Jump to content
  • Join us — it's free!

    We are the premiere internet community for New York Rangers news and fan discussion. Don't wait — join the forum today!

IGNORED

Rangers Unlikely to Take on Garbage Contracts for Assets


Phil

Recommended Posts

The Rangers do have cap space to take on another team?s problem contract but have no intention of becoming a depository for faded veterans. But if the Penguins were to often a sweetener along with Carl Hagelin, with one year at $4 million on his deal, then maybe.

And if Tampa Bay has the need to move Ryan Callahan, who has two years at $5.8 million per remaining on his deal, the Rangers could be in. That, by the way, is assuming Callahan ? who probably will miss the first month or so of the season recovering from shoulder surgery ? does not have the Blueshirts on his no-trade list.

 

This is just me, but if the Blueshirts could get Callahan (with a suitable inducement), I?d sew that ?C? back on his sweater the moment the hypothetical deal were completed.

 

https://nypost.com/2018/06/16/inside-the-rangers-makeover-mindset-with-nhl-draft-at-hand/

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Blueshirts Brotherhood mobile app powered by Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Phil, you are giving one Brooks article 3 different threads, even though he never implies he has any sources for any of the players or teams mentioned in the article. Or that he spoke with someone internally.

 

So, I'll repeat from the other thread. Where did this come from? Why would we take on Cali's salary, what is our return? How is it in our interest?

 

That's on top of no attribution to the Hamilton statement, the Fox statement or anything else in that article.

 

So why are we taking on this garbage contract?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, I am. Because they're talking points, each specific to a topic, and each warranting their own discussions as such. Again, the point of the forum.

 

If you have issue with Brooks' prose, take it up with him. This information is worth talking about, even if you disagree with why.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Blueshirts Brotherhood mobile app powered by Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Phil, you are giving one Brooks article 3 different threads, even though he never implies he has any sources for any of the players or teams mentioned in the article. Or that he spoke with someone internally.

 

So, I'll repeat from the other thread. Where did this come from? Why would we take on Cali's salary, what is our return? How is it in our interest?

 

That's on top of no attribution to the Hamilton statement, the Fox statement or anything else in that article.

 

So why are we taking on this garbage contract?

 

Not sure why you're hung up on uncle Larry providing sources for his bits. It could all be him speculating, or he knows something. This is what he does. Nothing shocking here that it may just be him making stuff up. It's Brooks... What are you expecting from him?

 

Really not sure why he thinks Callahan would be in the Rangers plan as a salary dump favor. Don't the Rangers still have a shot at Tampa's 1st round pick next year if they win the cup? What incentive would they receive by taking Callahan? What would they be offering? Seems more like Larry shooting the shit and trying to find a fit for a bad contract in return for more assets. I'm not crazy about either idea. I'd rather talk to Ottawa about Ryan, than these two. At least with that, the Rangers can extend the deal to Karlsson, Duchene, Stone, or draft picks which should be decent spots to pick from.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure why you're hung up on uncle Larry providing sources for his bits. It could all be him speculating, or he knows something. This is what he does. Nothing shocking here that it may just be him making stuff up. It's Brooks... What are you expecting from him?

 

Really not sure why he thinks Callahan would be in the Rangers plan as a salary dump favor. Don't the Rangers still have a shot at Tampa's 1st round pick next year if they win the cup? What incentive would they receive by taking Callahan? What would they be offering? Seems more like Larry shooting the shit and trying to find a fit for a bad contract in return for more assets. I'm not crazy about either idea. I'd rather talk to Ottawa about Ryan, than these two. At least with that, the Rangers can extend the deal to Karlsson, Duchene, Stone, or draft picks which should be decent spots to pick from.

 

Aside from another prospect, say Raddysh or Katchouk, coming to the Rangers along with Callahan, Tampa having an addition $5.8 million to work with and only a 4th liner to replace would increase the odds that next year's pick turns into a first. Kind of a no brainer. Plus, despite his grossly diminished skills, he is an unquestioned leader.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aside from another prospect, say Raddysh or Katchouk, coming to the Rangers along with Callahan, Tampa having an addition $5.8 million to work with and only a 4th liner to replace would increase the odds that next year's pick turns into a first. Kind of a no brainer. Plus, despite his grossly diminished skills, he is an unquestioned leader.

 

I think they are already favorites to win as is. To take on Callahan as a part of the McD/Miller trade IMO isn't worth it. It would definitely have to be a prospect of high value. If that's on the table, yeah, absolutely go for it. The fact that they weren't on the table at the deadline makes me feel like they are just not available.

 

Add in that they don't want to keep him for his leadership, nor did the Rangers, I suspect his value as a leader is not as much as we believe.

 

Also, if Callahan comes here. The Rangers will put him in a top six role. Something I don't want to see. Guys done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, I am. Because they're talking points, each specific to a topic, and each warranting their own discussions as such. Again, the point of the forum.

Sure, but we have a thread where we were talking about Hayes plus for Trouba or Dougie. The last thread I started a focused on a deal with Calgary, and if not Dougie, RHD's Fox or Andersson. And I provided info on them and Calgary's system and why it makes sense.

 

If you have issue with Brooks' prose, take it up with him. This information is worth talking about, even if you disagree with why.

The subject matter is worth talking about. We've been kicking the hell out of the bad contract idea, trading Zuc or the RFAs.

 

But you're right I have an issue with Brooks. Not with his prose, but with the journalistic standards. Too often, including this case, he does not do the research or leg work to speak to sources to validate any of his points. Worse, he throws out ideas no different than I do on this board, but I'm not being paid. Nor am I the Ranger's beat reporter with access.

 

He does not tell his reader if he is speculating based on nothing but his imagination or if it is based on speaking to an informed source. Why the mystery?

 

The Cali stuff, I don't even get what he's suggesting. It's an incomplete thought. As for Hags, same thing, no thesis and he doesn't think out the idea. We are not going to have an interest in Hags the way a team who wants a vet speedy defensive winger as part of their playoff squad. Pitt can find teams interested in Hags, versus giving him away to us.

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm psyched to have more discussions about what the Rangers are planning, exploring, doing. Just seemed that article does not have the gravitas or data to carry 3 new threads and spread the conversation so thin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aside from another prospect, say Raddysh or Katchouk, coming to the Rangers along with Callahan, Tampa having an addition $5.8 million to work with and only a 4th liner to replace would increase the odds that next year's pick turns into a first. Kind of a no brainer. Plus, despite his grossly diminished skills, he is an unquestioned leader.

 

Well at least that's a thesis. We'll help Brooks. Yzerman can send us Raddyish and Katchouk and we'll take Cali off their hands and send them their pick back. Or would they prefer Vesey instead of the pick? I'd even do it for Names.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure why you're hung up on uncle Larry providing sources for his bits. It could all be him speculating, or he knows something. This is what he does. Nothing shocking here that it may just be him making stuff up. It's Brooks... What are you expecting from him?

 

Really not sure why he thinks Callahan would be in the Rangers plan as a salary dump favor. Don't the Rangers still have a shot at Tampa's 1st round pick next year if they win the cup? What incentive would they receive by taking Callahan? What would they be offering? Seems more like Larry shooting the shit and trying to find a fit for a bad contract in return for more assets. I'm not crazy about either idea. I'd rather talk to Ottawa about Ryan, than these two. At least with that, the Rangers can extend the deal to Karlsson, Duchene, Stone, or draft picks which should be decent spots to pick from.

 

Not hung up at all. Just want to know what is from actual sources and what is from his imagination (or read here and other forums). I don't need source names or any divulging of a source. Just tell us what is sourced.

 

Dude, you then go on and post the same questions I did. His article raises more questions about where this is coming from and what would be the purpose, then they elicit good discussion based on some research and a solid premise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure, but we have a thread where we were talking about Hayes plus for Trouba or Dougie. The last thread I started a focused on a deal with Calgary, and if not Dougie, RHD's Fox or Andersson. And I provided info on them and Calgary's system and why it makes sense.

 

 

The subject matter is worth talking about. We've been kicking the hell out of the bad contract idea, trading Zuc or the RFAs.

 

But you're right I have an issue with Brooks. Not with his prose, but with the journalistic standards. Too often, including this case, he does not do the research or leg work to speak to sources to validate any of his points. Worse, he throws out ideas no different than I do on this board, but I'm not being paid. Nor am I the Ranger's beat reporter with access.

 

He does not tell his reader if he is speculating based on nothing but his imagination or if it is based on speaking to an informed source. Why the mystery?

 

The Cali stuff, I don't even get what he's suggesting. It's an incomplete thought. As for Hags, same thing, no thesis and he doesn't think out the idea. We are not going to have an interest in Hags the way a team who wants a vet speedy defensive winger as part of their playoff squad. Pitt can find teams interested in Hags, versus giving him away to us.

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm psyched to have more discussions about what the Rangers are planning, exploring, doing. Just seemed that article does not have the gravitas or data to carry 3 new threads and spread the conversation so thin.

 

The conversations are barely related. His article was some mixture of conjecture and personal opinion on like five different subjects crammed into one article. So I broke it up to help keep each on point.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Blueshirts Brotherhood mobile app powered by Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I get ya. Makes sense.

 

I wish Brooks and other paid reporters with contacts/access would be clear about when they are arriving at their own conclusions with no current research, versus when they've received info from an informed source.

 

A bonus would be to explain the reason a team might make a serious move. Like why we'd take on Cali's contract, what's in it for us? Or why Pitt would look to a non playoff team to trade for Hags. Or why there is "little Ranger interest in Hamilton" and where did that info come from? It's maddening.

 

The first days in journalism school they teach good reporting addresses the who, what, where, why and how. Even conjecture, needs to make a coherent and reasonable point, supported by some context.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not hung up at all. Just want to know what is from actual sources and what is from his imagination (or read here and other forums). I don't need source names or any divulging of a source. Just tell us what is sourced.

 

Dude, you then go on and post the same questions I did. His article raises more questions about where this is coming from and what would be the purpose, then they elicit good discussion based on some research and a solid premise.

 

Meh. We're all jealous of Larry. He's got the beat job and can write what ever he wants. What ever. Not worth asking how valid it is. Its pretty much just something to get people talking about the team. Valid, speculation, what does it matter? It's HERE for discussion and as a potential stepping stone for Ranger conversation. It's better than nothing...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Never will understand that hate for brooks. The guy is the most tuned in guy around the rangers. He’s been right on so many occasions that I just don’t understand. He’s wrong too but he’s talking about the trade market which is always in flux. Only a couple of months ago he wrote an article with the rangers in playoff position stating the rangers were headed for a blowup. Couple weeks later and numerous calls for crazy Larry to retire the rangers sent a memo to the fans.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Callahan goes from a full no move to a modified no move on July 1. I have to believe he doesn't have fond feelings about Sather and probably wouldn't include the Rangers on a list of teams to which he can be traded. I have nothing against taking some sort of salary dump as part of a larger deal in which we are getting nice value for taking the dump. A player with two bad years on his contract left would be just about right, as that's when we will start to feel cap pressure again if everything works right. I wouldn't want to take any bad contracts with more on them than that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's strange and probably not accurate to categorically say the Rangers won't take on a bad contract.

Surely it all comes down to what is the sweetener in each deal. If it's good enough, they'll do it.

 

This!! It is all situational and the devil is in the details. We'd have to break down and analyze the deal in its entirety. Understand all our options, with and w/o the deal.

 

Obviously the more onerous the contract the bigger the sweeteners need to be. Given that Cali is only 2 years and a good worker, he is not going to get us more than a good prospect, especially given that we would be dealing with Yzerman again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The first days in journalism school they teach good reporting addresses the who, what, where, why and how. Even conjecture, needs to make a coherent and reasonable point, supported by some context.

Larry isn't a journalist, he's a columnist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think they should take at least one bad contract this summer. Why not? Lucic's is brutal but maybe there's a rebound in him. If he can be even 1/2 as effective as he was two seasons ago, we'd be in business. Plus, if you're getting something else of value with him, I think it's a risk worth taking.

 

Same to be said with Matt Martin or Nathan Horton in Toronto or any of the other names that have been thrown around. I think it's smart business.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...