buy discount cialis

Addressing the Dan Boyle rumor

Dan Boyle - still a good point man.

Dan Boyle – still a good point man.

Early yesterday, it was noted that the San Jose Sharks are open to dealing a defenseman as long as they get a forward in return. Dan Boyle’s name immediately popped up, and the Rangers were a team already linked to the Sharks due to this defensive surplus. In a previous post, I discussed the potential defensemen the Rangers may target, and specifically focused on Douglass Murray. In the original post, Boyle wasn’t up for consideration because his contract is not expiring after this season.

Before we get into why Boyle likely won’t be destined for Broadway, let’s acknowledge that Boyle would be a welcomed addition to the Rangers. He’s a big body who is defensively capable and, most importantly, is a guy with a ton of powerplay experience who can quarterback the fledging unit. If the Rangers are truly looking for a point man, then Boyle is their guy. The fact that he actually hits people and plays decent defense is a bonus.

But, as mentioned above, the biggest issue with Boyle is his contract. Boyle’s contract expires after next season –meaning the Rangers are on the hook for oneĀ  more year– with a price tag of $6.67 million per season. The Rangers are already playing with fire when it comes to next year’s cap, and adding another $6.67 million to the books doesn’t exactly help their cause.

Another problem with acquiring Boyle is that the Sharks are supposedly looking for a forward that can slide into their top-six with ease. Since the Rangers aren’t trading any of their top-six forwards, Chris Kreider, or J.T. Miller, the Rangers don’t have much that would entice the Sharks to make a deal. The Sharks are a playoff team at the moment. A prospect and a pick won’t help them.

The Rangers and the Sharks actually make decent trading partners at the moment. The Rangers, having addressed their forward depth issues, now need assistance on defense. The Sharks have defense to spare, but need help on forward. That said, the immediate returns required to land someone like Boyle would probably keep the Rangers from pulling the trigger.

As with 99% of NHL trades, the issue here is timing. The Rangers simply cannot give the Sharks what they want at this given moment. And while a trade can likely be worked out that would be fair value for both teams, it’s likely not a trade both teams would make to seal a deal. If the Rangers are to make a move for a defenseman, expect it to be for someone who is a little under the radar with a lower cost than Boyle.

14 Responses to “Addressing the Dan Boyle rumor”

  1. Walt says:

    Can you see this guy on the top four D, wow. Huge contract, deal for him is a no-no. What other d-men do they have who would help?

  2. Chris says:

    Dan Boyle isn’t what he was. This would be a move of the Rangers of old. Big(ish) name, once quality player on the downside of his career. The price to acquire wouldn’t be worth the return any more.

  3. nyr1579 says:

    Would it be possible to trade for this guy(not saying i think they should nor should they give up what sharks are looking for – just a hypothetical) then use the second amnesty buyout after the season?

    • Chris says:

      yes, probably. But given the assets it would likely to take to acquire him that’d be very bad/care free business on the part of the rangers. Would also send a negative message around the league and one trump card of the Rangers is the way they handle their players.

      • Mike I says:

        Wouldn’t Gonchar be a decent fit? Ton of PP experience with an expiring contract at seasons end and shouldn’t cost anywhere near the amount Boyle would. Given the senators recent injuries if they start to fall down the standings I don’t see why they would keep him.

        • Tim B says:

          Gonchar is like in his mid to late thirties. I am not certain if he has injury issues. I would not want him. Seems like all the old Rangers players in recent yets have trouble stayin healthy. Drury in mid thirties went down with an injury. Prospal in mid to late thirties went down with an injury. Frolov was late twenties when he had torn ACL.

          • Mike I says:

            Well injuries are obviously part of the game and can’t really predict who will get injured. I’m just saying he can run our PP and be a veteran bottom pair dman. You wouldn’t have to give up as much to get him and it’s only a half year rental, don’t really see a negative.

        • bernmeister says:

          No Gonchar is awful at any price.
          DO NOT WANT

      • nyr1579 says:

        agree on all points. just wasnt sure if it was possible. gives added meaning to rental players at the deadline tho no?

  4. invalidbeard says:

    Richards for Boyle. Rangers assume a small amount of Richards’ contract, Sharks maybe buy him out after 2014 season. We move Del Zotto for a young center (O’Reilly not named O’Reilly), and the powerplay becomes average/slightly above.

  5. Charlie says:

    I just don’t see why the Rangers would want another 5’11 190 lbs guy who doesn’t hit. Not to mention he is 36 and has a cap hit that is not cap friendly for a team already struggling to re-sign their restricted FA’s next year. While Boyle is a good skater and would surely help the PP, I think I’d take a look at Murray on a much lower cost to the Rangers.

  6. bernmeister says:

    Regarding the article, unless he’s traded we have no choice but to use our remaining amnesty on Richards, it is that clear. The only ? is if he actually goes for production at no cost or to a team that takes a bribe from us to use their amnesty buyout instead.

    D. Boyle is tight but MAYBE can fit if gone after next year. But correct to say does not seem trading match as to pieces. Maybe Brian Boyle + Pyatt + Eminger and a pick or Yogan/St. Croix is enough.