Jan Levine: Rangers' Big Four Elect Arb. Will Lineup Be The Same? Is That Good Enough?
Kreider, Miller, Hayes and McIlrath elect arbitration

I'm not happy with the roster. I think it's the weakest it's been in a few years or more. I hate to say it but, we had our window... I hope they can make the playoffs, but right now I'm not feeling it. Maybe a wildcard?

How would u guys feel about Evander Kane for Nash. Gives us cap relief, it's a risk as he's only hit 30 goals once and 20 one other time. Both players have 2 years remaining and rumors in Buffalo are they might want him out after his "incident". Depending on how you view the trade maybe Buffalo adds a 2nd or prospect or something. I don't see him being valued as high as he once was.

Is Marc Staal really so bad that it would come to a buyout to get rid of him?

I know Girardi is a dumpster fire, but I thought Stall was at least decent

My how the Staals have fallen, Eric, Jordan and Marc....

Nash is one year removed from a 42 goal season. Last year was pretty ugly, but if he produces at he start of this season he will be easy to move. The dynamic changes from the offseason to when play starts when shopping players. Some team is going to struggle big (like the ducks last year) and get desperate.

That said, who are you going to replace him with? He's the most intimidating forward to play against in your lineup.

Good luck moving the Staal and Girardi contracts...

How would u guys feel about Evander Kane for Nash. Gives us cap relief, it's a risk as he's only hit 30 goals once and 20 one other time. Both players have 2 years remaining and rumors in Buffalo are they might want him out after his "incident". Depending on how you view the trade maybe Buffalo adds a 2nd or prospect or something. I don't see him being valued as high as he once was.
- nyrangers9479

Absolutely no interest. The issues he had in Winnipeg and now possible issues in Buffalo make him a non-starter for me. Taking on that much risk for a $5.5 mil salary, even though it's 2.3 mil less per annum than Nash, doesn't interest me at all.

Hate to agree with Queenie about Nash.
Who are we going to trade him for after a sub-par season? I don't think he fully recovered from the injury and will have his scoring touch back this year. I predict 32 goals.
The buyout cap hits are pretty intimidating, so I am also willing to take G and Staal for another year unless one or both can be moved without eating salary.

How is the pup, Jan?

This roster is not that bad. We were ousted by the hottest team in the league and possibly in years. Who ended up winning the cup. We are acting like we lost to FLA in 5 games.

Look at the roster and count the number of players who had their worst season in years. Believe this will turn itself around and we will have another run at the cup this year. Look at LA a few years ago. Win the cup miss the PO and win the cup again.

Bounce back year coming up.

Nash is one year removed from a 42 goal season. Last year was pretty ugly, but if he produces at he start of this season he will be easy to move. The dynamic changes from the offseason to when play starts when shopping players. Some team is going to struggle big (like the ducks last year) and get desperate.

That said, who are you going to replace him with? He's the most intimidating forward to play against in your lineup.

Good luck moving the Staal and Girardi contracts...
- Queenie_5_hole

I think this hits the nail on the head with respect to Nash. I am not saying that I wouldn't trade Nash, but there is no way that I am trading him just to get rid of him. Why? Because then you don't have Rick Nash anymore. He is the most physically imposing forward on the team. He is the only guy on the team with the potential to score 35 + goals. He is a complete player that contributes in other ways when he's not scoring (and yes I realize you have to score for $7.8 million a year).

So, if you can make a trade that allows you to bring two good players back in return for Nash, by all means do it. But, if you can't make that trade, I am not just trading him for the cap space. What would we then do with that cap space? There is nobody left on the free agent market that would make us better, and by then losing Nash, you would then make things difficult on our other forwards who would then get more focus from the opposition.

Trading Rick Nash this year only makes sense if you are going to make the team better this year. And I don't see how that happens, if the market for him isn't robust. It would be a typical sell low approach, which usually hurts more then it helps.

Jan, do you think the expansion draft will effect the RFA's? Just thinking if they sign a 1yr deal are they to be exposed or protected?

I think this hits the nail on the head with respect to Nash. I am not saying that I wouldn't trade Nash, but there is no way that I am trading him just to get rid of him. Why? Because then you don't have Rick Nash anymore. He is the most physically imposing forward on the team. He is the only guy on the team with the potential to score 35 + goals. He is a complete player that contributes in other ways when he's not scoring (and yes I realize you have to score for $7.8 million a year).

So, if you can make a trade that allows you to bring two good players back in return for Nash, by all means do it. But, if you can't make that trade, I am not just trading him for the cap space. What would we then do with that cap space? There is nobody left on the free agent market that would make us better, and by then losing Nash, you would then make things difficult on are other forwards who would then get more focus from the opposition.

Trading Rick Nash this year only makes sense if you are going to make the team better this year. And I don't see how that happens, if the market for him isn't robust. It would be a typical sell low approach, which usually hurts more then it helps.
- Pete V

Case closed. Save this for the "Trade Nash just to free cap space" crowd, and repost ad nauseum.

Hate to agree with Queenie about Nash.
Who are we going to trade him for after a sub-par season? I don't think he fully recovered from the injury and will have his scoring touch back this year. I predict 32 goals.
The buyout cap hits are pretty intimidating, so I am also willing to take G and Staal for another year unless one or both can be moved without eating salary.

How is the pup, Jan?
- Fenrir

On Staal and Girardi, I think I am going to establish a new two year rule for myself. Meaning that if you are comfortable enough giving a player a long term contract at a big annual cap hit, and the buyout associated with that contract is crippling long term, you need to allow for that player having a bad year before you engage in a buyout that is going to be on the books for a long time. I have no interest in buying out either one of those players, after one bad year, given the long term consequences of doing so.

Also, if we don't think that the Rangers are legitimate contenders this year, why would they engage in buyouts that are going to have consequences several years out, when you hope to be contenders again? (And I am not saying that the Rangers can't be contenders this year).

On Staal and Girardi, I think I am going to establish a new two year rule for myself. Meaning that if you are comfortable enough giving a player a long term contract at a big annual cap hit, and the buyout associated with that contract is crippling long term, you need to allow for that player having a bad year before you engage in a buyout that is going to be on the books for a long time. I have no interest in buying out either one of those players, after one bad year, given the long term consequences of doing so.

Also, if we don't think that the Rangers are legitimate contenders this year, why would they engage in buyouts that are going to have consequences several years out, when you hope to be contenders again? (And I am not saying that the Rangers can't be contenders this year).
- Pete V

Always the voice of reason.
As I have said regarding G and Staal, they have played some tough minutes over the last few years and haven't had as much of the off-season to rest and heal. Going out in the first round gives them, especially G, extra time to recover. Those guys were really banged up.
I am hoping for a better season.

I think this hits the nail on the head with respect to Nash. I am not saying that I wouldn't trade Nash, but there is no way that I am trading him just to get rid of him. Why? Because then you don't have Rick Nash anymore. He is the most physically imposing forward on the team. He is the only guy on the team with the potential to score 35 + goals. He is a complete player that contributes in other ways when he's not scoring (and yes I realize you have to score for $7.8 million a year).

So, if you can make a trade that allows you to bring two good players back in return for Nash, by all means do it. But, if you can't make that trade, I am not just trading him for the cap space. What would we then do with that cap space? There is nobody left on the free agent market that would make us better, and by then losing Nash, you would then make things difficult on our other forwards who would then get more focus from the opposition.

Trading Rick Nash this year only makes sense if you are going to make the team better this year. And I don't see how that happens, if the market for him isn't robust. It would be a typical sell low approach, which usually hurts more then it helps.
- Pete V

Preach brother PeteV. I have been saying this forever. Hat tip to Queenie, spot on with the post.

Is Marc Staal really so bad that it would come to a buyout to get rid of him?

I know Girardi is a dumpster fire, but I thought Stall was at least decent

My how the Staals have fallen, Eric, Jordan and Marc....
- TheGame316

Marc Staal's buyout numbers are waaaaaay too horrendous, there isn't a chance they would consider it. Maybe a couple of years down the road.

Girardi's buyout cap hits aren't nearly as bad, and I think there is a slight chance he could still be bought out in the August buyout window if their RFA's get new deals that get more expensive than they hope.

Marc Staal's buyout numbers are waaaaaay too horrendous, there isn't a chance they would consider it. Maybe a couple of years down the road.

Girardi's buyout cap hits aren't nearly as bad, and I think there is a slight chance he could still be bought out in the August buyout window if their RFA's get new deals that get more expensive than they hope.
- jimbro83

At this point, I really question how buying out Girardi would help the team this year. I am saying this under the assumption that they are able to fit their RFA, which I think they will with some room to spare. So, if you buy him out, you really don't get any short term benefit, IMO, and there are long term consequences. Is that really worth it that this point, rather than taking the chance he bounces back, which would then give you more options?

At this point, I really question how buying out Girardi would help the team this year. I am saying this under the assumption that they are able to fit their RFA, which I think they will with some room to spare. So, if you buy him out, you really don't get any short term benefit, IMO, and there are long term consequences. Is that really worth it that this point, rather than taking the chance he bounces back, which would then give you more options?
- Pete V

Watch out, you are going to get attacked by the Girardi is the worst ever and can't possibly be better than last year.

Watch out, you are going to get attacked by the Girardi is the worst ever and can't possibly be better than last year.
- mdw7413

Girardi's numbers look like Tom's avatar.

At this point, I really question how buying out Girardi would help the team this year. I am saying this under the assumption that they are able to fit their RFA, which I think they will with some room to spare. So, if you buy him out, you really don't get any short term benefit, IMO, and there are long term consequences. Is that really worth it that this point, rather than taking the chance he bounces back, which would then give you more options?
- Pete V

Keeping Girardi would be detrimental if G continues to struggle while AV continues to play him 20+ minutes a game. Ultimately, a young player with potential to improve like McIlrath will have reduced icetime or be scratched for extended stretches to allow Girardi to get his minutes.

I'm not sure I can mentally handle another year of McIlrath being unjustly scratched due to a veteran's seniority.

Watch out, you are going to get attacked by the Girardi is the worst ever and can't possibly be better than last year.
- mdw7413

Could you imagine the right side of that defense if they bought Girardi out? Klein, Holden and McIlrath. Good god, that's rough. So, if you bought him out, you would have to find another right side defender, right? And who would that be? A free agent? Who? Or a trade? And would the price of that trade be worth it, and effectively hurt the team in other spots.

It's not an ideal situation, no doubt, but if they decided to replace Girardi, I think they would have had to do so when they had more options in free agency (so they wouldn't have to pay a player price).

Keeping Girardi would be detrimental if G continues to struggle while AV continues to play him 20+ minutes a game. Ultimately, a young player with potential to improve like McIlrath will have reduced icetime or be scratched for extended stretches to allow Girardi to get his minutes.

I'm not sure I can mentally handle another year of McIlrath being unjustly scratched due to a veteran's seniority.
- rangerdanger94

You think that McIlrath can't beat out Holden for a spot? If he can't McIlrath has bigger problems -- i.e., maybe he is not that good.

Girardi's numbers look like Tom's avatar.
- Fenrir

I still say, like PeteV said and I have been saying, if there are no moves and they can fit the rfa's what is the point of buying out Girardi and having dead cap space? He wont be playing with a cracked kneecap. Or a concussion. One can assume he might be slightly better than he was last year.

Finally some people are talking sense here. Rangers netted 101 points. Lost to the Stanley Cup winner, but everyone wants to overhaul the roster.

On Nash. He's still your goal-scorer. An injury-laden season and people think to trade him for a bag of plastic sporks. He's still "got it". I agree and see a 30+ goal / 60+ point season coming.

On Staal and Girardi. Was anyone talking about these two like they are now this time last year or two years ago? No. They were highly spoken of as they helped lead the Rangers D. Last season, the coaching staff completely changed they D-system (if it wasn't broken, why try to fix it?) and NOBODY GOT IT! Even fans like myself didn't understand the defensive scheme. It simply made zero sense. Everyone suffered, including Hank and Anti. Now, because of it, people want these two guys out. Sorry, but I do not agree here. The only thing that I don't like is their clauses in their contracts with expansion coming next year.

A major change in the D system and a healthy team after a longer off-season than they have had in many years and I see a good run this coming season without any major changes.

You think that McIlrath can't beat out Holden for a spot? If he can't McIlrath has bigger problems -- i.e., maybe he is not that good.
- Pete V

I think this team may be best with both McIlrath and Holden playing next year if G continues to struggle.

But one of those 2 will be forced to sit due to Girardi's seniority and we will ultimately be a worse team.

Whether or not Holden "beats" out McIlrath, it's clear that AV values veteran experience over youth. Just like Dan Boyle played over McIlrath when he shouldn't have, if Holden does make he team over McIlrath, it does not mean Holden is more effective than McIlrath.

Could you imagine the right side of that defense if they bought Girardi out? Klein, Holden and McIlrath. Good god, that's rough. So, if you bought him out, you would have to find another right side defender, right? And who would that be? A free agent? Who? Or a trade? And would the price of that trade be worth it, and effectively hurt the team in other spots.

It's not an ideal situation, no doubt, but if they decided to replace Girardi, I think they would have had to do so when they had more options in free agency (so they wouldn't have to pay a player price).
- Pete V

Exactly. If the Rangers had a plan going into the free agency frenzy to replace Girardi and they bought him out, so be it. The way the team is right now, there is no way I buyout Girardi this year. What a waste.

They should give him less minutes to start the year and see how he is. If he is playing well they can increase his minutes as the season progresses. I would start Klein as my 1st pairing guy with McDonagh.