about $15 million to work with, total. We're good.

Theres a lot of room next year. If it goes up by 5 mil then you have like 18 mil to resign those players, I agree with you get him locked up, if he doesn't work out move him in a few years. He wont kill the team having him locked up at like 5.25-5.5 for 4-5 years

Pete
07-24-2014, 01:53 PM
So lose Staal and St. Louis to keep Brassard? I can't even continue this.

Then don't. You want to talk about handcuffing contracts? Stepan at $6.5 x 8 and Staal at $6 x 8 and MSL at a multi-year over 35 contract would be a far larger handcuff and it isn't even close.

DiJock94
07-24-2014, 01:54 PM
No need to get nasty dude. So give Brassard one year and then what? If Miller or Lindberg suck, what do we do?

Either re negotiate with Brassard or look to UFA.

RangersFan
07-24-2014, 01:58 PM
Either re negotiate with Brassard or look to UFA.

AKA overpay an aging center?

DiJock94
07-24-2014, 02:02 PM
Your talking about paying Brassard what hes worth on the open market 5.5 for 5 right now

RangersFan
07-24-2014, 02:05 PM
Your talking about paying Brassard what hes worth on the open market 5.5 for 5 right now

Thats fine with me

Pete
07-24-2014, 02:05 PM
Folks, we knew the whole season that just passed that they had to win this year or next year before major changes come. They are going to have a tight fit signing Stepan, MSL, Hagelin and Staal, and it really got nothing to do with giving Brassard a $1.5 million raise.

If, after next year, you are going with JT Miller as your 2nd line option behind Stepan — Well then you may as well move Klein, Staal, Hagelin, DBoyle, etc. because your team isn't going to be very good, anyway.

DiJock94
07-24-2014, 02:09 PM
Thats fine with me

but what im saying is why not pay him that deal or one very similar next year? hypothetically speaking letting brassard walk next year "IF" a player is good enough to fill his role can almost guarantee us keeping everybody else (Stepan, Zuccarello, Staal, Hagelin, St. Louis) all of whom are better more impactful hockey players.

Phil in Absentia
07-24-2014, 02:20 PM
Either re negotiate with Brassard or look to UFA.

Yeah, here's the thing, dude. $5M~ is the going rate for a fifty-point second line player as a UFA. It doesn't matter who you are talking about. They are all going to fluctuate around or over it, with only a small selection of players coming in under it.

With Brassard, you are talking about letting him get to UFA at the age of 27. Fine. He walks. So you go to the UFA well to fill the void? What player are you getting at less than the $5.5M who is going to give you the same production?

Here's your UFA crop of centers available next off-season:

http://www.capgeek.com/free-agents/?year_id=2015&team_id=-1&position_id=C&fa_type_id=2

Among guys who are at least close to 30, Spezza, Krejci and Vermette are all going to make at least $5.5M. In the case of Spezza and Krejci, significantly more.

You have to understand that this is the cost of doing business when UFA-eligibility comes into the picture. If you don't like and/or want Brassard, fine. Just say it and we can move past this without issue. The problem is you are trying to paint a picture of options available to the Rangers that doesn't exist, whether it's Miller or another internal center option, or the UFA market.

Pete
07-24-2014, 02:23 PM
but what im saying is why not pay him that deal or one very similar next year? hypothetically speaking letting brassard walk next year "IF" a player is good enough to fill his role can almost guarantee us keeping everybody else (Stepan, Zuccarello, Staal, Hagelin, St. Louis) all of whom are better more impactful hockey players.

I think you severely undervalue Brassard and what he brings on the PP and in the playoffs.

DiJock94
07-24-2014, 02:28 PM
Yeah, here's the thing, dude. $5M~ is the going rate for a fifty-point second line player as a UFA. It doesn't matter who you are talking about. They are all going to fluctuate around or over it, with only a small selection of players coming in under it.

With Brassard, you are talking about letting him get to UFA at the age of 27. Fine. He walks. So you go to the UFA well to fill the void? What player are you getting at less than the $5.5M who is going to give you the same production?

Here's your UFA crop of centers available next off-season:

http://www.capgeek.com/free-agents/?year_id=2015&team_id=-1&position_id=C&fa_type_id=2

Among guys who are at least close to 30, Spezza, Krejci and Vermette are all going to make at least $5.5M. In the case of Spezza and Krejci, significantly more.

You have to understand that this is the cost of doing business when UFA-eligibility comes into the picture. If you don't like and/or want Brassard, fine. Just say it and we can move past this without issue. The problem is you are trying to paint a picture of options available to the Rangers that doesn't exist, whether it's Miller or another internal center option, or the UFA market.

Once again you can not say you know where Miller will be one year from now. Look at Kreider it finally clicked for him now thinking of taking him out of the top six is a ludicrous thought. Now i doubt Vermette will be that high but even if he is. Mike Fisher Derek Roy Mike Ribiero will be much less than 5.5 per and should cover Brasssards point totals without issue. Hypothetically speaking now im just spitballing we extend Staal but lose Brassard, from all reports Skjei is already pro ready. So just for shits and giggles you move Moore Skjei or Allen or a package of all the above because we have a logjam for a cap friendly center like Anisimov

Pete
07-24-2014, 02:30 PM
Once again you can not say you know where Miller will be one year from now. Look at Kreider it finally clicked for him now thinking of taking him out of the top six is a ludicrous thought. Now i doubt Vermette will be that high but even if he is. Mike Fisher Derek Roy Mike Ribiero will be much less than 5.5 per and should cover Brasssards point totals without issue. Hypothetically speaking now im just spitballing we extend Staal but lose Brassard, from all reports Skjei is already pro ready. So just for shits and giggles you move Moore Skjei or Allen or a package of all the above because we have a logjam for a cap friendly center like Anisimov

How is AA an upgrade over Brassard?

You know yo hate a player when you start posting outlandish and unrealistic scenarios just to move said player. :palm:

DiJock94
07-24-2014, 02:33 PM
Im not talking about an upgrade over brassard. im talking about value of the contract in relation to the player and how it affects the rest of the team. Anisimov and St. Louis is better in retrospect than Brassard and Fast.

Phil in Absentia
07-24-2014, 02:34 PM
Once again you can not say you know where Miller will be one year from now. Look at Kreider it finally clicked for him now thinking of taking him out of the top six is a ludicrous thought. Now i doubt Vermette will be that high but even if he is. Mike Fisher Derek Roy Mike Ribiero will be much less than 5.5 per and should cover Brasssards point totals without issue. Hypothetically speaking now im just spitballing we extend Staal but lose Brassard, from all reports Skjei is already pro ready. So just for shits and giggles you move Moore Skjei or Allen or a package of all the above because we have a logjam for a cap friendly center like Anisimov

You're right, I can't, but I can tell you that even with a breakout year, that's a substantial risk to take in hoping that (a) it's not a flash in the pan, and that (b) he can sustain it for the foreseeable future. That's not a risk I would take, and I doubt it's one Sather would either. You'd have to see a phenomenal year out of him, which is just not a realistic expectation to carry.

Fisher, Roy and Ribiero will all be at or over 35. Very important to note, as they're likely still going to want long-term or multi-year contracts. Maybe they give you the same point structure (I'd argue not in Fisher and Roy's case, but I don't want to get into that here, as it doesn't matter), but with the concern over their age, your window with them is substantially smaller than it is with Brassard, who would be 27. In almost every case I can think of, if I'm presented two players of equal production, one of whom is 27, the other 35, I'm taking the 27-year old.

And Anisimov won't be cap friendly either. Not when he hits UFA in 2016. Nor is he an upgrade or even on par with Brassard. He's actually a step backwards.

Pete
07-24-2014, 02:35 PM
So we should downgrade our 2nd line center position to accommodate a 40 year old player...And AA is a UFA in July 2016 anyway?

DiJock94
07-24-2014, 02:37 PM
i just picked Anisimov as a cap friendly contract. it doesnt have to be him specifically.

DiJock94
07-24-2014, 02:39 PM
You're right, I can't, but I can tell you that even with a breakout year, that's a substantial risk to take in hoping that (a) it's not a flash in the pan, and that (b) he can sustain it for the foreseeable future. That's not a risk I would take, and I doubt it's one Sather would either. You'd have to see a phenomenal year out of him, which is just not a realistic expectation to carry.

Fisher, Roy and Ribiero will all be at or over 35. Very important to note, as they're likely still going to want long-term or multi-year contracts. Maybe they give you the same point structure (I'd argue not in Fisher and Roy's case, but I don't want to get into that here, as it doesn't matter), but with the concern over their age, your window with them is substantially smaller than it is with Brassard, who would be 27. In almost every case I can think of, if I'm presented two players of equal production, one of whom is 27, the other 35, I'm taking the 27-year old.

And Anisimov won't be cap friendly either. Not when he hits UFA in 2016. Nor is he an upgrade or even on par with Brassard. He's actually a step backwards.

You are right but at the end of next year after choosing for a one year arbitration deal keeping Brassard over someone else like Staal St louis Stepan Hagelin or Zuccs would still be an option we could explore.

Phil in Absentia
07-24-2014, 02:44 PM
You are right but at the end of next year after choosing for a one year arbitration deal keeping Brassard over someone else like Staal St louis Stepan Hagelin or Zuccs would still be an option we could explore.

And probably not a very smart one. MSL, much as I love him, will be forty years old. That can't be understated. Great as his career has been, when your organization starts moving or walking away from young, productive players without a history of injury like Brassard just to accommodate a guy who is basically year-to-year from retirement, you are in a bad, bad way.

Staal has a long and tumultuous history with significant injury issues, and is going to encroach on $6M annually and Hagelin will be signing a long-term extension, likely in the range of $4-4.5M annually. Zuccarello is going to cost similarly to Hagelin, though in his case, I'd gladly award it to him.

At the end of the day, you are going out of your way to keep older, potentially less productive players on your roster over a 27-year old 50-point center, and I wish I knew why.

Puck Head
07-24-2014, 02:44 PM
Well I'm happy to hear Moore will be signed to a very manageable contract.

DiJock94
07-24-2014, 02:47 PM
And probably not a very smart one. MSL, much as I love him, will be forty years old. That can't be understated. Great as his career has been, when your organization starts moving or walking away from young, productive players without a history of injury like Brassard just to accommodate a guy who is basically year-to-year from retirement, you are in a bad, bad way.

Staal has a long and tumultuous history with significant injury issues, and is going to encroach on $6M annually and Hagelin will be signing a long-term extension, likely in the range of $4-4.5M annually. Zuccarello is going to cost similarly to Hagelin, though in his case, I'd gladly award it to him.

At the end of the day, you are going out of your way to keep older, potentially less productive players on your roster over a 27-year old 50-point center, and I wish I knew why.

you misread my comment i think. my point is that if Brassard isnt giving you a discount why sign him long term this year? We could give him this deal next year while letting MSL go.

Phil in Absentia
07-24-2014, 02:53 PM
you misread my comment i think. my point is that if Brassard isnt giving you a discount why sign him long term this year? We could give him this deal next year while letting MSL go.

So you are OK with the idea of giving Brassard $5.5M, just not this year? I mean, you understand that the figure we're talking about here ($5.2M to $5.6M) isn't going to change, right? Even if you give him a one-year arbitration award, we're still going to be talking about a long-term extension with him in January for the same numbers we're talking about here. So I don't really see the point in foregoing it, unless you think the team is really going to need the extra $1M this year.

DiJock94
07-24-2014, 02:57 PM
I dont want him at 5.5 no, but if we can decide simply between him or MSL at years end id rather do that. In my opinion Hagelin Zucc Stepan and Staal have priority over Brassard for a long term deal, and it would be much easier to make these decisions next year instead of being locked into Brassard

Phil in Absentia
07-24-2014, 03:13 PM
I dont want him at 5.5 no, but if we can decide simply between him or MSL at years end id rather do that. In my opinion Hagelin Zucc Stepan and Staal have priority over Brassard for a long term deal, and it would be much easier to make these decisions next year instead of being locked into Brassard

Well, there's no getting around the fact he's getting $5.2 to $5.6M per year. They know the player he is, and even with a small dip or increase in production, that number won't wane easily.

TwoMinutesForNothing
07-24-2014, 03:27 PM
It would be a big surprise to the organization if Miller ever became a number 2 center and even if he did produce those points, he is not a playmaker. If Lindberg became a 2nd line center it would shock the world. This team needs playmakers in order to succeed, Brassard is one of them.

Staal is solid but at some point in the next couple years he will probably have to be moved to make room for Skjei, who projects to be a superior player. That will solve any cap problems as well.

DiJock94
07-24-2014, 03:35 PM
i understand that but in a cap world you cant get fleeced by players trying to make more money than they're worth. Hes a 45 point player plain and simple. I feel like hes being overvalued on this forum by a lot. St. Louis is signed for 5.5 and he recently won the Art Ross trophy.

Phil in Absentia
07-24-2014, 03:41 PM
i understand that but in a cap world you cant get fleeced by players trying to make more money than they're worth. Hes a 45 point player plain and simple. I feel like hes being overvalued on this forum by a lot. St. Louis is signed for 5.5 and he recently won the Art Ross trophy.

Sure you can. It happens every year. Most teams, in fact, get fleeced by UFA players. It's just how the NHL world works there. The smart teams make up for that fact by drafting well, which the Rangers did for a while. It's why they were able to get such great cost-controlled production out of Stepan, Hagelin, McDonagh, etc. The problem is, they've gotten into a nasty habit the last three years of dealing picks for players, and are now starting to feel the impact of that with so little left in the pipeline to help at the NHL level.

I'm afraid it's only going to get worse in that respect, too, because realistically they have one more shot with this group to win a Cup this coming season. After that, provided they fail to, I get the sense they're going to be forced to walk away from and/or trade a handful of players.

MSL signed a great contract, no doubt, but also signed it over the age of 35, and for a team he had played on for eight or nine years prior, and years ago under the old CBA with a lesser inflation rate on a smaller cap. All of these things matter. It's easy to just point to him and say "See! That guy took less than he's worth, so you should too!" Unfortunately, that's just not how the market functions. MSL, in that regard, is an exception to the rule.

Pete
07-24-2014, 03:44 PM
i understand that but in a cap world you cant get fleeced by players trying to make more money than they're worth. Hes a 45 point player plain and simple. I feel like hes being overvalued on this forum by a lot. St. Louis is signed for 5.5 and he recently won the Art Ross trophy.

Dude, you're all over the place here. MSL signed at $5.625, 3 years ago and has made almost $70 million dollars in his career. He was 36 when he signed that deal. Brassard is 27, entering his prime, has made $15 million, and $5.5 is the going rate for players of his ilk —*therefore that is what he is "worth", even if you don't agree with that for whatever reason.

I'm interested as to how you defend signing Stepan and "must-do" and are so quick to run from Brassard when one is playoff performer and the other's production decreases in the post season.

RichieNextel305
07-24-2014, 03:45 PM
I would sign up Brassard for $5.2-5.5 or so over 3-5 years for sure. He's good, has proven chemistry with a winger we hope to keep long-term, and most importantly, he is a big-game player. The spotlight never seems to scare him, which is a positive here.

DiJock94
07-24-2014, 03:47 PM
Ok you are right MSL is an exception I would love Brassard back at his actual value which at 5.5 he would be overpaid. Bozak and Little are to very similar players at similar contracts that I have looked to and pointed to saying that THAT is Brassards fair market value. 5.5 would mean he is only coming in at 500k less than Taylor Hall and Tyler Seguin. He doesn't even deserve to be spoken about in the same sentences as these guys.

Phil in Absentia
07-24-2014, 03:47 PM
I would sign up Brassard for $5.2-5.5 or so over 3-5 years for sure. He's good, has proven chemistry with a winger we hope to keep long-term, and most importantly, he is a big-game player. The spotlight never seems to scare him, which is a positive here.

Honestly, that's actually his most valuable asset. I'd be really wary of walking away from guys who show up big in the playoffs. We already lost Strĺlman and Boyle this summer, both of whom were important guys who brought it in the post-season. I'm not sure how many more of these guys we can afford to let go of, especially in place of keeping ones who have never had great playoff runs (Stepan, Staal).

Phil in Absentia
07-24-2014, 03:49 PM
Ok you are right MSL is an exception I would love Brassard back at his actual value which at 5.5 he would be overpaid. Bozak and Little are to very similar players at similar contracts that I have looked to and pointed to saying that THAT is Brassards fair market value. 5.5 would mean he is only coming in at 500k less than Taylor Hall and Tyler Seguin.

Who do not compare to him in any way whatsoever, least of all contract type, time of signing or age. They don't belong in this conversation. If you are going to compare him to players, stick to his peers by age and contract type. Bozak would be OK there.

DiJock94
07-24-2014, 03:52 PM
Who do not compare to him in any way whatsoever, least of all contract type, time of signing or age. They don't belong in this conversation. If you are going to compare him to players, stick to his peers by age and contract type. Bozak would be OK there.

That's my point Bozak and Little are the closest comparison I can think of and they're 4.2 and 4.7

Phil in Absentia
07-24-2014, 03:55 PM
That's my point Bozak and Little are the closest comparison I can think of and they're 4.2 and 4.7

They're not his only comparables.

Grabovski is 0.58 P/G the last four seasons. He has a $5M cap hit.
Bolland is 0.5 P/G the last four seasons. He has a $5.5M cap hit.
Zajac is 0.49 P/G the last four seasons. He has a $5.75M cap hit.

Sam Gagner should be in the mix as well, and I think he's at $4.9M, and I'd put Valtteri Filppula in as well, who is at $5M.

DiJock94
07-24-2014, 03:59 PM
I meant they were the closest in comparison I think Gagne is a pretty good contract to point to. The only thing with Grabovski is that he's older and was a UFA and could leverage teams against eachother to drive the price up. Bolland I think is a really bad contract, not for him he made out like a bandit. And Zajac had a few pretty big years and he's a bit older but yea this lot of deals is the best it's gonna get I just don't see him at the high end of this group of guys.

Slobberknocker
07-24-2014, 04:01 PM
would you just goto arbitration let him get what he gets and roll the dice with him? like i said in another thread throwing around 6 year 5.5 million deals can be a disaster if the player does not live upto the contract.

jrc64
07-24-2014, 04:03 PM
Well Dubinsky just got a $6 million deal, as did Cally, for hovering around the 50-55 point mark, so I'm not sure how $5 million for 45 points is an issue.

Considering those deals, it makes Thorntons contract look like an absolute steal. $6.7 Mill for 70 pts plus player who still gets it done.

Pete
07-24-2014, 04:04 PM
Considering those deals, it makes Thorntons contract look like an absolute steal. $6.7 Mill for 70 pts plus player who still gets it done.

He's already made shit ton of money.

I've decided I'm going to start looking at these contracts in terms of career payout for the player rather than cap-hit.

jrc64
07-24-2014, 04:12 PM
He's already made shit ton of money.

I've decided I'm going to start looking at these contracts in terms of career payout for the player rather than cap-hit.

Just comparing the dollars being paid for the current level of production. I'm not concerned with career earnings here.

Phil in Absentia
07-24-2014, 04:13 PM
Just comparing the dollars being paid for the current level of production. I'm not concerned with career earnings here.

You should be. They matter.

A guy like Brassard, who has made like $15M over his career, is far more likely to cash in over a guy who is 37 and has already made $70M+.

fletch
07-24-2014, 04:13 PM
When I think about a player I think about comparables around the league, potential replacements (through trade, RFA, UFA), and team roster. Cap manuevers have forced the Rangers to get younger. With current team composition, signing Brassard to a multi-year deal for 5+ million dollars per year makes sense to me. And if you're talking a 3-5 year deal, I'd rather go 5 years in the 5-5.3 million dollar range than 3 years in the 5.5-6.0 million dollar range (per year)... by going extra years I'd expect a lower cap hit per year.

jrc64
07-24-2014, 04:25 PM
You should be. They matter.

A guy like Brassard, who has made like $15M over his career, is far more likely to cash in over a guy who is 37 and has already made $70M+.

If Thornton wasn't STILL putting up 70 point seasons, I can see it. But the guys production has not dropped off all that much. 1.18 PPG NHL player between 2006-10, and hes been a .90 PPG NHL player since 2010. Coming of a 76 pt. season last year. If the guy was putting up 45-50 pts, then I get the point, but when the CURRENT production level is still there, I have no issue comparing the dollars being currently spent on the current level of production I'm getting.

Pete
07-24-2014, 04:28 PM
If Thornton wasn't STILL putting up 70 point seasons, I can see it. But the guys production has not dropped off all that much. 1.18 PPG NHL player between 2006-10, and hes been a .90 PPG NHL player since 2010. Coming of a 76 pt. season last year. If the guy was putting up 45-50 pts, then I get the point, but when the CURRENT production level is still there, I have no issue comparing the dollars being currently spent on the current level of production I'm getting.If Thornton was a 29 year old UFA this year, instead of a 35 year old extendee, he'd likely have gotten close to $8 million over 7 or 8 years.

jrc64
07-24-2014, 04:33 PM
If Thornton was a 29 year old UFA this year, instead of a 35 year old extendee, he'd likely have gotten close to $8 million over 7 or 8 years.

I'd be real curious to see what he would of gotten if he was a UFA this year even at his age. Hard to argue with the numbers. He may be 35, but .90 PPG is still .90 PPG and he still gets you that. Good discusssion though!

Gorilla Salad
07-24-2014, 07:19 PM
Am I nuts, or am I the only one that thinks Brassard is well over valued at $4-5MM at this point in his career?

He's never scored 20 goals in an NHL season, Never hit the 50 point plateau and has been a - or break even player his entire career (yes, the +/- stat sucks, but it's still tracked so I'm citing it).

I personally am not that in love with Derrick Brassard to tie up that much of an investment in him at this point in his career. Yes, he is only 26, but I see him in the vein of Stephan-lite. Yes, they are different, but production wise, eh.

Again, am I nuts or what? I just don't see the justification for a $4-5MM deal for this guy!

EDIT: WOW!, I went back and read all the posts in the thread and considered all the pro and anti Brassard thoughts - and I must be dumb or something because I personally just don't see this guy as a $5mm/yr player!

CreaseCrusader91
07-24-2014, 07:43 PM
Here's my take on Brassard and what he's worth.

I am going to be using some numbers here to ballpark what he could produce based on his previous and potential ice time. These are not exact, they are a mere estimation, but after going through the data it appears there is enough to suggest he would be trending upward.

Right now he is the No. 2 center, and most likely a No. 1 PP guy. Last year he was a No. 3 center and a No. 2 PP guy. With Richards gone, Brassard could become the new full shift PP guy, and that will only help increase his power-play production.

If not, I reckon he plays about 1:30 of the 2:00 man advantage. So logic would say; more ice time, more opportunity, more points. This season he put up 7-11-18 on the power play while averaging 2:31 a game on the power play, and his total PP time for the season was 204:53. Pretty decent, but it could be better.

Richards was at 3:40 a game, 301:39 for the season and tallied 5-14-19. In that extra 97:14 of total ice time—and extra 1:09 a game— he tallied a lone extra point. His Points Per 60 on the PP was clocked at 3.82.

Brassard, on the other hand, tallied 5.30 Points Per 60 on the PP, second behind Brian Boyle at 6.81. So as I said before, if you increase his ice time on the power play, his numbers should increase.

For all intents and purposes he was the most efficient/productive forward on the power play, and he was already getting less ice time than Richards, so this year could be an explosive year. Even more so with Dan Boyle likely being on his unit, and that will help Brassard, because everything won't have to flow through him.

Conservatively, with the increased ice time, I would say his PP production could increase from 18 points to at least 26 or so if he maintains pace.
Why? Using his average of 5.30 PP/60, I am awarding him five extra points assuming he at the very least adds an extra 60:00 minutes of total PP ice time now that Richards is gone.

He could add as much as 90:00 more minutes, so by factoring in that extra 30:00, so he adds 2.65 more PP/60.

So in short

204:53 in 2013-14, 5.30 PP/60= 18 points
*294:53 in 2014-15, 5.30 PP/60= 26 points. 18+7.95= 25.95 but I rounded up. If you subtract those extra 3 points, he still finishes with 23 power play points, and that's a solid number.

This is an estimation, and one that could or could not happen, but it is one that is likely IMO.

-----------------

So in terms of overall production, what could we see?

Lets look at his last five seasons, the first two equal a combined 48 games.

09-10: 36 in 79
10-11: 47 in 74
11-12: 41 in 74
12-13: 29 in 47, or 50 in 81
13-14: 45 in 81

So if you add all his gains, and drops in point totals from year to year, you get a total of +7. He went up 9, down 6, up 9 and down five when you calculate over the course of an 82 game season.

What that tells us is that he generally increases instead of decreases. Considering he is 27 and we are in his prime years, it makes sense to say he could push the needle to 50 points a year, maybe 55 when you factor in his potential increase in PP numbers.

Therefore, you have a 27 year old center that would be in his prime years at the 50-55 point range. When you factor out this year as an RFA, and potential RFA years and other comparables cited earlier, he is worth his asking price.

TL/DR: Numbers show he was best PP guy/60 last year, he is getting more time this year so PPP should increase. Over last five years his Y2Y point total increase is +7, so it is fair to think he is consistent enough to be a 50 point player here.

http://www.extraskater.com/players/standard?sit=pp&sort=p&team=nyr&type=rate

The Dude
07-24-2014, 08:29 PM
I think the problem I have in paying Brassard, is that it locks him up, then next year they have to lock up Stepan. I like both of these players, but they are BOTH essentially 2nd line centers.

Team needs better. One has to go. I myself like Stepan more, because I think we have yet to see his best. Where I think Brassard is pretty much at where hes going to top off. Not that hes not good right now.

Who gets you more in return?
Who is worth keeping at their cap hit?
Is Stepan going to get better?
Is Brassard going to decline after his pay day?
Should they lock up two 2nd line centers for the next 5 years?
If they lock up Brassard, and the team flops this season.. then what?

TwoMinutesForNothing
07-24-2014, 08:36 PM
Here's my take on Brassard and what he's worth.

I am going to be using some numbers here to ballpark what he could produce based on his previous and potential ice time. These are not exact, they are a mere estimation, but after going through the data it appears there is enough to suggest he would be trending upward.

Right now he is the No. 2 center, and most likely a No. 1 PP guy. Last year he was a No. 3 center and a No. 2 PP guy. With Richards gone, Brassard could become the new full shift PP guy, and that will only help increase his power-play production.

If not, I reckon he plays about 1:30 of the 2:00 man advantage. So logic would say; more ice time, more opportunity, more points. This season he put up 7-11-18 on the power play while averaging 2:31 a game on the power play, and his total PP time for the season was 204:53. Pretty decent, but it could be better.

Richards was at 3:40 a game, 301:39 for the season and tallied 5-14-19. In that extra 97:14 of total ice time—and extra 1:09 a game— he tallied a lone extra point. His Points Per 60 on the PP was clocked at 3.82.

Brassard, on the other hand, tallied 5.30 Points Per 60 on the PP, second behind Brian Boyle at 6.81. So as I said before, if you increase his ice time on the power play, his numbers should increase.

For all intents and purposes he was the most efficient/productive forward on the power play, and he was already getting less ice time than Richards, so this year could be an explosive year. Even more so with Dan Boyle likely being on his unit, and that will help Brassard, because everything won't have to flow through him.

Conservatively, with the increased ice time, I would say his PP production could increase from 18 points to at least 26 or so if he maintains pace.
Why? Using his average of 5.30 PP/60, I am awarding him five extra points assuming he at the very least adds an extra 60:00 minutes of total PP ice time now that Richards is gone.

He could add as much as 90:00 more minutes, so by factoring in that extra 30:00, so he adds 2.65 more PP/60.

So in short

204:53 in 2013-14, 5.30 PP/60= 18 points
*294:53 in 2014-15, 5.30 PP/60= 26 points. 18+7.95= 25.95 but I rounded up. If you subtract those extra 3 points, he still finishes with 23 power play points, and that's a solid number.

This is an estimation, and one that could or could not happen, but it is one that is likely IMO.

-----------------

So in terms of overall production, what could we see?

Lets look at his last five seasons, the first two equal a combined 48 games.

09-10: 36 in 79
10-11: 47 in 74
11-12: 41 in 74
12-13: 29 in 47, or 50 in 81
13-14: 45 in 81

So if you add all his gains, and drops in point totals from year to year, you get a total of +7. He went up 9, down 6, up 9 and down five when you calculate over the course of an 82 game season.

What that tells us is that he generally increases instead of decreases. Considering he is 27 and we are in his prime years, it makes sense to say he could push the needle to 50 points a year, maybe 55 when you factor in his potential increase in PP numbers.

Therefore, you have a 27 year old center that would be in his prime years at the 50-55 point range. When you factor out this year as an RFA, and potential RFA years and other comparables cited earlier, he is worth his asking price.

TL/DR: Numbers show he was best PP guy/60 last year, he is getting more time this year so PPP should increase. Over last five years his Y2Y point total increase is +7, so it is fair to think he is consistent enough to be a 50 point player here.

http://www.extraskater.com/players/standard?sit=pp&sort=p&team=nyr&type=rate

I don't see how he is going to get onto the first PP unit. Richards played the point, which is why he got those minutes. Boyle will be filling that role and Stepan will be on the top unit at center because he's right handed. AV likes to have 2 right handed shots on each unit because he says that 70% of all PP goals are scored with 2 right-handed shots on the ice. That means Boyle and Stepan on unit 1 and Boyle/Girardi and Stempniak on unit 2. Brassard will likely center that 2nd unit. Unless you think Stempniak and Brass will be the top unit.

RangersFan
07-24-2014, 08:39 PM
I think the problem I have in paying Brassard, is that it locks him up, then next year they have to lock up Stepan. I like both of these players, but they are BOTH essentially 2nd line centers.

Team needs better. One has to go. I myself like Stepan more, because I think we have yet to see his best. Where I think Brassard is pretty much at where hes going to top off. Not that hes not good right now.

Who gets you more in return?
Who is worth keeping at their cap hit?
Is Stepan going to get better?
Is Brassard going to decline after his pay day?
Should they lock up two 2nd line centers for the next 5 years?
If they lock up Brassard, and the team flops this season.. then what?

Stepan is actually a 1st line center. He isnt no top tier 1 center but he is a good two way 1st line defensive center

CreaseCrusader91
07-24-2014, 08:39 PM
I don't see how he is going to get onto the first PP unit. Richards played the point, which is why he got those minutes. Boyle will be filling that role and Stepan will be on the top unit at center because he's right handed. AV likes to have 2 right handed shots on each unit because he says that 70% of all PP goals are scored with 2 right-handed shots on the ice. That means Boyle and Stepan on unit 1 and Boyle/Girardi and Stempniak on unit 2. Brassard will likely center that 2nd unit. Unless you think Stempniak and Brass will be the top unit.

I think he will be on the first unit because he clearly was their best PP guy.

Zucc, Brass, Stempniak
Boyle-MSL (TB04LYFE)

TwoMinutesForNothing
07-24-2014, 08:41 PM
I think he will be on the first unit because he clearly was their best PP guy.

Zucc, Brass, St. Louis
Boyle-Stempniak

You need a righty up front. Switch Stemp with Zuc or MSL and maybe that could work, but I just don't see it happening.

The Dude
07-24-2014, 09:00 PM
Stepan is actually a 1st line center. He isnt no top tier 1 center but he is a good two way 1st line defensive center

Two way defensive 1st line center? I dunno man. Sounds like 2nd line center stuck in a 1st line role.

RangersFan
07-24-2014, 09:02 PM
Two way defensive 1st line center? I dunno man. Sounds like 2nd line center stuck in a 1st line role.

We got to the cup with him as the 1st line center, he cant be that bad.

momentum
07-24-2014, 09:05 PM
Brassard really is worth right around 5 mil IMO, go too much above it and it feels like overpayment, go to much under it and it feels like a bargain. I'd offer him 5.2 mil per year give or take a smidge for a long term contract like 5 years. I like him and think 5.2 mil for him down the road might look pretty good actually. Did it state somewhere what he's asking for? I might have missed it.

momentum
07-24-2014, 09:06 PM
Stepan is actually a 1st line center. He isnt no top tier 1 center but he is a good two way 1st line defensive center

Stepan is a 2nd line center, he's only 1st on our team because we don't have a real topline center.

RangersFan
07-24-2014, 09:07 PM
Stepan is a 2nd line center, he's only 1st on our team because we don't have a real topline center.
Whats a "real top line center"?

momentum
07-24-2014, 09:10 PM
We got to the cup with him as the 1st line center, he cant be that bad.

First of all I don't know anyone saying Stepan is bad.
Secondly sometimes you can have success DESPITE of something rather than BECAUSE of it, I think this is the case with Stepan in this case who had far from some kind of monster playoffs and many times looked as outmatched as he really is.
We went as far as we did DESPITE not having a real topline center and DESPITE Nash being horrendous. Much of our success came from goaltending and depth guys stepping up such as the zucc line and guys like Boyle and Moore and Pouliot etc.

RangersFan
07-24-2014, 09:12 PM
First of all I don't know anyone saying Stepan is bad.
Secondly sometimes you can have success DESPITE of something rather than BECAUSE of it, I think this is the case with Stepan in this case who had far from some kind of monster playoffs and many times looked as outmatched as he really is.
We went as far as we did DESPITE not having a real topline center and DESPITE Nash being horrendous. Much of our success came from goaltending and depth guys stepping up such as the zucc line and guys like Boyle and Moore and Pouliot etc.

Exactly so imagine if Nash scored some goals. Our centers actually helped us reach the cup.

momentum
07-24-2014, 09:14 PM
Whats a "real top line center"?

One that has the talent and skill to effectively play the position. Stepan lacks in almost every area, he lacks size and is physically weak, he's a weak skater, doesn't have a great shot, quite bad at face offs. He's as effective as he is because he's smart with good hockey sense and is a decent passer.

TwoMinutesForNothing
07-24-2014, 09:16 PM
Maybe Stepan will actually work out this offseason for the first time ever. He has to be curious about what it's like to lift a weight.

The Dude
07-24-2014, 09:28 PM
We got to the cup with him as the 1st line center, he cant be that bad.

Nash scored how many goals in the playoffs? He cant be that bad either. Right?

Again things fell into place that GOT them to the finals. Yes they finally took advantage of those breaks and made the best of it. But we cant deny that the team that got there was flawed. And this isnt even the same team. Some big pieces of that cup run, the guys who jumped on the opportunity to take advantage of the breaks are now gone.

Pouliot had how many big goals?
Strahlman made how many stellar defensive plays and threw how many pace setting hits?
Boyle was Boyle on the pk.
Carcillo had a game winner didn't he? Or at least a big goal.

The Dude
07-24-2014, 09:50 PM
Maybe Stepan will actually work out this offseason for the first time ever. He has to be curious about what it's like to lift a weight.



Nash too. Guy needs power skating lessons. Or is that ignorant to say since hes a legit scorer in this league?

My only major complaint about Stepan is his face off ability along with his lack of ability to set up a quick bang bang play. Everything is this strategic long drawn out tic tack toe play. Holds the puck to long, kinda taking away the pace u would think the team would rather have.

I really like his shot though. Think thats vastly underrated. So much so that I really wanna move him to wing... hmmm maybe keep Brassard, and still go for a top line center?

ThirtyONE
07-24-2014, 09:54 PM
Whats a "real top line center"?

Repped. Been wondering what the hell this means for two years now.

Pete
07-24-2014, 10:00 PM
Two way defensive 1st line center? I dunno man. Sounds like 2nd line center stuck in a 1st line role.

Bingo.

RangersFan
07-24-2014, 10:02 PM
Bingo.

Give me a list of 30 centers better than Stepan if he isnt a 1st line center

Pete
07-24-2014, 10:02 PM
We got to the cup with him as the 1st line center, he cant be that bad.

"We got to the cup"is boot a justification for any thing. That team is gone. The stars aligned fir them last season.

Pete
07-24-2014, 10:03 PM
Give me a list of 30 centers better than Stepan if he isnt a 1st line center

Again with "better". :rolleyes:

RangersFan
07-24-2014, 10:04 PM
Again with "better". :rolleyes:

Not sure what the problem is with better dude

RangersFan
07-24-2014, 10:04 PM
"We got to the cup"is boot a justification for any thing. That team is gone. The stars aligned fir them last season.

They aligned for LA too

TwoMinutesForNothing
07-24-2014, 10:09 PM
Give me a list of 30 centers better than Stepan if he isnt a 1st line center

Here you go.

http://www.nhl.com/ice/playerstats.htm?fetchKey=20142ALLCACALL&sort=avgPointsPerGame&viewName=points

Just take out Jarnkrok.

Pete
07-24-2014, 10:09 PM
Not sure what the problem is with better dude

Chocolate is better than vanilla.

RangersFan
07-24-2014, 10:11 PM
Here you go.

http://www.nhl.com/ice/playerstats.htm?fetchKey=20142ALLCACALL&sort=avgPointsPerGame&viewName=points

Just take out Jarnkrok.

How many of them are true top line centers? If we replaced Stepan with one of them, do we win the cup?

Bozak is not better and Johansen had one good year

RangersFan
07-24-2014, 10:12 PM
Chocolate is better than vanilla.

:) true

TwoMinutesForNothing
07-24-2014, 10:13 PM
How many of them are true top line centers? If we replaced Stepan with one of them, do we win the cup?

Bozak is not better and Johansen had one good year

Probably, cuz most of those guys can skate.

RangersFan
07-24-2014, 10:14 PM
Probably, cuz most of those guys can skate.

Because skating was the reason we lost right? :disappointed:

Respecttheblue
07-24-2014, 10:16 PM
Not a bad idea to lock up Brassard, though I think you have to be concerned about whether or not he can earn that $5 mil for the length of a contract.

I have the same concern. 3 years and keep options open after that?

TwoMinutesForNothing
07-24-2014, 10:19 PM
Because skating was the reason we lost right? :disappointed:

Those guys are all better than Stepan. That's what you wanted. The answer is yes, I would rather have any of them over him and having a better player would give us a better chance to win any game.

RangersFan
07-24-2014, 10:24 PM
Those guys are all better than Stepan. That's what you wanted. The answer is yes, I would rather have any of them over him and having a better player would give us a better chance to win any game.

Not all of them.


You would take Bozak and Nielsen over Stepan? Ok. Agree to disagree

TwoMinutesForNothing
07-24-2014, 10:33 PM
Not all of them.


You would take Bozak and Nielsen over Stepan? Ok. Agree to disagree

Bozak yes. Neilsen probably not, but there's also the players ahead of him on page 2 like Nugent-Hopkins, Sedin, Cammalleri, Hudler, Turris, Jeff Carter. You only asked for 30.

CreaseCrusader91
07-24-2014, 10:35 PM
Bozak yes. Neilsen probably not, but there's also the players ahead of him on page 2 like Nugent-Hopkins, Sedin, Cammalleri, Hudler, Turris, Jeff Carter. You only asked for 30.

You can't be serious? A 28 yr old player that is a mere byproduct of Phil Kessel over a 24 year old with growth in each full season played?\\

Here's a list of Stepan and his close comparables. Still want everyone over him?

http://www.hockey-reference.com/play-index/psl_finder.cgi?request=1&match=single&year_min=2012&year_max=2014&season_start=1&season_end=-1&age_min=0&age_max=99&birth_country=&franch_id=&is_active=Y&is_hof=N&pos=C&handed=&c1stat=points_per_game&c1comp=lt&c1val=.75&c2stat=points&c2comp=gt&c2val=50&c3stat=points&c3comp=lt&c3val=70&c4stat=time_on_ice&c4comp=gt&c4val=20&order_by=points_per_game

RangersFan
07-24-2014, 10:39 PM
Bozak yes. Neilsen probably not, but there's also the players ahead of him on page 2 like Nugent-Hopkins, Sedin, Cammalleri, Hudler, Turris, Jeff Carter. You only asked for 30.

Like i said, agree to disagree.

TwoMinutesForNothing
07-24-2014, 10:42 PM
You can't be serious? A 30 yr old player that is a mere byproduct of Phil Kessel over a 24 year old with growth in each full season played?

He's 28 and yes I personally would rather have him. He's a little bigger, skates better and produces about the same.

Phil in Absentia
07-24-2014, 10:49 PM
"True" is the wrong word to use when describing a number one center. "Better" is. And yes, there are better centers in the league that are better in that role than Stepan.

I forget who said it, but Jeff Marek often mentions on MvsW that if Bobby Holík is your third-line center, you are winning the Stanley Cup. If Bobby Holík is your first-line center, you aren't winning the Stanley Cup. Well, the same applies to Stepan, except he's a second-line center on an ideal team.

CreaseCrusader91
07-24-2014, 10:49 PM
He's 28 and yes I personally would rather have him. He's a little bigger, skates better and produces about the same.

Brain fart on the age. I mean, I know they say size matters but... Stepan is 6'0", 196 and Bozak is 6'1", 195. Stepan is a career 0.67 at 24 and Bozak is a 0.62 at 28, so I'd rather a young player with room for more growth.

CreaseCrusader91
07-24-2014, 10:51 PM
"True" is the wrong word to use when describing a number one center. "Better" is. And yes, there are better centers in the league that are better in that role than Stepan.

I forget who said it, but Jeff Marek often mentions on MvsW that if Bobby Holík is your third-line center, you are winning the Stanley Cup. If Bobby Holík is your first-line center, you aren't winning the Stanley Cup. Well, the same applies to Stepan, except he's a second-line center on an ideal team.

Bobby Holík himself said it. :rofl:

James Lionel Price
07-25-2014, 01:25 AM
Brassard, while never posting more than 45 pts to date, is a very important guy for us. He is entering his prime as well. We should lock him up bc lord knows he will get more on the open market, and we'd have to pay a lot more to get a 26 yr old 2nd line center, 27 yr old, next off season. He will be worth more, should we decide to trade him, with a long term deal. But I'd like to see them lock him up. He has good chemistry with MZA, is fast, and is gifted offensively.

DiJock94
07-25-2014, 07:58 AM
Saying gifted offensively while posting 45 pts doesn't make sense to me. Yes he passes the eye test but for Christs sake Avery posted more pts in a season than brassard

Pete
07-25-2014, 08:36 AM
I think you'd be better off just leaving it as "I don't like Brassard", rather than trying to prove he isn't a capable offensive player. The team is trying to sign him long term. I think they knew what they're doing.

I mean your backup plan for letting him walk was giving JT Miller a second line center spot...he's played 50 or so games in the NHL. I mean come on.

rmc51
07-25-2014, 08:41 AM
Late to the party in this thread but i do one year for Brassard. Reason being is I would rather pay 6-6.25 mill a season for a proven Brassard next offseason than 5.5 a year for an unproven Brassard this offseason.

I would consider 5 mill per at 3-4 years and gamble that he doesnt revert to mediocrity, which is what sums up his career thus far given his skill set. He should be a 60 point player with his skill but he is not.

AmericanJesus
07-25-2014, 08:50 AM
I think you'd be better off just leaving it as "I don't like Brassard", rather than trying to prove he isn't a capable offensive player. The team is trying to sign him long term. I think they knew what they're doing.

I mean your backup plan for letting him walk was giving JT Miller a second line center spot...he's played 50 or so games in the NHL. I mean come on.

I'm getting caught up in this thread and I see this repeated over and over as DiJock's position and it's simply NOT what he's said. He's stated it over and over, but let me try to see if it takes.

These two things are NOT EQUAL:

1) Lets sign Brassard to a 1 year contract and let him walk because JT Miller is our second line center next year.

2) Lets sign Brassard to a 1 year contract and see how JT Miller develops over the year to determine what to do next year.

DiJock is saying #2 over and over again, and the people against his position are arguing with #1. It's a completely dishonest way to debate.

Pete
07-25-2014, 08:59 AM
I'm getting caught up in this thread and I see this repeated over and over as DiJock's position and it's simply NOT what he's said. He's stated it over and over, but let me try to see if it takes.

These two things are NOT EQUAL:

1) Lets sign Brassard to a 1 year contract and let him walk because JT Miller is our second line center next year.

2) Lets sign Brassard to a 1 year contract and see how JT Miller develops over the year to determine what to do next year.

DiJock is saying #2 over and over again, and the people against his position are arguing with #1. It's a completely dishonest way to debate. It is what he said. But who cares?

Either way it's a poor plan based on personal dislike of a player, so I'm not really interested in the semantics. The other names thrown around like Roy and Ribiero...All just so that we don't sign a perfectly capable 27 year old second line player to a fair MARKET VALUE deal?

No, that's what's dishonest. Even mentioning Lindberg or Miller as viable replacements is a huge reach, today. Why not Nieves, too?

Let's not sign a player long term today, so we can potentially pay more to fill the role next year, if by chance our products who are projected as bottom 6 players don't pan out.

Sounds legit.

AmericanJesus
07-25-2014, 09:18 AM
It is what he said. But who cares?

Either way it's a poor plan based on personal dislike of a player, so I'm not really interested in the semantics. The other names thrown around like Roy and Ribiero...All just so that we don't sign a perfectly capable 27 year old second line player to a fair MARKET VALUE deal?

No, that's what's dishonest. Even mentioning Lindberg or Miller as viable replacements is a huge reach, today. Why not Nieves, too?

Let's not sign a player long term today, so we can potentially pay more to fill the role next year, if by chance our products who are projected as bottom 6 players don't pan out.

Sounds legit.

I must have missed it where he said he dislikes Brassard. Just because he's against signing a player to a specific contract amount and length doesn't mean he dislikes the player. That's a false arguement.

As to what's a good plan, that's what we debate here. You, or I or anyone don't have THE ONLY WORKABLE PLAN. We're all just arm chairing. Educated guessing.

And you're doing it yet again. "Even mentioning Lindberg or Miller as viable replacements is a huge reach, today." It's not about today. It's about next year. This year we'd presumably have Stepan - Brassard - Miller/Lindberg - Moore down the middle, the exact same center lineup you're probably looking at whether Brassard signs for 1 year or 8. No different this year. And didn't you just get off saying that our window was likely last year and this year before the team looks vastly different? So his plan addresses your window. Where you're actually disagreeing then is the future, starting next year.

As to how much it costs to fill that 2nd line center position next year, there are three possibilities. It might cost $5.5M for Brassard if we lock him up long term today. It might cost $6M for Brassard/UFA after a 1 year deal for Brassard now. Or it might cost $2-$3M for JT Miller or Oscar Lindberg on a bridge deal.

rmc51
07-25-2014, 09:26 AM
Obviously from reading a good portion of this thread, some feel Brassard is a proven 2nd line commodity while others dont.

Pros:
Skilled with the puck, creative on PP
No dip in performance come playoff time
Our 2nd best center and centered arguably our best line last season
In his prime

Cons:
Has underachieved throughout his career given his puck skills and ability (should be a 60 pt player)
Average defensively
Way below average at faceoffs, a career .463
Not guaranteed to up production

Pete
07-25-2014, 09:47 AM
I must have missed it where he said he dislikes Brassard. Just because he's against signing a player to a specific contract amount and length doesn't mean he dislikes the player. That's a false arguement.Then you must have missed the obvious. It's not a false argument. It's an argument based on what I'm picking up from his posts. Do I have to actually say "I don't like Callahan" for people to know I didn't like Callahan?

And frankly, he's a big boy, he can defend his own position.


As to what's a good plan, that's what we debate here. You, or I or anyone don't have THE ONLY WORKABLE PLAN. We're all just arm chairing. Educated guessing.Yea, who said otherwise?


And you're doing it yet again. "Even mentioning Lindberg or Miller as viable replacements is a huge reach, today." It's not about today. It's about next year. I'm not doing anything, again. What you're doing is misunderstanding a post. So don't put that on me. Let me clarify, and we'll see if it sticks. Today, mentioning Miller or Lindberg as possible replacements for Brassard next year, is unwise. Lindberg is projected as a 4th liner. Miller is projected as a fringe top 6 player, and currently, he's in the coach's dog house last we heard. So, again, to simply give Brassard a 1 year deal on the off chance that either of those players will somehow morph into a second line center is unwise.


This year we'd presumably have Stepan - Brassard - Miller/Lindberg - Moore down the middle, the exact same center lineup you're probably looking at whether Brassard signs for 1 year or 8. No different this year. And didn't you just get off saying that our window was likely last year and this year before the team looks vastly different? So his plan addresses your window. Where you're actually disagreeing then is the future, starting next year.Exactly why I feel the plan is terrible. Why would you sign Brassard for 1 year? It doesn't make any sense. Sign him to a multi year deal, and if somehow we can fill the second line center role from within (still waiting for that viable plan), then you have an asset under contract to trade. Giving Brassard a 1 year deal just makes him a UFA. Then what have you got? Your dick in your hand. Signing Brassard to a 1 year deal doesn't make any sense, from any perspective.


As to how much it costs to fill that 2nd line center position next year, there are three possibilities. It might cost $5.5M for Brassard if we lock him up long term today. It might cost $6M for Brassard/UFA after a 1 year deal for Brassard now. Or it might cost $2-$3M for JT Miller or Oscar Lindberg on a bridge deal.Since we're playing "what if" with Miller and Lindberg, what if Brassard has a 65 point season, and the 2015 UFA center crop right now is Spezza, Krejci, and a steaming pile of shit — now we're trying to get Brassard at $7 million because there's a bidding war. And we could have had him at $5.2x5.

Again, sounds legit.

AmericanJesus
07-25-2014, 10:41 AM
Then you must have missed the obvious. It's not a false argument. It's an argument based on what I'm picking up from his posts. Do I have to actually say "I don't like Callahan" for people to know I didn't like Callahan?

And frankly, he's a big boy, he can defend his own position.


You were up front that you didn't like Callahan the player. Only thing I've seen here was not liking Brassard at $5.5M X 5 years. As far as his position, of course he can defend it. But lets not pretend that we don't often interject on other users' behalf when we see misunderstandings happen. It happens all the time. There's no reason to point it out here like it doesn't.



I'm not doing anything, again. What you're doing is misunderstanding a post. So don't put that on me. Let me clarify, and we'll see if it sticks. Today, mentioning Miller or Lindberg as possible replacements for Brassard next year, is unwise. Lindberg is projected as a 4th liner. Miller is projected as a fringe top 6 player, and currently, he's in the coach's dog house last we heard. So, again, to simply give Brassard a 1 year deal on the off chance that either of those players will somehow morph into a second line center is unwise.


You're right, I did misunderstand that part of your post. I would argue that Miller is projected higher than fringe top 6. I think he's projected as a solid 2nd line center IF he develops well. Only way we find that out is if he's given an offensive role and allowed to see if he can grow into it. On the flip side, he has to make something of that opportunity. I'll point to Kreider though. It was starting to look like maybe he couldn't make it work on the NHL level. After last season, you wouldn't pencil Kreider in as a top line LW. He didn't stick at the beginning of this past season, either. Now he is penciled in as a legit top 6 winger. Miller still has to do what Kreider did this past year, no doubt. He's got to earn that spot out of camp and he's got to deliver. But he's certainly got that capability. His AHL production was light years better than Kreiders'. More importantly, every successful franchise needs these young, inexpensive players to seize key roles. You can't survive at the top without it constantly happening. And in recent years for the Rangers, it has. Until this past year. We didn't really have a rookie sieze a role last year. We NEED one to do it this year.



Exactly why I feel the plan is terrible. Why would you sign Brassard for 1 year? It doesn't make any sense. Sign him to a multi year deal, and if somehow we can fill the second line center role from within (still waiting for that viable plan), then you have an asset under contract to trade. Giving Brassard a 1 year deal just makes him a UFA. Then what have you got? Your dick in your hand. Signing Brassard to a 1 year deal doesn't make any sense, from any perspective.


Did it make sense to sign MZA to a one year deal? Weren't people cheering that news? You sign Brassard for a 1 year deal for the same reason. Because you can still negotiate an extension, but you can't afford to pay them UFA market value right now. I'd argue with MZA the ceiling is higher than with Brassard as well.



Since we're playing "what if" with Miller and Lindberg, what if Brassard has a 65 point season, and the 2015 UFA center crop right now is Spezza, Krejci, and a steaming pile of shit — now we're trying to get Brassard at $7 million because there's a bidding war. And we could have had him at $5.2x5.


If Brassard suddenly put up 65 points I would consider it a fluke and if he could get $7M based on that, then he can sign in Edmonton to go play with Pouliot.

DiJock94
07-25-2014, 10:43 AM
I think you'd be better off just leaving it as "I don't like Brassard", rather than trying to prove he isn't a capable offensive player. The team is trying to sign him long term. I think they knew what they're doing.

I mean your backup plan for letting him walk was giving JT Miller a second line center spot...he's played 50 or so games in the NHL. I mean come on.

i guarantee theyre only considering him long term "at a discount" an Jt Miller isnt my back up plan for this year. wait and see after this season if he could do it... yes i would thats why hes was drafted 1st round.. not to be a fourth line center. i have nothing against brassard but he is way overvalued

AmericanJesus
07-25-2014, 10:48 AM
This is what The Hockey News has to say about both Miller and Lindberg:

Miller:
Assets: Has a wealth of speed and offensive acumen, the versatility to play center or wing, as well as the size and grit to play a power forward's game.
Flaws: Needs to get bigger and physically stronger in order to excel at playing his in-your-face style at the highest level. Also needs to work on his playmaking.
Career Potential: Talented and versatile scoring forward with good upside.

Lindberg:
Assets: A pure playmaker with very good hockey sense, he also has two-way upside and a projectable frame. Can be an asset on both special teams, as well.
Flaws: Goal-scoring isn't his strongest trait, but he must continue to shoot the puck so as to keep defenders honest. Also needs to get stronger for the NHL game.
Career Potential: Solid playmaker with some upside.

Pete
07-25-2014, 10:51 AM
You were up front that you didn't like Callahan the player. Only thing I've seen here was not liking Brassard at $5.5M X 5 years. As far as his position, of course he can defend it. But lets not pretend that we don't often interject on other users' behalf when we see misunderstandings happen. It happens all the time. There's no reason to point it out here like it doesn't.I was just being a dick. Sorry.

You're right, I did misunderstand that part of your post. I would argue that Miller is projected higher than fringe top 6. I think he's projected as a solid 2nd line center IF he develops well. Only way we find that out is if he's given an offensive role and allowed to see if he can grow into it. On the flip side, he has to make something of that opportunity. I'll point to Kreider though. It was starting to look like maybe he couldn't make it work on the NHL level. After last season, you wouldn't pencil Kreider in as a top line LW. He didn't stick at the beginning of this past season, either. Now he is penciled in as a legit top 6 winger. Miller still has to do what Kreider did this past year, no doubt. He's got to earn that spot out of camp and he's got to deliver. But he's certainly got that capability. His AHL production was light years better than Kreiders'. More importantly, every successful franchise needs these young, inexpensive players to seize key roles. You can't survive at the top without it constantly happening. And in recent years for the Rangers, it has. Until this past year. We didn't really have a rookie sieze a role last year. We NEED one to do it this year.Miller was projected as at top 6 player, but so far, at the NHL level, I'd say he's currently on track to be a 3rd line type who can slot up.

Did it make sense to sign MZA to a one year deal? Weren't people cheering that news? You sign Brassard for a 1 year deal for the same reason. Because you can still negotiate an extension, but you can't afford to pay them UFA market value right now. I'd argue with MZA the ceiling is higher than with Brassard as well.Dave, you know better. We cheered MZA taking a cap friendly 1 year deal to avoid arbitration, while working on an extension. If they did that with Brassard, then that's fine, but the "take a year and wait and see" approach, again, IMO is unwise. Even if Miller gets there, it's going to take more than 1 season...He's played around 50 games.


If Brassard suddenly put up 65 points I would consider it a fluke and if he could get $7M based on that, then he can sign in Edmonton to go play with Pouliot.
Easy to say, and I don't really disagree, but still leaves us without a 2nd line center.

Pete
07-25-2014, 10:52 AM
i guarantee theyre only considering him long term "at a discount" an Jt Miller isnt my back up plan for this year. wait and see after this season if he could do it... yes i would thats why hes was drafted 1st round.. not to be a fourth line center. i have nothing against brassard but he is way overvalued
That doesn't seem to be the case, as the OP indicated a multi-year deal between $5.2 and $5.6...meaning it depends on how much free agency they buy from him.

CreaseCrusader91
07-25-2014, 11:45 AM
Maybe I am missing something.

Brassard is...

1) 27
2) 2nd line center
3) Top PP Producer
4) 45-point center at minimum with 50+ potential
5) Player that has produced well with limited ice time

In this situation he has leverage because NYR has no viable option to replace him and his production. If he were to go, there isn't a viable and similar cost efficient player to replace his production in free agency. The way I see it, Brassard at $5.2M for four years at ages 27,28,29,30 is a great deal in a world where the cap is rising and average salaries go up.

Pete said it best, when he said if they are signing Zuke long term, it make sense to lock up his center as well. Going forward you look to find that better winger to add to the duo, and then you have another line with 1B potential.

AmericanJesus
07-25-2014, 11:59 AM
I was just being a dick. Sorry.
Miller was projected as at top 6 player, but so far, at the NHL level, I'd say he's currently on track to be a 3rd line type who can slot up.
Dave, you know better. We cheered MZA taking a cap friendly 1 year deal to avoid arbitration, while working on an extension. If they did that with Brassard, then that's fine, but the "take a year and wait and see" approach, again, IMO is unwise. Even if Miller gets there, it's going to take more than 1 season...He's played around 50 games.

Easy to say, and I don't really disagree, but still leaves us without a 2nd line center.

I know, it was just too available a bullet to not use. For the record, I just didn't consider Brassard a $5.5M player. I'd go 5X5 as about my max with him. It's funny, we're kind of a shoe on the other foot here. Usually you're trying to convince me that my figure is a $500K over payment ;)

As to Miller, if he ends up a 3rd round, 30-35 point center it will have been a poor result for that draft pick. He may never be more than that, but to me his projection if he develops properly should be in the Brassard range. Different skill set and talents, but same value as far as role.

AmericanJesus
07-25-2014, 12:05 PM
Maybe I am missing something.

Brassard is...

1) 27
2) 2nd line center
3) Top PP Producer
4) 45-point center at minimum with 50+ potential
5) Player that has produced well with limited ice time

In this situation he has leverage because NYR has no viable option to replace him and his production. If he were to go, there isn't a viable and similar cost efficient player to replace his production in free agency. The way I see it, Brassard at $5.2M for four years at ages 27,28,29,30 is a great deal in a world where the cap is rising and average salaries go up.

Pete said it best, when he said if they are signing Zuke long term, it make sense to lock up his center as well. Going forward you look to find that better winger to add to the duo, and then you have another line with 1B potential.

I think the issue I have is if we lock up Brassard long term and then Stepan does get that $6M contract next, we're playing $11M+ for a 55 and 45 point top two center tandem that are pretty horrific on draws. It's just not ideal. I think when you're really trying to run a 2A, 2B and 2C centers the way we are, you need to have value contracts on each. By next season, we'll probably only have a value contract for our 2C center.

RangersFan
07-25-2014, 12:07 PM
I think the issue I have is if we lock up Brassard long term and then Stepan does get that $6M contract next, we're playing $11M+ for a 55 and 45 point top two center tandem that are pretty horrific on draws. It's just not ideal. I think when you're really trying to run a 2A, 2B and 2C centers the way we are, you need to have value contracts on each. By next season, we'll probably only have a value contract for our 2C center.

If you dont want to lock Brassard up that long then package him and trade him, thats the only solution to that imo

Phil in Absentia
07-25-2014, 12:16 PM
I think the issue I have is if we lock up Brassard long term and then Stepan does get that $6M contract next, we're playing $11M+ for a 55 and 45 point top two center tandem that are pretty horrific on draws. It's just not ideal. I think when you're really trying to run a 2A, 2B and 2C centers the way we are, you need to have value contracts on each. By next season, we'll probably only have a value contract for our 2C center.

Unfortunately, what choice do the Rangers really have here? It's free agency or internal options, and neither is providing you a better alternative that won't cost you the same (or more) or reduce your production.

What this really points to is a choice — Brassard or Stepan. Not both. And whoever you pick, you are trading the other one in a deal for a better top-line option. I think you know who I'm moving.

RangersFan
07-25-2014, 12:20 PM
Would anybody be interested in Brassard and Staal for Eric Staal+? I dont wanna trade Marc but its just a trade idea

Pete
07-25-2014, 12:22 PM
Would anybody be interested in Brassard and Staal for Eric Staal+? I dont wanna trade Marc but its just a trade idea

If I'm moving Brassard and Staal, I don't want a 30 year old player who's just as capable of giving you 60 points as he is of giving you 90. Younger and more consistent, and we can talk.

RangersFan
07-25-2014, 12:24 PM
If I'm moving Brassard and Staal, I don't want a 30 year old player who's just as capable of giving you 60 points as he is of giving you 90. Younger and more consistent, and we can talk.

I dont see how we can be picky. I think the options might be limited. Not too many top line centere under 27 are out there to trade for.

josh
07-25-2014, 12:26 PM
I really cant see him deserving close to $5, per. Guy averages 45 points a season. At $5, he's right there with Evander Kane, Neal, Ryan, Benn, Moulson, Kessler... I just don't put him at the same level as those guys.

He's in the $3.5 - $4.25m range x 3 or 4 years

AmericanJesus
07-25-2014, 12:26 PM
Unfortunately, what choice do the Rangers really have here? It's free agency or internal options, and neither is providing you a better alternative that won't cost you the same (or more) or reduce your production.

What this really points to is a choice — Brassard or Stepan. Not both. And whoever you pick, you are trading the other one in a deal for a better top-line option. I think you know who I'm moving.

And I'm moving Brassard there and I know you'd move Stepan. Stepan, for me, is younger, fills an extra role as a PK'er and has produced more, while being younger. I just don't think Brassard fetches you as much as Stepan will. That said, there's no way we can pay Brassard $5.5M and trade Stepan for an upgrade at center that will run north of $7M. Just don't have the room unless we worsen other areas of the team.

So my choice would be to shave some off Brassard's deal and only buy a couple UFA years. So try for something like $5X3.

josh
07-25-2014, 12:29 PM
Would anybody be interested in Brassard and Staal for Eric Staal+? I dont wanna trade Marc but its just a trade idea

HELL NO. 2nd most overrated player in the league. *cough-Jordan Staal-cough*

RangersFan
07-25-2014, 12:29 PM
HELL NO. 2nd most overrated player in the league. *cough-Jordan Staal-cough*

Brassard and Staal for Jordan Staal?

josh
07-25-2014, 12:30 PM
Unfortunately, what choice do the Rangers really have here? It's free agency or internal options, and neither is providing you a better alternative that won't cost you the same (or more) or reduce your production.

What this really points to is a choice — Brassard or Stepan. Not both. And whoever you pick, you are trading the other one in a deal for a better top-line option. I think you know who I'm moving.

What do you think Brassard would get as an UFA, now?

josh
07-25-2014, 12:30 PM
Brassard and Staal for Jordan Staal?

No. Jordan is most overrated player in the league, followed by Eric Staal.

CreaseCrusader91
07-25-2014, 12:32 PM
No. Jordan is most overrated player in the league, followed by Eric Staal.

http://i.imgur.com/tW0RwSp.png

How so? He's gotten better with age, and 406 points in his last 422 games, or a 0.918 P/GP average.

Pete
07-25-2014, 12:35 PM
I dont see how we can be picky. I think the options might be limited. Not too many top line centere under 27 are out there to trade for.I do. You don't just take anything, what sense does that make?

RangersFan
07-25-2014, 12:36 PM
No. Jordan is most overrated player in the league, followed by Eric Staal.

I disagree but ok. If we want a top line center, i think we would have to package Brass and Staal. Only problem is that Zuccarello and Brass have great chemistry

RangersFan
07-25-2014, 12:37 PM
I do. You don't just take anything, what sense does that make?

I never said take anything, but you arent getting a 25 year old top line center for Brassard and Staal, unless the GM is an idiot

Pete
07-25-2014, 12:38 PM
I never said take anything, but you arent getting a 25 year old top line center for Brassard and Staal, unless the GM is an idiot

Yea, yea, and we weren't getting a stud defenseman for Gomez... ;)

josh
07-25-2014, 12:39 PM
How so? He's gotten better with age, and 406 points in his last 422 games, or a 0.918 P/GP average.

Don't waste your time. My opinion isn't changing.

CreaseCrusader91
07-25-2014, 12:40 PM
Don't waste your time. My opinion isn't changing.

That's fine but 0.918 and overrated don't compute to me.

RangersFan
07-25-2014, 12:41 PM
Yea, yea, and we weren't getting a stud defenseman for Gomez... ;)

I wish Sather can work that magic again.

Pete
07-25-2014, 12:42 PM
That's fine but 0.918 and overrated don't compute to me.

Because he's remarkably inconsistent year to year and game to game.

CreaseCrusader91
07-25-2014, 12:45 PM
Because he's remarkably inconsistent year to year and game to game.


To be fair, what real wingers has he had last three years? Skinner for a year and Semin maybe?

Pete
07-25-2014, 12:47 PM
To be fair, what real wingers has he had last three years? Skinner for a year and Semin maybe?

I notice that your default is to always blame the team and linemates. Staal should be making his linemates better and linemates don't account for his own effort level.

RangersFan
07-25-2014, 12:48 PM
Kreider-E Staal-St Louis sounds scary

Phil in Absentia
07-25-2014, 12:52 PM
And I'm moving Brassard there and I know you'd move Stepan. Stepan, for me, is younger, fills an extra role as a PK'er and has produced more, while being younger. I just don't think Brassard fetches you as much as Stepan will. That said, there's no way we can pay Brassard $5.5M and trade Stepan for an upgrade at center that will run north of $7M. Just don't have the room unless we worsen other areas of the team.

So my choice would be to shave some off Brassard's deal and only buy a couple UFA years. So try for something like $5X3.

Well, we agree there — Stepan nets you a higher return because of his age. So that's why I go that route, coupled with the fact that Brassard shows up big in the playoffs where Stepan really hasn't. He had a pretty good show this year, with a broken jaw, but historically his production has dropped once the second season rolls around.

Phil in Absentia
07-25-2014, 12:54 PM
What do you think Brassard would get as an UFA, now?

$5M, give or take.

Stepan, on his next deal, will make $6M, give or take, because the team will be buying UFA years from him long-term as well.

AmericanJesus
07-25-2014, 01:02 PM
We aren't going to land a legit #1 center. I think we need to accept that Stepan is probably going to be our #1 center for the foreseeable future. His ceiling is probably around 60 points or so on average. So what we need is a top end 2nd line center to play behind him. Brassard, to me, isn't that. He's a decent 2nd line center. $5.5M is what you pay a top tier 2nd line, fringe first line center. Heck, Stastny just got $7M as a pure UFA 28 year old center with a career .085 PPG center. Brassard is a career .56 PPG center. If we're going Stepan #1, we need a #2 who's in the 55 point range.

CreaseCrusader91
07-25-2014, 01:04 PM
I notice that your default is to always blame the team and linemates. Staal should be making his linemates better and linemates don't account for his own effort level.

That's not my default and always is a very blanket statement. I'm only saying that because the variance is interesting.

I like to consider all the variables and I feel I don't try and cop out if I can't find evidence to suggest my argument.

He's gone from 1.00 to 0.94 to 0.85 to 1.10 back to 0.77. It's interesting and looking at different coaching and line mates could explain the fluctuation.


Effort level is something I can't really speak to but sometimes there is only so much you can do yourself as a player. I don't watch a ton of Carolina games so I don't have a barometer on his effort.

However how many players are there in this league who truly help players be better all the time.

I'm not trying to cover for him but 0.91 production over the last 422 games is something better than we currently have.

Phil in Absentia
07-25-2014, 01:04 PM
"Legit" is a buzzword. It doesn't mean anything. The same as "real". The term I'm operating from is "better". As in better built for the playoffs, where there's a longer history of success there. Better at draws. Better production, if possible. Better size. Better skating. As many of these betters as possible.

AmericanJesus
07-25-2014, 01:06 PM
"Legit" is a buzzword. It doesn't mean anything. The same as "real". The term I'm operating from is "better". As in better built for the playoffs, where there's a longer history of success there. Better at draws. Better production, if possible. Better size. Better skating. As many of these betters as possible.

Fine, a 70 point center who's good on faceoffs and makes his wings better. Stepan will likely never be that.