Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

[Buyout] Rangers buyout Dan Girardi


Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, HerrDrFunk said:

 

Yeah, it's really not a get out of jail free card.

Perhaps the analogy wasn't as accurate as it could've been - I understand there is a financial aspect to the buyout that stays with the club - my point is they gave themselves a mechanism to lessen the blow of their idiotic/greedy decisions so they could go out and make more idiotic/greedy decisions. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Fanuck said:

Perhaps the analogy wasn't as accurate as it could've been - I understand there is a financial aspect to the buyout that stays with the club - my point is they gave themselves a mechanism to lessen the blow of their idiotic/greedy decisions so they could go out and make more idiotic/greedy decisions. 

Yes but it will be harder to make more idiotic, greedy decisions while you're still paying for your last idiotic, greedy decision.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Pernell Karl said:

Can't say that i've kept up with Girard or NYR since the good ol' HBO Winter Classic specials, so whats up with this guy's decline? Simply age or play style 

Brady Skjei came in and instantly took over a top 4 spot on their depth chart, and Nick Holden came in and gave them the same player essentially for a fraction of the price.

 

Dan is 32 and declining at a normal rate, but he is more a victom of the contract, and it makes more sense to buy him out than Marc Staal, who is also on a really bad contract, but a few years younger.

 

Maybe this gives them cap to resgin Mika and still go after Shattenkirk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Fanuck said:

I still have a HUGE problem with this 'Get out of Jail free card' that the GM's/Owners gave themselves with this buyout BS.  If you're a GM/Owner and you eff up a contract you should be stuck with it good or bad - yes, I know that statement has ramifications for our club as well. 

LOL - you actually expect the NHL/owners to play by the rules they themselves made Fanuck - seriously?  You should know better than that.    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, PlanB said:

LOL - you actually expect the NHL/owners to play by the rules they themselves made Fanuck - seriously?  You should know better than that.    

They ARE playing by the rules as set out by the CBA and agreed to by the NHLPA.   It's not like the buyout window is a new thing.  I don't understand people acting like the teams are pulling some shady acts.  If a player isn't living up to their contract the team should have some recourse to rid themselves of that contract. Even if it costs them in the process. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, cbdoubleu said:

Brady Skjei came in and instantly took over a top 4 spot on their depth chart, and Nick Holden came in and gave them the same player essentially for a fraction of the price.

 

Dan is 32 and declining at a normal rate, but he is more a victom of the contract, and it makes more sense to buy him out than Marc Staal, who is also on a really bad contract, but a few years younger.

 

Maybe this gives them cap to resgin Mika and still go after Shattenkirk.

I figured that to be the case, and was always team Staal personally. One of the few remaining from that brief Callahan, Dubinsky etc era 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, qwijibo said:

They ARE playing by the rules as set out by the CBA and agreed to by the NHLPA.   It's not like the buyout window is a new thing.  I don't understand people acting like the teams are pulling some shady acts.  If a player isn't living up to their contract the team should have some recourse to rid themselves of that contract. Even if it costs them in the process. 

So, just curious, you sound like you'd be in favor of an NFL-type CBA where teams can essentially void/terminate any contract at any time for any reason - leaving the player with zero recourse other than to look for another job? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Pernell Karl said:

Can't say that i've kept up with Girard or NYR since the good ol' HBO Winter Classic specials, so whats up with this guy's decline? Simply age or play style 

Bit of both, I'd say.

 

Age-related decline catches up to every player. But in Girardi's case it's been accelerated over the last couple years.

 

Some of this is down to player type/playstyle and how the game is passing some of these guys by.

 

There's no question Girardi's skating and puck skills have gone downhill. And unfortunately for him, he was never blessed with much of a surplus of ability in these areas so he didn't have much wiggle room to lose.

 

Also, Dan's been a "durable" player, in that he's had impressive GP totals per season, but he's also a "warrior" who plays through injuries. So while his career stats might suggest he's been pretty "healthy," he's actually put a tonne of wear and tear on his body. Playing through injuries really tends to catch up to players when they get north of 30 (which explains the accelerated decline).

 

His contract was ill-advised. When you run though the advanced stats, you can see him trending the wrong way as early as 2013. The issues just don't fully resolve into view until around 2015/16 (and of course hindsight makes it much easier to recognize these things). But at this stage, he's clearly not anywhere close to "value" on his contract.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Fanuck said:

So, just curious, you sound like you'd be in favor of an NFL-type CBA where teams can essentially void/terminate any contract at any time for any reason - leaving the player with zero recourse other than to look for another job? 

Not at all.  I think guaranteed contracts are important. But I also think there needs to be a mechanism to rid yourself of a contract if the player isn't living up to the contract.  That way the team gets some flexibility and the player is still fairly compensated and can potentially move on to another team. 

 

I only brought up tbe NFL to illustrate that NHL players are treated very fairly in this regard by comparison 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Fanuck said:

I still have a HUGE problem with this 'Get out of Jail free card' that the GM's/Owners gave themselves with this buyout BS.  If you're a GM/Owner and you eff up a contract you should be stuck with it good or bad - yes, I know that statement has ramifications for our club as well. 

It's like a consumer proposal or filing for bankruptcy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, qwijibo said:

I only brought up tbe NFL to illustrate that NHL players are treated very fairly in this regard by comparison 

I hear what you are saying overall.  Not necessarily agreeing with it, but I see your point.

 

As far as the NFL and comparisons go - comparing anything to a poor extreme will lead to favorable results as the NFL is widely considered the most favorable CBA in all of pro sports from an ownership perspective. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Fanuck said:

So, just curious, you sound like you'd be in favor of an NFL-type CBA where teams can essentially void/terminate any contract at any time for any reason - leaving the player with zero recourse other than to look for another job? 

Similar to real life in the work force eh?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trade Tanev for the 3rd pick. 

Benning is reluctant to trade because they want to be competitve.  Sign Girardi to a 1 year deal worth 1 million dollar.  Good hard working character guy for the locker room. Trade him at the trading deadline to a contender for a draft pick.  That would be good asset management. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Kuma said:

Trade Tanev for the 3rd pick. 

Benning is reluctant to trade because they want to be competitve.  Sign Girardi to a 1 year deal worth 1 million dollar.  Good hard working character guy for the locker room. Trade him at the trading deadline to a contender for a draft pick.  That would be good asset management. 

Pretty much this.

 

it is relatively easy to find a third pairing or depth guy to give us an extra body who won't hurt us too badly.

 

There will be a dozen of these kind of over the hill veterans or fringe players at a $1 million price tag who can fit the bill.

 

You extract as much value for Tanev and then try to tread water for a year or two with cast off and fill ins.  Maybe one or two of them pan out, if not it is zero risk as they can be waived/traded.

 

There is an alternative method of offering Vegas a pick or a more NHL ready prospect like Subban (they will have a lack of guys in this age range) in exchange for them selecting a decent 3rd pairing D from a team that they then flip to you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Fanuck said:

Perhaps the analogy wasn't as accurate as it could've been - I understand there is a financial aspect to the buyout that stays with the club - my point is they gave themselves a mechanism to lessen the blow of their idiotic/greedy decisions so they could go out and make more idiotic/greedy decisions. 

I'd argue that spreading the hit over even more years is screwing your franchise even more.  Look at the fiasco Gillis caused by agreeing to retain salary in the Luongo trade.  Any GM who handicaps his team's cap space for more than a season or 2 is an absolute idiot.    The Rangers would have been far better off packaging up a pick or prospect to Vegas in exchange for them taking Girardi.

 

Happy to see the Rangers cripple their franchise with dumb moves like this though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...