HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   New York Rangers (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=24)
-   -   The Roster (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=114627)

Sunshine 11-20-2004 10:54 PM

The Roster
 
If we can get 1/2 a season in...

1 JAGR- NYLANDER - BALEJ
2 LUNDMARK- MOORE - WISEMAN
3 MURRAY - HOLIK - ORTMEYER
4 GIROUX - BETTS - GILLIES/WELLER

1 KASPARAITIS-POTI
2 TJUTIN-KONDRATIEV
3 POCK-RACHUNEK* (TRADE FOR FORWARD)
ex: LAMPMAN, MARSHALL, MACMILLAN, PURINTON, STRUDWICK, GRENIER

1 WEEKES
2 DUNHAM* (BLACKBURN WHEN HEALTHY)

FLYLine24 11-20-2004 11:10 PM

I would be VERY suprised if we could win a tenth of our games with that lineup. Its HORRIBLE.(No offense...but ur just using the players we have..so not your fault) first off IF there was a season Sather still needs to find a first line right wing. Balej isnt a 1st line player yet and he shouldnt be rewarded with it. Strudwick would replace Kondratiev who is not ready to make a jump the NHL and we got strudwick as our enfourcer type player. 2nd line (with Balej on it with Moore and Lundmark would be ok) 3rd line with ORTS is good, and the 4th line with Wiseman would be ok...

IMO this would look better:

1 _______ ( 1st line Winger Sather needs to get) - NYLANDER - JAGR
2 LUNDMARK- MOORE - BALEJ
3 MURRAY - HOLIK - ORTS
4 GIROUX - BETTS - WISEMAN

1 KASPARAITIS-TYUTIN
2 POTI-RACHUNEK
3 POCK-STRUDWICK

1 WEEKES
2 DUNHAM* (BLACKBURN WHEN HEALTHY)

NYRangers 11-20-2004 11:15 PM

Guys, Jagr is a RW.

Lundmark-Nylander-Jagr
Rucinsky-Holik-Balej

Thats a much better top two lines.

FLYLine24 11-20-2004 11:50 PM

Lundmark as a FIRST LINER?!?!?! HELL NO. What the hell has this guy proven in the NHL? Nothing and more nothing. The whole point of this rebuilding should be to have the kids know RIGHT OFF HAND they have to WORK for a spot on a team and nothing will be handed to them unlike the previous overpaid/underachieving rangers.

Balej20* 11-20-2004 11:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYRangers
Guys, Jagr is a RW.

Lundmark-Nylander-Jagr
Rucinsky-Holik-Balej

Thats a much better top two lines.


Rucinsky would have to be ahead of Lundmark on the LW depth chart. Plus, he has better chemistry with Jagr.

Leetchie 11-21-2004 12:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FLYLine4LIFE
Lundmark as a FIRST LINER?!?!?! HELL NO. What the hell has this guy proven in the NHL? Nothing and more nothing. The whole point of this rebuilding should be to have the kids know RIGHT OFF HAND they have to WORK for a spot on a team and nothing will be handed to them unlike the previous overpaid/underachieving rangers.


Colorado successfully used the rookie forward on the top lines (see: Hejduk, Drury, Tanguay, and more recently, Svatos). There's nothing wrong with putting a skilled player in a position where he can succeed. Do you think Milan Hejduk would have scored his rookie year playing 5 minutes a game with two goons?

Rodent 11-21-2004 01:50 AM

Not to squelch anybody's imagination. But I do have three observations on the aforementioned proposals:

1) Jagr wants to play on the same line with Rucinsky and Ruca believes he has agreed to terms with Slats, even though a formal contract is not in place. No deals can be signed during the lockout.

2) I do like Ortmeyer with Holik as others have suggested.

3) Don Maloney said on Tuesday that Jamie Lundmark will likely play pivot. My thinking is that management is saying it is "put-up-or-shut-up" time for Jamie who played center in juniors, of course. If he fails to show more than he has while playing his natural position, he'll probably go the way of Manny Malhotra.

Now ignore what I've just said and get back to work. I'm thoroughly enjoying the proposals - even the radical ones.

patnyrnyg 11-21-2004 07:03 AM

Moore will not get more minutes than Holik, not a chance. It doesnt matter, if that is their line-up, they will have a snowball's chance in hell of making the play-offs. Unless of course, they play the Islanders 48 times, then they will go undefeated!!!!!

NYRangers 11-21-2004 07:34 AM

I dont see why Lundmark shoulnt be 1st line. No, hes not good enough. But with such a weak offense you need to spread out the fire power. And since NYlander and Jagr will defenitley score you shoul dput them with a needy player.

Prucha73 11-21-2004 07:36 AM

Why would we sign 34 year-old Rucinsky when we don't even have enough spots for our talented young players? It would make some sense this season if there was no lockout, but next season we should have a ton of guys fighting for several spots.

Kodiak 11-21-2004 10:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leetchie
Colorado successfully used the rookie forward on the top lines (see: Hejduk, Drury, Tanguay, and more recently, Svatos). There's nothing wrong with putting a skilled player in a position where he can succeed. Do you think Milan Hejduk would have scored his rookie year playing 5 minutes a game with two goons?

I agree. To me, it would be a waste for a rebuilding to have an all-veteran line. The best way to develop a young player is to play him with veterans who will complement his style. That's been proven time and again with successful teams (re: Colorado, New Jersey, Detroit, Dallas). Young scorers should play with established scorers. Young checkers should player with established checkers. A guy like Lundmark, or Moore, or Wiseman, or even Murray would learn a lot lining up with Jagr and Nylander.

Kodiak 11-21-2004 10:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prucha73
Why would we sign 34 year-old Rucinsky when we don't even have enough spots for our talented young players? It would make some sense this season if there was no lockout, but next season we should have a ton of guys fighting for several spots.

Okay, Prucha, I'll bite. What players do you think will be ready to make the jump next year? And what are you basing your opinion on?

NYRangers 11-21-2004 10:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kodiak
Okay, Prucha, I'll bite. What players do you think will be ready to make the jump next year? And what are you basing your opinion on?

Next season Prucha, Helminen, Murray, Immonen, Wisemen, Moore, Kondratiev, Pock, Tyutin, Balej, Giroux, Lampman, all have a very realistic shot at making the club at camp. Less probably but still possibly, Lundqvist and Jessiman.

Eiether way, all of them will be on the team at some point next season.

Prucha73 11-21-2004 12:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kodiak
Okay, Prucha, I'll bite. What players do you think will be ready to make the jump next year? And what are you basing your opinion on?

I am not saying they are ready, but there will be lots of competition for forward spots in the next camp--Jessiman, Balej, Immonen, Graham, Moore, Lundmark, Jonasen, Betts, Murray, Hollweg, Ortmeyer, Falardeau, Helminen, Dawes, Prucha, Callahan, Giroux, Weller, Wiseman, Petruzalek, etc. will likely be competing for a few open spots.

True Blue 11-21-2004 12:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prucha73
I am not saying they are ready, but there will be lots of competition for forward spots in the next camp--Jessiman, Balej, Immonen, Graham, Moore, Lundmark, Jonasen, Betts, Murray, Hollweg, Ortmeyer, Falardeau, Helminen, Dawes, Prucha, Callahan, Giroux, Weller, Wiseman, Petruzalek, etc. will likely be competing for a few open spots.

Competition has to come from those who can realistically make the team. Lundmark and Balej are the only realistic players who will make the top 6 from your list. Jessiman is not going to make the NHL after an injury-shortened season. Moore is certainly not an NHL top 2 line player. Jonasen has no chance of making the team next year (NHL team that is). Betts will compete for a 4th line spot. Murray will compete for either a 3rd or 4th line spot. Dawes and Prucha have about as much of a chance of making the big team next year as you do. Neither Petruzalek nor Callahan will not be in the NHL next year. Giroux MAYBE can compete for a 4th line spot (with Murray and Ortmeyer taking 2 of the bottom 4 wing spots). Wiseman will compete for one of the bottom 6 spots. Weller is not getting near the big team. Falardeau has a snowball's chance in hell of ever making the NHL level.
So, of all the people that you listed, very few are making the team. So why should Rosie play? Because of the top 4 wings spots, 3 will be taken by Jagr, Lundmark, & Balej. Of the bottom 4 wing spots, 2 will be taken by Murray & Ortmeyer. That leaves one top 2 line wing spot open and 2 bottom 2 line wings spots open. Of all of the people that you listed, none will be a better choice for the top 2 lines than Rosie. Let's not be unrealistic. You are not going to head into a season with an all-rookie team (aside from Jagr, Holik, & Lundmark).

NYRangers 11-21-2004 01:01 PM

Quote:

[Prucha] has about as much of a chance of making the big team next year as you do.
I disagree. This summer it seemed like he was an option for the second line spot. Hes a two way player so he can still contribute if hes not scoring. But a line of Prucha-Nylander-Jagr is something I expect to see as some point. Prucha and Jagr have great chemistry together and Nylander plays well with Jagr. That seems like the most constructive way to use their resources.

Immonen will probably also assume the 2nd line center spot next season.

Kodiak 11-21-2004 01:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYRangers
I disagree. This summer it seemed like he was an option for the second line spot. Hes a two way player so he can still contribute if hes not scoring. But a line of Prucha-Nylander-Jagr is something I expect to see as some point. Prucha and Jagr have great chemistry together and Nylander plays well with Jagr. That seems like the most constructive way to use their resources.

Immonen will probably also assume the 2nd line center spot next season.

I agree that Prucha and Immonen have better shots than most at securing a top 6 spot, due to the fact that both have a good deal of elite league experience. But I don't see any other player making the top 6 that wouldn't have been on this year's top 6 (i.e. Lundmark and Balej). I'm sure some would like to see Prucha-Nylander-Jagr followed by Lundmark-Immonen-Balej, but it's just not feasible to believe that both Prucha and Immonen are willing to come over and ready to step in and produce at the NHL level. I like the idea of Rucinsky short-term (preferably 1 year, 2 at most) because even if we're surprised by a couple of prospects, Rucinsky is versatile enough to play on the 3rd line and would come cheaply enough to be moved.

NYRangers 11-21-2004 02:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kodiak
I agree that Prucha and Immonen have better shots than most at securing a top 6 spot, due to the fact that both have a good deal of elite league experience. But I don't see any other player making the top 6 that wouldn't have been on this year's top 6 (i.e. Lundmark and Balej). I'm sure some would like to see Prucha-Nylander-Jagr followed by Lundmark-Immonen-Balej, but it's just not feasible to believe that both Prucha and Immonen are willing to come over and ready to step in and produce at the NHL level. I like the idea of Rucinsky short-term (preferably 1 year, 2 at most) because even if we're surprised by a couple of prospects, Rucinsky is versatile enough to play on the 3rd line and would come cheaply enough to be moved.

The only reason they didn't come over was because the same reason Maxim left. More money there [then in Hartford] and its home.

Any rookie will have a question will they produce. Immonen isn't 19 or anything. Hes 22 and is leading the entire country of Finland [a good hockey country] in scoring. He will produce IMO. Of course theres always a question, but I think he'd have a good rookie season.

Prucha might have a tougher time with stats. But Prucha can be moved with Holik if he really struggles in a defensive role that also pots a few (the same style as Holik, defender who helps offensively). But I don't think his offense will be a problem. Put him with Nylander and Jagr and he will be fine. Usually you can say 'they might not play well together', but we know they can.

I'd probably do...

Prucha-Nylander-Jagr
Ruchinsky-Immonen-Balej
Lundmark-Holik-Someone

I'd be looking into bringing another winger in. I'm not sure who you could put there. I forgot whos available but I'd look for a strong defensive 3rd liner that can also play decent offence.

I'm usually opposed to putting two rookies together. I'm still on the fence about it. But I really like that first line. I think Immonen will have a better rookie season than Balej. He seems more ready. But I think thats going to be a great pair (Balej and Immonen). From what Padawan has said, Immonen's passing and vision is phenomenal. With a speedy player like Balej I think they could be agreat pair. Rucinsky on that line can help on offense but hes pretty good with his defensive responsibilities. Jarkko's defense is improving too. Balej would be the weak spot in that department. But overall you should get some offensive power out of that lineup.

Prucha73 11-21-2004 02:15 PM

I expect Jessiman to come back in the end of this season and play some games in AHL. And next year He will likely make the Rangers.

Jessiman-Nylander-Jagr
Prucha-Immonen-Balej
Moore-Holik-Helminen
Murray-Betts-Hollweg

NYRangers 11-21-2004 02:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prucha73
I expect Jessiman to come back in the end of this season and play some games in AHL. And next year He will likely make the Rangers.

Jessiman-Nylander-Jagr
Prucha-Immonen-Balej
Moore-Holik-Helminen
Murray-Betts-Hollweg

Do you know anything about positions?

Jessiman is a RW.
Moore is a C.
Helminen is a LW.
Hollweg is a LW.

"Prucha-Immonen-Balej"

Thats calling for disaster. 2 rookies is pushing the envelope. 3 is insane.

There is no way we have 7 out of 12 rookie forwards.

Who would enforce for that team? Nobody.

Prucha73 11-21-2004 02:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYRangers
Do you know anything about positions?

Jessiman is a RW.
Moore is a C.
Helminen is a LW.
Hollweg is a LW.

"Prucha-Immonen-Balej"

Thats calling for disaster. 2 rookies is pushing the envelope. 3 is insane.

There is no way we have 7 out of 12 rookie forwards.

Yes, I do, do you?. Helminen is a Center, Jessiman will likely play LW, Hollweg is a Center. The only disaster would be is signing the likes of Rucinsky, who will get top minutes no matter what and no young player would be able to beat him out of his spot because he is a vet and Jagr's buddy. I know Moore is a center, but do you expect Holik to play wing in favor of Moore? And Moore will likely do even better as a wing with his blazing speed.

NYRangers 11-21-2004 02:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prucha73
Yes, I do, do you?. Helminen is a Center, Jessiman will likely play LW, Hollweg is a Center. The only disaster would be is signing the likes of Rucinsky, who will get top minutes no matter what and no young player would be able to beat him out of his spot because he is a vet and Jagr's buddy.

Jessiman is a Right Winger. Period.

Helminen shoots lefty. If he is moved it wont be to RW.
Hollweg shoots lefty. If he is moved it wont be to RW. He has been playing LW some with the Pack.

Rucinsky is a disaster? So why dont we trade everyone over 25 and let every kid we have play? all we need is 5 vets gone from your lineup and its an all rookie team.

Prucha73 11-21-2004 02:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYRangers
Jessiman is a Right Winger. Period.

Helminen shoots lefty. If he is moved it wont be to RW.
Hollweg shoots lefty. If he is moved it wont be to RW. He has been playing LW some with the Pack.

Rucinsky is a disaster? So why dont we trade everyone over 25 and let every kid we have play? all we need is 5 vets gone from your lineup and its an all rookie team.

why don't we all just start ridiculous exaggerated arguments? You know I can counter yours with mine: yes lets get rid of all nobodies under age of 25 because they can't play in NHL and give the spots to proven vets who will bring us hardworking sccess that will make us a Cup contender in few years just like the last 7 seasons.

And what the hell does shooting side have to do with what position they play in? Seems like you are new to hockey.

NYRangers 11-21-2004 02:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prucha73
why don't we all just start ridiculous exaggerated arguments? You know I can counter yours with mine: yes lets get rid of all nobodies under age of 25 because they can't play in NHL and give the spots to proven vets who will bring us hardworking sccess that will make us a Cup contender in few years just like the last 7 seasons.

Actually, it wasnt an exagerration. Minus 5 vets from your lineup its an all rookie team. Thats no lie.

Nobody wants to bring in any vets. Rucinsky is the only name floating aorund. You know why? Because he can play defense and he is a good example off the ice too. Hes a good complementary player. Hes not even a 2nd liner on playoff teams. You can't throw every rookie out there with no thought into lines and just tell them to improve and come back in 5 years.

Prucha73 11-21-2004 02:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYRangers
Actually, it wasnt an exagerration. Minus 5 vets from your lineup its an all rookie team. Thats no lie.

Nobody wants to bring in any vets. Rucinsky is the only name floating aorund. You know why? Because he can play defense and he is a good example off the ice too. Hes a good complementary player. Hes not even a 2nd liner on playoff teams. You can't throw every rookie out there with no thought into lines and just tell them to improve and come back in 5 years.

Why bring in vets that have a GUARANTEED spot on the team, you want vets, then bring in some marginal guys that can be sent to Hartford if the young players show they can play. Rucinsky will get his 20 minutes per game no matter what.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:53 PM.

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com, A property of CraveOnline, a division of AtomicOnline LLC ©2009 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.