Friday, July 2, 2010

Brief Thoughts Post Tums&Tylenol Day. . .

Yes, brief. Because no time whatsoever this morning...

The Good:

I like Biron. And I think if he and Benoit, les francophones, can be on the same page, that is a good thing for the team. He was an above average goalie.I think he can get back there. And he's a very good guy.

Christensen and Prospal returning. Prospal - due for a bad year in the good/year bad/year return, may just buck the trend because he's comfortable. And as I stated on Twitter yesterday, his bad is better than most of our teams good, so... As for Christensen - was I thrilled when he didn't take the first offer, no. Do I get it, yes. Kinda like's a situation,in my mind, where as a player you see the outrageous contracts the NYRs have handed out. You're smart enough to know you are not getting something outrageous. But if you aren't the guy making $7 million but you are the ONLY guy that seems to be able to play with your superstar Gaborik, I can kinda see why he'd want a little more $. I can. Glad they are back.

The Bad:

I don't want to try to pretend that the Boogaard thing bothers me like the Brashear thing did exactly one year ago. isn't a good thing. To me, it's like you had Orr, that wasn't offensive, you got rid of him for Brashear, who was??, and paid him more. That worked splendidly. You have Shelley, who was more offensive than 95% of the team during the home stretch, who is a really good locker room guy (and in this locker room, yes that IS important), but you let him go to Philly to sign this guy from Minny - and at upwards of $1.6 a year! It feels to me like doing the same thing over and over and expecting the same result. Insanity?

The only benefit here is it's not insulting, like the Brashear move was. I have no problem with Boogaard as a player. I just think that on a team that overpays for players who have one or minimal roles, a guy that will not score, not contribute to that in any way, to pay him so much to defend Hank, may be a lot of money. We'll see how it goes. We have four years.

Around the League:

So upset Z. Michalek went to the Penguins. (Meanwhile as I groaned about the NYRs yesterday, adoptive team took a few body blows). One, because I do think he's a great player. Two, because we all know how I feel about Pittsburgh. They just got much better.

Nothing else surprised me too much. It'll take me til November to realize what goalie plays for what team - a yearly task in fun.

But before I go, a comment on Malhotra, who took a lot of heat for his contract in Vancouver. 3 years, 2.5ish per year, NMC. I'm with everyone, I don't get the no movement. (I mean I understand why Manny'd want it after being on his 3 team in 3 years. I don't know why they'd give it.)

But here's why I think the contract is more fair that people thing. He's not overly offensive, true (although I'd take 14 goals from anyone on my 3rd or 4th line)... but it's everything else. 60+% faceoff winning percentage. If this guy is not tops in the league, he's always top three. That makes whatever team he's on, top 5 in faceoffs in the league on a consistent basis. May not mean much to the Rangers, but on a normal team, that is vital. He's the guy taking defensive draws in important moments. He's the guy PKing. He's the guy that even though he played mostly 3rd and 4th line with Columbus, also played with Rick Nash during one of the better portions of his playing time two years ago. Last year, I think we saw how vital he was in San Jose. He was +17. He was durable. They looked to him.

Again, not the flashy look-at-me model, but the I get things done.

The NYRs are paying Drury $7.05 million a year to win less faceoffs, score just as many goals (14), and be just as effective a penalty killer. And for 5 years.

Is $2.5 for 3 years for someone so dependable really that outrageous?

This isn't a knock Drury fest. Again, he has intangibles, because goodness knows it isn't his speed or scoring abililty he's getting paid for.

But I think, in my opinion, Manny is just as valuable to his own team as Drury is here.

Just my thought.

*Heading out of computer range. No more blogs. Will follow weekend on Twitter. I hope that I read Kovalchuk goes out West. And that the NYRs have buttoned up Staal to a nice, fair offer.

Have a great holiday weekend everyone!


Luke said...

Hey Kels,

While I can agree it's not offensive the way Brashear was. Signing Boogaard is... words fail me... obscene?

There is an excellent piece on Blueshirt Banter about it. Talks about what this means in terms of other people asking for money and what he'll be paid per minute of ice time. The economics of it are staggering, it's just an outrageous deal. Are there not people in the orginisation who ask questions? Is Sather surrounded by sycophants?

As many of my comments have indicated I like oldtime, rough and tumble hockey. But people who play that role are not, and will never be, worth that kind of money!

Enjoy the weekend.


kels said...

Hey Luke-

Yeah, it is just painful, the money part, the more you look at it. It's not the player. It's the fact that whether he's a vital player or a non-vital player - Sather thinks he's that vital in respect to $$ or at least that's the statement he made. Obscene is right.

Thanks for that link:

I missed it and what's being said there - it's exactly right. All of it. It's not even what the contract does at the moment, it's what it says to everyone else now and future.

I said it with Dubinsky and I said it with Christensen. Gomez and Drury made all that $$ to NOT play 1st line minutes w/our best players. Dubinsky and Christensen did so, like it or not, they kinda have an argument when Sather lowballs them.

And I've already expressed my Staal opinion. I think he is one of the best on this team, next to Hank and Gaborik. And certainly one of their most consistent.

So, really, why should he take less than $4 million?

GOSH! I hate it when Sather screws the few that work, the few that get it!!