Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst ... 4567 LastLast
Results 101 to 120 of 128

Thread: Should the Rangers Move Stepan in the Offseason?

  1. #101
    Senior Member Bantam Division
    Long live the King's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    1,188
    Rep Power
    31
    Quote Originally Posted by Future View Post
    No, that's not what I said. But in terms of trading a top center for defensive help, then yea, I am. Malkin would bring a greater return, obviously, but the impact on the roster would basically be the same. It would probably actually be more crippling to Pitt, since they're basically a 2-line team.
    MALKIN HAS 70 POINTS IN 58 GAMES!!!!! Taking him out of Pitts lineup has the same imapct on them as us losing Stepan's 44 points?

  2. #102
    Moderator Junior Division
    Future's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Posts
    5,761
    Rep Power
    112
    Quote Originally Posted by Long live the King View Post
    MALKIN HAS 70 POINTS IN 58 GAMES!!!!! Taking him out of Pitts lineup has the same imapct on them as us losing Stepan's 44 points?
    In terms of being debilitating to what the two teams are good at, yea.

    Pitt is good because they have top-end talent on the top two lines.
    The Rangers are good because they have unmatched scoring depth.

    You take away either from either team, and neither team has that anymore. Caps lock aside, yes, it's very comparable when we're talking about trading from strength to improve something else.

    This isn't even the point though. The point is that it's not good for Pitt to trade from their strength to improve their D, it's not good for Chicago to do it to improve their PK, it's not good for any team

  3. #103
    Senior Member Bantam Division
    Long live the King's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    1,188
    Rep Power
    31
    No. We played a 3rd of our games without Zib, and managed just fine. Losing a 50 point player is now and never will in any way be the same a losing a 100 point player.

  4. #104
    Senior Member Bantam Division LONG TIME FAN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    NEVER NEVER LAND
    Posts
    1,118
    Rep Power
    7
    Quote Originally Posted by jjweimar View Post
    Care to share why that is the definitive answer?

    Sent from my SM-G900V using Blueshirts Brotherhood mobile app powered by Tapatalk

    No!!

  5. #105
    Moderator Junior Division
    Future's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Posts
    5,761
    Rep Power
    112
    Quote Originally Posted by Long live the King View Post
    No. We played a 3rd of our games without Zib, and managed just fine. Losing a 50 point player is now and never will in any way be the same a losing a 100 point player.
    We were not fine. All of those horrible defensive games you're talking about came when he was out of the lineup. He was out of the lineup in 2 of the 3 games we gave up 7 goals and both games against the Pens when we gave up 6 and 7.

    Without him in the lineup we were 15-10-1 with a GF/PG of 2.92 and a GA/PG of 2.81. Our season averages are 3.18 and 2.58. So in the 26 games without him our offense was down .26 GF/PG and were giving up .23 GA/GP more per game. That's almost half a goal a game difference from just one guy.

    And I'm not saying it's the same my goodness. The impact on how the team wins is the same. Rangers win with depth, Pitt wins with top end scoring. Both teams have to change how they win if they move those guys.
    Last edited by Future; 03-09-2017 at 05:47 PM.

  6. #106
    Senior Member Bantam Division
    Long live the King's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    1,188
    Rep Power
    31
    the pens have 4 line depth just as good as ours AND the have crosby, malkin, and kessel.

  7. #107
    Moderator Junior Division
    Future's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Posts
    5,761
    Rep Power
    112
    Quote Originally Posted by Long live the King View Post
    the pens have 4 line depth just as good as ours AND the have crosby, malkin, and kessel.
    No they don't. They don't even have 3-line depth that matches ours. The Rangers have 6 forwards with more than 40 points, Pitt has 3.

    Do you seriously think they have a 4th line better than Fast-Lindberg-Buch? Are Nick Bonino and Bryan Rust better than Hayes and Miller?

    Going by TOI, Carl Hagelin is on their second line. He has two fewer points than Jimmy Vesey.

  8. #108
    Moderator Junior Division
    Future's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Posts
    5,761
    Rep Power
    112
    Quote Originally Posted by Ranger Lothbrok View Post
    Goals against per game is a TEAM metric, not a defense metric. The reason why that number is so low is because of our forward group controlling the puck. But if you don't see the blown coverage left and right, the wide open chances in the slot and in the circles, the total absence of anyone around Henrik's crease, and guys like Staal and Girardi getting beat to loose pucks in their own end, well, then we're watching two different hockey teams.
    Yea, I forgot Kreider. It's easy to get a good player at 19 so, whatever, it doesn't change the point. Guys who were good elsewhere and prospects don't make a front office good at drafting. Good at trading, sure. I also don't care about who they drafted a decade ago. It's irrelevant.

    We don't need to worry about our RFAs because we're ~12m under the cap next year. Zib, Fast, and Lindberg combined might sniff 10.

    You're seriously going to say that those guys aren't going to become NHL defensemen? Graves is one of the best defensemen in the NHL, the only reason he hasn't been the call up is because it's better for him to play 20:00 a night down there than platoon up and down. It doesn't mean he is or isn't going to be up next year. So your inference is way off. And all I said is that these guys COULD be answers on defense. You assume that neither of them can be, which has just as much merit as saying they're going to be playing 20:00 a night last year. It's based on nothing. You don't watch them play you just assume they suck to make the point that the Rangers defense, salary cap, and playoff hopes are in shambles.

    If you only look at points idk what to tell you about Stepan. It's just an incredibly shortsighted view of what he gives to the team. Who is this cost-controlled RHD that's part of the future you're talking about. Those guys don't exist and, if they do, they're very quickly going to not be cost controlled.

    TEAM metric is EXACTLY why you don't tinker with what's working to fix some other problem. If the TEAM is good at defending, it doesn't matter if you have charlie freaking conway playing defense. Pitt won the cup last year with, what, two good defensemen? If they're good at keeping pucks out of their net by playing TEAM defense, don't change the TEAM. We're a horrible possession team, so no, it's not the forward group controlling the puck.

    And have you watched the last 15 games or so? The Rangers have been excellent in front of their crease.

  9. #109
    Senior Member Bantam Division
    Long live the King's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    1,188
    Rep Power
    31
    Quote Originally Posted by Future View Post
    No they don't. They don't even have 3-line depth that matches ours. The Rangers have 6 forwards with more than 40 points, Pitt has 3.

    Do you seriously think they have a 4th line better than Fast-Lindberg-Buch? Are Nick Bonino and Bryan Rust better than Hayes and Miller?

    Going by TOI, Carl Hagelin is on their second line. He has two fewer points than Jimmy Vesey.
    Dude, A) we have 5 forwards with 40+ point and 2) they were all line mates on 2 lines for the majority of the season (Kreider-Step-Zuc and Hayes-Miller) so I don't know what that has to do with 4 line depth.

    Didn't you say earlier in this thread...

    Quote Originally Posted by Future View Post
    There's no difference between 48 points and 51 points.
    So, I mean let's call Sheary a 40 point guy with 39 points in 45 games. Giving the Pens 4 - 40 point guys to our 5.

    Both teams have 8 forwards with 10+ goals. They have 11 guys with 20+ points, we have 10.

  10. #110
    Formerly Richter Redux Midget Division
    Ranger Lothbrok's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    4,507
    Rep Power
    107
    Quote Originally Posted by Future View Post
    Yea, I forgot Kreider. It's easy to get a good player at 19 so, whatever, it doesn't change the point. Guys who were good elsewhere and prospects don't make a front office good at drafting. Good at trading, sure. I also don't care about who they drafted a decade ago. It's irrelevant.

    We don't need to worry about our RFAs because we're ~12m under the cap next year. Zib, Fast, and Lindberg combined might sniff 10.

    You're seriously going to say that those guys aren't going to become NHL defensemen? Graves is one of the best defensemen in the NHL, the only reason he hasn't been the call up is because it's better for him to play 20:00 a night down there than platoon up and down. It doesn't mean he is or isn't going to be up next year. So your inference is way off. And all I said is that these guys COULD be answers on defense. You assume that neither of them can be, which has just as much merit as saying they're going to be playing 20:00 a night last year. It's based on nothing. You don't watch them play you just assume they suck to make the point that the Rangers defense, salary cap, and playoff hopes are in shambles.

    If you only look at points idk what to tell you about Stepan. It's just an incredibly shortsighted view of what he gives to the team. Who is this cost-controlled RHD that's part of the future you're talking about. Those guys don't exist and, if they do, they're very quickly going to not be cost controlled.

    TEAM metric is EXACTLY why you don't tinker with what's working to fix some other problem. If the TEAM is good at defending, it doesn't matter if you have charlie freaking conway playing defense. Pitt won the cup last year with, what, two good defensemen? If they're good at keeping pucks out of their net by playing TEAM defense, don't change the TEAM. We're a horrible possession team, so no, it's not the forward group controlling the puck.

    And have you watched the last 15 games or so? The Rangers have been excellent in front of their crease.
    Yeah, it's pretty clear this is one of those no common ground type things. I think we've been on opposite ends of an argument so many times that at this point you're going to disagree with whatever I say outright. You're putting words in my mouth and dismissing legitimate points with blanket statements. Like it's easy to get a good player at 19th overall. And that drafting NHL-caliber players, even if they play somewhere else, doesn't make us good at drafting. If drafting NHL talent doesn't make you good at drafting, I would love to know what does.

    Zib, Fast and Lindberg combined equaling around $10 mil is fine. And what about next summer when we have to pay Vesey, Miller, Hayes and Skjei? Holden and Klein are off the books that summer too. We're gonna need a plan for replacing them.

    This is what I mean about just outright disagreeing with me and putting words in my mouth. Where did I say Day and Graves weren't going to be NHL defensemen? Hell, I don't have a crystal ball. If I did I'd play the lottery. They're good players. The question is whether you can count on them making a difference soon enough. Henrik's 35 now. And we're not going to be able to keep everybody. This group inspires a degree of confidence, but their defense is sorely lacking. It's way too easy for teams like Montreal, Columbus, Washington and Pittsburgh to hang 5 goals on us. You know, the teams we'd have to go through in the playoffs. It's just plain bad management to say, "we don't have to address this problem because we MIGHT have a solution in the system."

    Ryan Graves is one of the best defensemen in the AHL (I assume that's what you meant, you said NHL)? Based on what? Him winning hardest shot at the All Star Game? He's got 24 points on the season and is a -13. I'm guessing you watch a lot of Wolf Pack games? And Sean Day might be an elite level talent, but he's at least three years away from making a difference in the NHL. He's 19 years old. And by the way, these guys that you're calling fantastic prospects that are the solution to all of our problems were drafted in the 4th round and 3rd round. I thought we weren't good at drafting?

    Yes, I'm looking at points for Stepan. In case you haven't noticed, being a two-way player on offense is kind of a prerequisite for this team. What exactly is he bringing that makes him so irreplaceable? We have at least four other players that do what he does. We have nobody capable of quarterbacking a powerplay. Look at our powerplay over the past stretch of games. A legitimate shot from the point would make all the difference in the world.

    And here's another blanket statement: cost-controlled RHD don't exist, and if they do they won't be cost-controlled for long. The Ducks' offense sucks. We've been linked to Vatanen before. They're overloaded with young talent on D. Vatanen is locked up through 2020 at $4.875 mil per season. Josh Manson's making $825k next year, and after that is up for his first contract. He'll be lucky to get $4 mil a year as a RFA. Same with Brandon Montour. All three of them are right-handed shots. And just because they'll get a new contract in the future is a reason not to trade for them? Shit, if that's the case, we had better ditch Miller, Hayes, Vesey and Skjei right now if the concept of paying a RFA is so frightening. After all, Stepan's locked in at a very reasonable $6.5 mil. What do we need them for?

    I mean, this is definitely one of those no common ground things. You're going to disagree no matter what. Drafting NHL players doesn't make us good at drafting. There's no such thing as a cost-controlled RHD. It's easy to get a good NHLer at 19th overall. We don't need to worry about RFAs next summer because we have enough money for the three we have this summer. Graves is one of the best defensemen in the AHL. Sean Day is an elite talent.

    I mean, call me short-sighted for looking at points as a measure of Stepan's value, but I think it's way more short-sighted to say that we don't have any cap issues, our defense is fine, and we have everything we need to contend for years in the system already. Dealing from strength to address weakness is standard practice in the entirety of sports. Flipping older players that are making too much money in order to pay for younger players is standard practice in the entirety of sports. I can't understand the opposition to it, other than the fact that it's me saying it.
    Last edited by Ranger Lothbrok; 03-09-2017 at 08:11 PM.

  11. #111
    Moderator Junior Division
    Future's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Posts
    5,761
    Rep Power
    112
    Quote Originally Posted by Long live the King View Post
    Dude, A) we have 5 forwards with 40+ point and 2) they were all line mates on 2 lines for the majority of the season (Kreider-Step-Zuc and Hayes-Miller) so I don't know what that has to do with 4 line depth.

    Didn't you say earlier in this thread...



    So, I mean let's call Sheary a 40 point guy with 39 points in 45 games. Giving the Pens 4 - 40 point guys to our 5.

    Both teams have 8 forwards with 10+ goals. They have 11 guys with 20+ points, we have 10.
    The Rangers guys with 40+ come from all different lines. Sheary and Nash are a wash b/c they're both 40-point players if not for injuries. It has to do with 4-line depth because three of those Rangers, plus Vesey, play on the third line and they all outproduce Hagelin, who is on their second line. If healthy, our 4th line would far outscore theirs.

    There is no difference in terms of negotiating a contract.

  12. #112
    Senior Member Bantam Division
    Long live the King's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    1,188
    Rep Power
    31
    Quote Originally Posted by Future View Post
    The Rangers guys with 40+ come from all different lines. Sheary and Nash are a wash b/c they're both 40-point players if not for injuries. It has to do with 4-line depth because three of those Rangers, plus Vesey, play on the third line and they all outproduce Hagelin, who is on their second line. If healthy, our 4th line would far outscore theirs.

    There is no difference in terms of negotiating a contract.
    I'm gonna have to take the same road as Lothbrok and just agree to disagree. Bottom line is Washington, Columbus, Pittsburgh, Minnesota...the actual teams we'd need to beat to win the cup...all have excellent forward depth just like us. The thing that puts them all a step ahead of us is the defense. Swapping Step for a top pairing RHD, weather that's directly through a trade or freeing up the money to sign Shattenkirk, helps the D way more than it Hurts the O.

  13. #113
    Moderator Junior Division
    Future's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Posts
    5,761
    Rep Power
    112
    Quote Originally Posted by Long live the King View Post
    I'm gonna have to take the same road as Lothbrok and just agree to disagree. Bottom line is Washington, Columbus, Pittsburgh, Minnesota...the actual teams we'd need to beat to win the cup...all have excellent forward depth just like us. The thing that puts them all a step ahead of us is the defense. Swapping Step for a top pairing RHD, weather that's directly through a trade or freeing up the money to sign Shattenkirk, helps the D way more than it Hurts the O.
    Well, no they don't, but ok. Minnesota is the only team close to the Rangers' forward depth. And even if it does help the D more than hurt the O, that's still not the point.

    It takes away the one advantage we have over other teams and puts us on par with other teams. You don't win cups by being different, you win cups by being better at other teams at something and then using it in the playoffs. No team can match the Rangers 4-line transition attack. The other thing you're not accounting for is the fact that the Rangers don't play a system that needs great defenders. It needs forwards to score goals. If the forwards are not playing well in transition and are turning pucks over, it doesn't matter who is playing defense.

  14. #114
    Senior Member Bantam Division
    Long live the King's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    1,188
    Rep Power
    31
    Quote Originally Posted by Future View Post
    Well, no they don't, but ok. Minnesota is the only team close to the Rangers' forward depth. And even if it does help the D more than hurt the O, that's still not the point.

    It takes away the one advantage we have over other teams and puts us on par with other teams. You don't win cups by being different, you win cups by being better at other teams at something and then using it in the playoffs. No team can match the Rangers 4-line transition attack. The other thing you're not accounting for is the fact that the Rangers don't play a system that needs great defenders. It needs forwards to score goals. If the forwards are not playing well in transition and are turning pucks over, it doesn't matter who is playing defense.
    Columbus 2-3 outscored 21-16
    Minnesota 0-1 outscored 7-4
    Pittsburgh 1-2 outscored 15-8

    The only team we've had success against is Washington going 2-0-2 and outscoring them 21-13. For teams that can't match our 4-line transition attack they sure seem to beat the shit out of us. (We're also 0-2-1 against Montreal, the team everyone wants to play in the first round) There is a reason we slid from 1st to currently 4th in goal differential. It's because we need help on D.

  15. #115
    Senior Member Junior Division
    The Dude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    5,175
    Rep Power
    46
    Quote Originally Posted by Ranger Lothbrok View Post
    I would've thought by now we'd be ready to move away from this line of thinking. We can't continue to manage the team as if there's no tomorrow. The new way of the NHL is when players become too expensive, or outlive their usefulness, you ship them off for future assets. Flipping Stepan for an aging star is just poor asset management. It's the Yandle/MSL/Staal something for nothing trades all over again.
    It's a way to dump a potential future anchor of a contract. Get one really good year of an older player (not retirement bound necessarily), go for one last shot. Clear cap space. It's a move many sports teams do. See the Houston Texans, trading Osweiler, who is still a very young and potentially future top QB, for very little, just to get out of the contract.

    We as fans have to start being OK with moves like this in the near future. In a capped league, you have to cut losses, and even forsee upcoming problematic contracts.

    Two years ago I was willing to trade Stepan for Joe Thornton. I'd have made that move this season as well. If the Rangers can get a super talent for even just one year, I'd deal Stepan. Upgrading his spot would do a lot for this team.

    You and I differ on our opinions on where this team is. I think they are very close to being a contender if they aren't already. They have a young group of players, and aren't a group of old has beens,

    Adding a top notch player over 30 is not a bad thing for this team.

  16. #116
    Senior Member Junior Division
    The Dude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    5,175
    Rep Power
    46
    Quote Originally Posted by Long live the King View Post
    MALKIN HAS 70 POINTS IN 58 GAMES!!!!! Taking him out of Pitts lineup has the same imapct on them as us losing Stepan's 44 points?
    This isn't directed towards you... But more or less to those who think Stepan needs to stay and is this bargain contract...


    Maybe the issue is that Stepan has 44 points at this time every year, while Malkin has 70? They win. The Rangers lose... Stepan is the longest tenured forward on the roster.. Wanna keep that losing formula together? Maybe his lack of scoring IS an issue?

  17. #117
    Shawcappella BSBH Prospect
    Drew a Penalty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Brooklyn
    Posts
    13,818
    Rep Power
    127
    Quote Originally Posted by The Dude View Post
    This isn't directed towards you... But more or less to those who think Stepan needs to stay and is this bargain contract...


    Maybe the issue is that Stepan has 44 points at this time every year, while Malkin has 70? They win. The Rangers lose... Stepan is the longest tenured forward on the roster.. Wanna keep that losing formula together? Maybe his lack of scoring IS an issue?
    If you're expecting Stepan, or really most players to produce like Malkin then you're expecting too much. Most teams would love a player like Malkin. Pittsburgh has two in him and Crosby.

    As inconsistent as Stepan may be, he's productive. Among all centers, in the last four years, he's 20th in points. It's not like he isn't for the most part doing his job. He's a top line center, more of a good number two like Kesler, but his production isn't the issue that you make it out to be. I'd love for the Rangers to have a more dynamic center, which Stepan is not, but you don't blame the losses on him. You can look at this season for him and see it's clearly not the norm. He's pacing below his usual output even for someone as streaky.

    I'd move Stepan if it means helping in another area such as acquiring better defenseman, but not because he's failed in his position. No one short of an elite talent is enough to push the team over the hump if you're just looking to upgrade at center. Defense is far more glaring of an issue.

    I also don't really see anyone calling Stepan a bargain contract. Future mistakenly thought he was paid $5.5M as opposed to $6.5M which if that were the case that would be a bargain.

  18. #118
    Senior Member Bantam Division
    Long live the King's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    1,188
    Rep Power
    31
    Quote Originally Posted by Drew a Penalty View Post
    If you're expecting Stepan, or really most players to produce like Malkin then you're expecting too much. Most teams would love a player like Malkin. Pittsburgh has two in him and Crosby.

    As inconsistent as Stepan may be, he's productive. Among all centers, in the last four years, he's 20th in points. It's not like he isn't for the most part doing his job. He's a top line center, more of a good number two like Kesler, but his production isn't the issue that you make it out to be. I'd love for the Rangers to have a more dynamic center, which Stepan is not, but you don't blame the losses on him. You can look at this season for him and see it's clearly not the norm. He's pacing below his usual output even for someone as streaky.

    I'd move Stepan if it means helping in another area such as acquiring better defenseman, but not because he's failed in his position. No one short of an elite talent is enough to push the team over the hump if you're just looking to upgrade at center. Defense is far more glaring of an issue.

    I also don't really see anyone calling Stepan a bargain contract. Future mistakenly thought he was paid $5.5M as opposed to $6.5M which if that were the case that would be a bargain.
    Look, this whole argument isn't really about Stepan or his production. It's about his $6.5 million and how we can better spend it.

    Facts:

    Stepan is the 31st highest paid forward in the league.
    Stepan is the highest paid forward that has never scored 30 goals or 60 points.
    Of the 49 forwards with a cap hit of $6M or higher, only Stepan, RNH, and Jordan Staal have never scored 30 goals or 60 points.
    For what Stepan gives us, at his age and cap hit, we'd be better off spreading that money around on younger players and improving the D corps.
    Last edited by Long live the King; 03-10-2017 at 11:38 PM.

  19. #119
    Shawcappella BSBH Prospect
    Drew a Penalty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Brooklyn
    Posts
    13,818
    Rep Power
    127
    Quote Originally Posted by Long live the King View Post
    Look, this whole argument isn't really about Stepan or his production. It's about his $6.5 million and how we can better spend it.

    Facts:

    Stepan is the 31st highest paid forward in the league.
    Stepan is the highest paid forward that has never scored 30 goals or 60 points.
    Of the 49 forwards with a cap hit of $6M or higher, only Stepan, RNH, and Jordan Staal have never scored 30 goals or 60 points.
    For what Stepan gives us, at his age and cap hit, we'd be better off spreading that money around on younger players and improving the D corps.
    I fail to see how any argument for a player can exist without reflection on production. In fact, there have been multiple posts in this thread referring to the production of players. Are we not using that to reflect? Evidence would lead to the contrary. You're using production in this post against him.

    This notion of reflecting on Stepan based on his cap hit and that it could be better used doesn't have much support to it when you have Rick Nash, Dan Girardi and Marc Staal on the team. Hell, one could make an argument towards the poor allocation of resources towards Lundqvist. Fact: Lundqvist is the highest paid goaltender to not achieve 40 wins. He gets paid $8.5M on this team. Stepan gets paid for his performance which is the fair market value given his production as a consistent point producer. I guess there really isn't the care that he hasn't scored 30 goals, an achievement most don't reach these days, because he produces in other areas because he's a playmaker. But like good for the guys that scored 30 goals or 60 points once or twice like five to ten years ago in a league playing a different type of hockey.

    You don't move Stepan because you need to move money elsewhere. That's called bad asset management. You move him because you think you can upgrade not move laterally or backward. While there are worse contracts on the team you don't make the argument to move a player strictly because of finances.

  20. #120
    Senior Member Bantam Division
    Long live the King's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    1,188
    Rep Power
    31
    Production is directly tied to cost. If we were paying Step $5M I wouldn't want to move him. I have advocated also trading Nash before his contract is up. Girardi, Staal and Hank all have NMC. Girardi will be bought out.

Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst ... 4567 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •