"For instance, and just using this team as an example, what would Richards do if the Panthers, who have nearly $42 million in cap space with 11 players signed for next season, offered him an eight-year, $60 million deal?
Would the overwhelming contract offer offset any concerns he might have about the Panthers' ownership and how long they might stay in Florida?"
...between Brooks' article and now this I'm starting to get a good feeling that the Rangers might not get Richards.
You know, there's little doubt that this guy will make an impact this season and next and probably the one after that. But a 35 year old top line center in the Eastern Conference is not going to be lighting it up and probably will have injury problems. I'd be alright with a 7 year deal, as long as the last half of the deal carried a cap hit around $3.5 Million. A $7 Million cap hit for a 35+ player not named Gretzky, Lemieux, or Yzerman is madness! Almost ANY player in this league is available, IF you're willing to pay the price. The Rangers have a lot of good young defensemen and prospects. In another year or so, there might be another team like the Flyers out there that feels like it's run it's course with the current goup of players and is willing to part ways with some superstars for youth (see Sharks, Ducks, Canucks, etc.). Richards is the best player that the Rangers can sign right now, but he's not the best player they can get if they're willing to pay the price. Signing Richards to a 7 or 8 year deal would show that Sather will always be Sather. Let's hope he proves otherwise.
@gravey94 well you said it - IF you want to pay. I have doubts in my mind that Sather could probably go aquire stamkos if he wanted - but is it worth it to gut the team and future for 1 player? Whereas you can sign this player for free basically?
To me, I'd rather keep Kreider, Dubinsky, Anisimov, Staal, Girardi, ect.
Any Richards contract will be front loaded. As long as you don't include an ironclad NMC.
@gravey94 I meant to say that I have NO doubts in my mind that he could acquire a guy like stamkos
@iamthebest Well if YOU are going to be a stat whore, at least do it right. Over the FIRST 10 years of his career, Gomez' PPG average is .81. Richards' is .93. That comes out to 10 point better per season. Does it mean Richards is better than Gomez, sure (like I said above, but you obviously didn't read). What it also means is that Richards is NOT in the elite class of centers, especially at 31. He may be at the top of the tier 2 class, but he does not warrant the money or years they are talking about. Just for reference, Messier's PPG production was 1.17 over his 1st 10 years and his first 2 years were not spectacular. THAT is elite, not 70 points per season. Very good, but NOT elite and defintely not worthy of a 7 year deal!
@gravey94 How is their production similiar? Richards is a career .92 points per game, gomez is .78. Richards is the better player, has been and always will be.
@iamthebest I didn't say the right prices, I said the right realistic price. It would take most of the young future to get Stamkos, and that's not going to happen.
Do you even read posts before you respond? I clearly said I never though of Gomez as a legit # 1 center. Not being a stat whore either, just pointing out the facts. The production of these 2 players is very similar, and Gomez did it on a team that really had no firepower, while Richards has had some weapons. Hell, Richard wasn't even the #1 center on his Tampa Cup team. Richards is a better player than Gomez, but he's a tier 2 player not an elite one. Paying him elite money and years is just going to bite the Rangers in the ass...again. Of course nobody knows the future, but when the past dictates that the long term deal / lots of money to a 30+ athlete strategy has NEVER worked, it stand to reason that the chance of it working THIS time are not good.
@gravey94 anybody could be had for the right price, especially with whats going on with stamkos right now.
Richards is far and away the better player than gomez, Gomez was NEVER a #1, stop being a stat whore. Saying "Gomez" and "Richards" in the same sentence is like apples and oranges.
@iamthebest Your first post made more sense...there is no way Sather could realistically get someone like Stamkos. Tampa is on it's way up, not stagnant Then again Richards is not in that class. Richards is the target because he's the ONLY legit free agent. Think of it this way, if there were no free agents, who would best fit in the Rangers plan for a realistic cost? I would hope that would be the way Sather & company would would work instead of just giving Richards what he wants because he's the ONLY option they can get without giving up prospects. I have no doubt Richards will be a Ranger, it just saddens me that in 3 years the likelyhood is that we're talking about him the same way that players like Gomez. I never considered Gomez a top tier Center, or even a legit #1, but if you look at his and Richards' stats, they're not that far apart, and they should be for the kind of money Richards wants.
He's not going to a team under the cap floor. First of all, why would one of those teams want a long, expensive financial commitment? If they're under the floor, that usually means there's a financial problem there. Hello?
Richards is going to want the money, but he's going to have to find a balance between the money and winning. If the Islanders offer 8 years, $60 million and the Rangers offer 6 years, $48 million, he can make up the difference in endorsements/playoff bonuses and stuff.
Can you imagine if he comes in here and is the next Messier? I'm not expecting it, but anyone who plays a key role in another Rangers cup will be looked at as a legend. Who wouldn't want that opportunity? Winning a cup here means more than winning one in Tampa or Dallas.
Don't try to pull the wool over your eyes Kevin. He'll be a Ranger come July 1st. Brooks also tweeted the other day Brad PERSONALLY said i'm going to New York and I want to go to New York. Unless of course he's talking about the Islanders.
@KevinDeLury In your dreams, the Rangers don't sign a elite player in his prime who will dramatically help the team in almost every aspect?
Those are some piss poor dreams
Wow thats a little harsh, especially considering that Kevin's take on this whole Richards nonsense has been sensible, logical, well thought out and based upon precedence.
@iamthebest One person does not dramatically help a team. Need other parts including a much needed 2nd sniper.
@KevinDeLury Kevin it is more looking at the whole picture not just Richard. One player is not going to fix the team and if you were to tell me that Richards was taking a 3 year deal with options to roll over into another season when he reaches goals then sure jump on Richards.
It is not a dislike of Richards here but rather a dislike of another 5-8 year deal that puts the NYR in a weak position.
It is a dislike of every year, people swear that (insert name here) is going to be better than (insert name here) was because he is a (insert reason here)
Next year we will be right back here doing the same thing over next year's flavor of the year.
@iamthebest @KevinDeLury And what kind of injury was it that caused BR to miss games? A concussion and he missed 10 games. Now the year before he played in 80 but had hip surgery in the off-season. Then during the previous 3 season he only played in 56, 12, 62 games.
You want to say that Richard wants to go to a team that spreads the money around. So why are the NYR holding off addressing their own RFAs?
What is the limit as to how much to spend on Richards? Which is it; is he wanting to win or does he want the money?
If he wants to win then he should have no problem taking less money so the team can afford other players.
And you assume that in 2013 that Crosby and CO will resign with their teams. But you would also be wrong too as the Ducks have shown they will not pay more than 6 million a season.
Yet you have Gaborik and Henrik already out the door. Sorry your words actually offer better reasons why signing Richards would be a bad idea,
And here are a couple of reasons that not one person who swears Richards is signing because he likes Tortorella.
The first is that if Tortorella and Richards are such pals how come Richards was the one traded not Vinnie or St. Louis?
The other is that Tortorella is not employing his "safe is death" system but rather the grinding trap style. That is the number 1 reason why Gaborik is struggling FYI so Richards is no guarantee that Gaborik will play better.
That is OK by this time next year you will be back making the same argument about a UFA as why he the one who will get Richards going.
Chemistry can not be purchased it has to be developed.
@KevinDeLury -Last years Rangers > Last years Stars. Stars also play in the western conference, a lot harder to make the playoffs - they missed with 95 points. Stars also lost Richards for a bit and then started to slump, he was the straw that stired Dallas' drink. Add Richards to our team, minus injurys and add development of players and you're looking at 4-5 team instead of a 7-8 team.
-Those guys MIGHT have issues, but honestly, what are the chances? Slim and None. Richards is tangible.
-Henrik will be a good goalie for a long time, but he wants to start winning. He said as much in the paper after the season ended.
@KevinDeLury @iamthebest , I can't compare Hank to Thomas and Roloson. He's a different player. While Hank is a poised stand-up player, I don't think he has a lot of years left. Roloson is a freak of nature and it's all down hill for Thomas now.
As for the free agents, I think iamthebest is just naming examples. in 2-3 years we may have high profile free agents that are just not quite high profile yet.
@iamthebest Who's to say the guys you mention don't have issues in 2-3 years. And just because the Rangers don't get Richards doesn't mean they are a last place team. They made the playoffs last year without him. And if I remember correctly the Stars didn't with him. Hank has plenty of years left look at Roloson & Thomas this year.
@iamthebest @KevinDeLury , Oh, I never thought of this as a quick fix. I'm with you, Kevin, no such thing. I also agree that this isn't going to get us a cup anytime sooner, but it will get the kids more playoff experience sooner. I see Richards as a part of building this team as we say goodbye to Drury and Prospal. Richards brings a slightly younger veteran presence with a little more ability. I appreciate your commitment to the kids, Kevin, but I'm not convinced that signing Richards in any way inhibits our building from within. I think Richards is the nice free agent we want. I hope some of these kids will negate the need for choice free agents in the next couple years. (I also hope Wolski can be that other sniper; while I'm not holding my breath, if we can get secondary scoring from a number of players as we did at times last year, we will be a tough team to beat).
@KevinDeLury -How is this a quick fix? It's adding a piece to something. This is part of building a team. The team has needed a number 1 center since Messier left. Thats not a quick fix, thats a solution to a MAJOR problem.
-What free agents are you adding in two years? Most of the high profile free agents will be signed by their respective teams. That's the way it's been since the lockout. Richards is only hitting free agency because of Dallas' ownership issues. Kovalchuk was the same last year. Players on teams with stable ownership.
Look at the top free agents in 2013
Crosby, Perry, Getzlaf - these are all guys who have no reason to leave their current teams.
-Meanwhile, while you are waiting through the growing pains, Gaborik and Henrik are going to be in the last years of their contracts, and probably more apt to move along to teams that are contenders already, instead of teams that are just begining to be.
-We won't win the cup next year, but this team needs to start doing some WINNING overall. Playoff experience is INVALUABLE and we need to put these young players in a position where they are experiencing that, living it, and producing in it.
I agree 100% that Richards will have an immediate impact on the Rangers. However, I don't feel it will be enough to win this team a Cup. My stance all along is that I'd rather bite the bullet the next two years build from within and then when this team is ready bring in some nice free agents to fill in the gaps when the team has much more cap space.
Just a difference in philosophy. And the reason I'm against Richards is b/c I DO watch a lot of hockey and know that quick fixes are never the answer.
@iamthebest @KevinDeLury , well, I sort of agree with both of you. On the one hand, Kevin's right, one player is hard-pressed to dramatically effect a team. On the other hand, points 1-5 are not bad, but I'll believe that power play when I see it.
I think if we can keep the other contracts in hand (Dubinsky) maybe Richards' contract-to-be doesn't have to be so crippling.
@KevinDeLury Really? I think you'd be suprised
1) Creates a legit 1st line - creates more time and space for guys like dubinsky, callahan, stepan, anisimov, et al to work against teams lesser defense and players
2) LEGIT PP quarterback - i dont know, I think that has been a major problem for us the last couple of years. Can get MDZ and Gabby going in that regards
3) Experience and Leadership - guy knows what it takes to win and knows what it's like to win. Can mentor younger players
4) Faceoffs - A MAJOR Problem for our team last year. Having more guys on the ice who can win Faceoffs will be crucial. A huge part of the Bruins' stanely cup win was their ability to win faceoffs, and win big faceoffs as well.
5) Makes others around him better - If we had Gaborik's 42 goals this year we would have clinched a playoff spot before the last day of the season. He can get Gaborik going, as well as other players on our team.
I agree we need another sniper, but if you don't think adding Richards would dramatically help this team then, no offense, i think you need to watch more hockey.
I don't know Richards that well, but he doesn't seem to be looking at a cap floor, bottom feeder. New York has to be more interesting to him. If he's only in it for the money, we don't want him here. Otherwise...
I'm interested in bringing Richards on board. I share concerns over what kind of contract they'll come up with, but I envision him a valuable piece to this team.
Lyle "Spector" Richardson agrees, in response to that article:"Richards is interested in signing with at eam that has stable ownership, is commited towards building a cup contender, but are also willing to commit to him long-term. The best offer financially might not be the one that lands him"
Richards isn't going to a cap floor team. He's going to a team where they can spend money around him. Thats why he left Dallas. A high percentage of those teams are rebuilding teams. He wants to win another cup. Illogical.