|
20+ Offseason Questions: #2 - Should The Rangers Buy Out Brad Richards? |
|
|
|
|
|
Yesterday, I started the offseason analysis by listing 21 questions and answering the first one on the list, should Torts return as coach. That one sparked tremendous debate as there is little middle ground and i can understand and easily take the other side of the argument. I gave my view and understand those that disagree with me, but my responsibility on this bog is to give my view, regardless on if it is the prevailing one and let you decide on which side of the conversation you fall.
Today, I tackle the second one: will and should the Rangers buyout Brad Richards.
When Richards signed, the title if my blog was: Oh Brad, I'm Glad. It's funny and interesting to look at back at what I wrote then and compare it to how the contract and the signing looks now. It shows that as much as we think we know at the time, hindsight is always 20-20 as the end result very rarely pans out how we think it will.
This is what I wrote on July 3, 2011:
For all those hating on him coming to NY, I can understand your view. If the Rangers lost out, I too would be upset. But to now call him overrated, injury-prone, typical Rangers move of overpaying is so beyond the pale it's not even funny. Richards is a true #1 center with 716 points in 772 games. He is a Stanley Cup champion and Conn Smythe winner who had seven game-winning goals in TB championship run. In terms of injury-prone, Richards played every game his first six years. He had one major injury, a wrist injury, three years ago, but played 80 games in 2009-10 and after the concussion, he played the last 16 games and scored 14 points, including eight points in his last six games.
In terms of typical, overpaid, Rangers move, the Rangers went in wanting to give Richards an AAV between $6.5 and $7 million. They accomplished that with giving him $60 million over nine years. In addition, Richards took less from NY that elsewhere, as Calgary offered $4 mil more and Toronto possibly up to $10 mil more. However, Toronto, as is their want and pattern, refused to front-load the contract, which Richards as protection against possible salary rollbacks in the next CBA. Yes, the Rangers are paying $12m, $12m, $9m, $8.5m, $8.5m, $7m, $1m, $1m, $1m, and a total of $20mil over the next 12 months. Ehrhoff is getting $18 mil the first two years, and the amount of yelling over that one seems minimal compared to Richards, as the Rangers followed the pattern set by Ilya last year and Ehrhoff this year in constructing the deal. I am not delusional, as money was a critical factor, but Richards also chose NY because it is an Original Six team, in the East , with stable ownership along with his relationship with Torts. The one piece I disagree with is giving him a No Movement Clause for the duration of the deal.
The Rangers are clearly better with Richards. Jim Cerny did a great job of listing five reasons:
1) #1 center and can QB PP (major, major needs filled)
2) style of play complements Gabby (who is now on the spot as he has the center who can handle the puck, freeing up Gabby to do what he does best, find open spaces and shoot rather than carry the puck)
3) intangibles (played with Torts and mentor for younger players)
4) Stanley Cup Experience (key if Rangers can make a long run next year)
5) he wanted to be a Ranger (see reasons spelled out above)
Now, with the advent of two seasons having gone by, you can look at the first two reasons listed and pick them apart. The latter three I think are all still applicable, despite his struggles in NY. It's those first two along with the contract, amnesty potential and recapture rules that likely will drive how the Rangers play this out.
Below I will list three possible factors that could impact what the Rangers do on Richards:
Lack of Production:
Richards admitted in the post-season break up meetings that his conditioning was not where he wanted or needed it to be. The lack of training camp coupled with the delay in signing a CBA, during which Richards did not play overseas, both contributed to that lack of conditioning. This was something Torts was concerned about way back when the lockout ended, a view that was proven all too accurate.
Last year, Richards had 66 points in 82 games, but came up with several big goals, including the one with .1 remaining against Phoenix and Game 7 versus Washington. While his overall numbers weren't great, they were passable and he still appeared to be filling the role of a top line center. In addition, Marian Gaborik did have 40+ goals, though not all of them were due to playing with Richards. Last, Richards did lead the Rangers with 15 points last postseason.
This year, Richards, partially due to the aforementioned lack of playing time during the lockout, got to a slow start and it seemed to go downhill from there. He finished the season with 11 goals and 23 assists, though 11 of those points came in a six-game stretch to close the season. When the playoffs started, he had one goal in 10 games and saw his minutes diminish along with a drop to the fourth line. What I wrote in the blog prior to Game 4 warrants another mention now. "So let me ask two questions. First, if his name wasn't Brad Richards and he wasn't making so much money, would anyone think he should be in the lineup? Second, does anyone think he should be in the lineup? Look, I will admit I like Richards and always have but his production, or lack thereof, warranted his move to the fourth line, and at this point, warrants him being scratched. We all speak about accountability and how playing time should be earned. In this case, the move that is being made is the right one, as painful of a call as that might be."
Update: one more thing that hit me after I posted the blog was if the Rangers do bring back Richards, what line does he play on? If you view Stepan as the the top center and saw enough from Brassard for him to be the two, can Richards be the third line center cognizant of the team's need to get bigger and stronger? In addition, what do you do with JT Miller, who many believe is ready to fill that role. Based upon Richards' salary, is that the wisest use of him and will that impact the negotiations with Stepan etc for them to see the Rangers are willing to play a third liner $6.67 million a year, yet they will on,y offer much less to those players?
Relationship with Tortorella:
From listening to what Torts said when he scratched Richards and after the year, it's clear that this was one of the more difficult decisions he had to make. "Brad Richards is a hell of a hockey player. He has had struggles here, it continues, me putting him in that role doesn’t help him, so I would rather have him out and identity how we are going to run our fourth line. Don’t put words in my mouth. I’m not blaming Brad Richards, I’ve heard enough of that crap. He is a hell of a hockey player that has had a. I need to make decisions for what I feel is right for the team to win tonight’s game. This is a Conn Smythe winner, I guy that I have grown up with, a guy that I love as a person and as a player but I have to make that decision. So kiss my ass if you wanna write something different. It’s not about blaming that guy and I don’t want anyone poling on him. It’s my decision for the hockey team.”
Richards chose the Rangers partially for his relationship with Tortorella dating back to their days in Tampa. While that relationship has seen its up and downs in NY, it still appears that the two are on solid ground and have a strong like for one another. In addition, Tortorella likely still believes that Richards can turn it around and be the force he was prior to coming to NY, but we will have to see if he gets that chance,
Buyout and Recapture Rules:
As Katie Strang wrote on ESPN New York today: Because of the "cap advantage recapture rule," the Rangers would be facing hefty penalties in the event that Richards retires early.
The rule penalizes teams for any cap advantage gained from a player whose salary exceeds his cap hit in a given year. Richards was paid $24 million in salary over the first two years of the deal, which comes with an annual cap hit of $6.66 million. The last three years of his deal, he is due to make $1 million annually.
Under the parameters of the rule, the Rangers would be charged with a penalty of $5.66 million if Richards were to retire in the offseason of 2017, $8.5 million in 2018, and $17 million in 2019.
If the Rangers do buy out Richards, he would get $24 million over the next 14 years, but as others have mentioned, including the blog on the fourth period, to James Dolan, that usually would not mean much but given the renovations in MSG, he might blink and swallow a bit harder before writing off on that transaction. Of course, the big keys to buying out Richards now as opposed to waiting one more year to see if he can rebound are: saving the $6.66 million cap hit per year, allowing it to be used on other assets, avoiding Richards getting injured preventing him from being bought out and removing the risk that he retires, keeping the hit on their books. In addition, even if you deal him but he then opts to retire, you are stuck with the cap hit the last few years of the deal due to the way the contract was constructed as noted above.
So what should the Rangers do?
If this was the pre-current CBA, I could see the Rangers taking a chance and bringing Richards back for one more year to see if he has anything left. Richards is still a respected veteran and clubhouse leader and if he is amnestied, the prevailing view among many will be how the Rangers bought themselves out of another bad contract with little regard for the person and the player. However, the old CBA was then and this is now. Plus, the new NHL leaves little room for perceptions to dictate policy and actions, The risk of injury and possible retirement prior to the end of the contract, which would leave the Rangers in cap hell to 2020, make buying out Richards an almost no-brainier, even though I do think he does have a little bit left in the tank. Is that worth $6.67 million a year, no, and that's the view the Rangers have to take when evaluating the situation.
New York Rangers Blogger • 
Join the Discussion:
»