HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   New York Rangers (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=24)
-   -   Waivers (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=29461)

L.I.RangerFan 11-19-2003 12:06 PM

Waivers
 
Both Sean Brown and Manny Malholtra are on waivers.

Do the Rangers take a flyer on either one or both?

We all know what Manny brings and Brown is a tough defenseman, who while not great isn't bad for depth.

I say No on Manny
Yes on Brown

DLaCouture39 11-19-2003 12:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by L.I.RangerFan
Both Sean Brown and Manny Malholtra are on waivers.

Do the Rangers take a flyer on either one or both?

We all know what Manny brings and Brown is a tough defenseman, who while not great isn't bad for depth.

I say No on Manny
Yes on Brown


I say yes on Manny
I say yes on Brown

I put LaCouture, Purinton on waivers and I deal Hlavac for a pick so when Lindros gets back Ortmeyer or Moore can be called up or sent down without a problem.


Manny-Lundmark-Ortmeyer a real kid line.

Kodiak 11-19-2003 12:13 PM

We don't have room for either. Malhotra is not worth picking up if he's just going to get 4th line ice time or be a regular healthy scratch. I'd rather he get picked up by a team that will actually play him.

As for Brown, he's no better than Purinton, and we're already carrying 8 d-men on the roster. What good is another plodding, marginal d-man going to do for this team when we don't play the one we've already got?

Kodiak 11-19-2003 12:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DLaCouture39
Manny-Lundmark-Ortmeyer a real kid line.

I don't see how playing Lundmark with Manny and Ortmeyer is any better than playing him with LaCouture and Purinton. He's still being played with linemates that don't have very much offensive potential. He'd have to try to do everything by himself in the offensive zone. Lundmark will never get anywhere unless he starts playing with players that have some talent.

L.I.RangerFan 11-19-2003 12:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kodiak
We don't have room for either. Malhotra is not worth picking up if he's just going to get 4th line ice time or be a regular healthy scratch. I'd rather he get picked up by a team that will actually play him.

As for Brown, he's no better than Purinton, and we're already carrying 8 d-men on the roster. What good is another plodding, marginal d-man going to do for this team when we don't play the one we've already got?


I have never been that high on Purinton. So Brown replaces him and if you look at it, Brown is better defensively and hits more than Purinton.

SingnBluesOnBroadway 11-19-2003 12:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DLaCouture39
I say yes on Manny
I say yes on Brown

I put LaCouture, Purinton on waivers and I deal Hlavac for a pick so when Lindros gets back Ortmeyer or Moore can be called up or sent down without a problem.


Manny-Lundmark-Ortmeyer a real kid line.


Manny has not demonstrated the ablility to be a NHL hockey player. Pure and simple. He hasn't. He's played in close to 300 NHL games and has 23 goals and 29 assists for 52 points. Oh yeah, and he's a -26 for his career (for that matter, he's never been a + player and he played on the team that had the best record in the West last season.)

And if Slats did put a line together, who's to say that it would work or play any more than the kids are now.

Again, there is a reason these guys are on waivers.

Son of Steinbrenner 11-19-2003 01:11 PM

wait i thought sather ruined malhotra. oh wait thats right he was just a prospect that didnt pan out. wow that doesnt happen in sports

LiquidClown 11-19-2003 01:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jar jar links
wait i thought sather ruined malhotra. oh wait thats right he was just a prospect that didnt pan out. wow that doesnt happen in sports


How do you know? He was used incorrectly here and didn't get MUCH of a chance. I don't think anyone thought he was going to be the next Modano or anything but a good solid defensive forward who might chip in 15-20 goals. He went to Dallas after leaving his heart on his sleave (remember the story about him going to center ice(err court cause of the bball game).
So here's the question that really can't be answered.. Was Manny ruined by the Rangers (ala Christian Dube) or was he as you stated a prospect that just didn't turn out? In my honest opinion I believe it was a little of both, he may not have panned out as many of us likened him to, but there's no doubt in my mind Muckler had alot to do with ruining that kid.

Laches 11-19-2003 02:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SingnBluesOnBroadway
Manny has not demonstrated the ablility to be a NHL hockey player. Pure and simple. He hasn't. He's played in close to 300 NHL games and has 23 goals and 29 assists for 52 points. Oh yeah, and he's a -26 for his career (for that matter, he's never been a + player and he played on the team that had the best record in the West last season.)

---I think the fact that he's played in close to 300 NHL games since being drafted refutes your claim that he "has not demonstrated the ability to be an NHL hockey player." If he had not demonstrated the ability to play at the NHL level, he wouldn't have suited up once, let alone close to 300 times. He certainly hasn't been as effective player as the Rangers and Stars had hoped, but there's a reason he's suited up nearly 300 times while many of the guys drafted along with them haven't even dressed for even a fraction of that many games. Also, the fact that he's a minus 26 for his career doesn't tell you much either. Plus/minus is meaningless unless you look at it relative to teammates. Most of that came from his days on the Rangers where due to poor coaching, shoddy defense and inconsistent goaltending, pretty much everyone on the team was a minus. (Messier was a minus 25 in '00-1 alone.) So, I think it's fair to say that he hasn't demonstrated the ability to be a consistently effective NHL player, but not to say that he hasn't shown he can be one at all.

In retrospect, he should have been handled a lot differently, but what's done is done. Who knows, maybe he can find his niche on his next stop if he gets one. We've seen it happen with guys like Fata and Zyuzin, both highly-touted top-10 picks who seem to have settled in after disappointing in their first couple of stops.

King Nothing* 11-19-2003 02:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jar jar links
wait i thought sather ruined malhotra. oh wait thats right he was just a prospect that didnt pan out. wow that doesnt happen in sports

Do you think these up by yourself or does daddy help?

Laches 11-19-2003 02:49 PM

And on the waiver pickups, I wouldn't take either. Brown for the reasons that Kodiak stated and Malhotra because it just doesn't make sense to bring him back here. It might make sense for a team like a Buffalo, a Pittsburgh or a Phoenix to pick him up, a team that's focused tomorrow might be willing to take on a project like Manny, but Manny on the Rangers (or Stars for that matter), who have spent a lot of money on veterans and are in win-now mode, doesn't really make a lot of sense.

SingnBluesOnBroadway 11-19-2003 02:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Laches
---I think the fact that he's played in close to 300 NHL games since being drafted refutes your claim that he "has not demonstrated the ability to be an NHL hockey player." If he had not demonstrated the ability to play at the NHL level, he wouldn't have suited up once, let alone close to 300 times. He certainly hasn't been as effective player as the Rangers and Stars had hoped, but there's a reason he's suited up nearly 300 times while many of the guys drafted along with them haven't even dressed for even a fraction of that many games. Also, the fact that he's a minus 26 for his career doesn't tell you much either. Plus/minus is meaningless unless you look at it relative to teammates. Most of that came from his days on the Rangers where due to poor coaching, shoddy defense and inconsistent goaltending, pretty much everyone on the team was a minus. (Messier was a minus 25 in '00-1 alone.) So, I think it's fair to say that he hasn't demonstrated the ability to be a consistently effective NHL player, but not to say that he hasn't shown he can be one at all.

In retrospect, he should have been handled a lot differently, but what's done is done. Who knows, maybe he can find his niche on his next stop if he gets one. We've seen it happen with guys like Fata and Zyuzin, both highly-touted top-10 picks who seem to have settled in after disappointing in their first couple of stops.

He's played close to three hundred games but its safe to say that he shouldn't have. He played in 73 games in 98-99 because he could not go back to his junior team (I believe that was the case). He played another 27 during Smith-Muckler Mannygate. He never should have been in the NHL. Since then, he has done nothing to demonstrate that he is an NHler save dress himself in a NHL uniform.

And when it comes to +/- he has never been a plus player. Even on the stars he was -4.

Laches 11-19-2003 03:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SingnBluesOnBroadway
He's played close to three hundred games but its safe to say that he shouldn't have. He played in 73 games in 98-99 because he could not go back to his junior team (I believe that was the case). He played another 27 during Smith-Muckler Mannygate. He never should have been in the NHL. Since then, he has done nothing to demonstrate that he is an NHler save dress himself in a NHL uniform.

And when it comes to +/- he has never been a plus player. Even on the stars he was -4.


---It's safe to say that he should NEVER have played in the NHL? He dressed for nearly 300 games as a result of accidents, errors and procedural technicalities? How about when he was playing with Messier and Dvorak, and scored 9 points in 12 games? Should he not have been dressed for any of them?

And again, plus/minus can only be addressed on a relative basis. The fact that a guy is a minus alone is meaningless.

SingnBluesOnBroadway 11-19-2003 03:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Laches
---It's safe to say that he should NEVER have played in the NHL? He dressed for nearly 300 games as a result of accidents, errors and procedural technicalities? How about when he was playing with Messier and Dvorak, and scored 9 points in 12 games? Should he not have been dressed for any of them?

And again, plus/minus can only be addressed on a relative basis. The fact that a guy is a minus alone is meaningless.


No, my point is he never should have dressed for so many games. He was stuck in NY right after he was drafted and he certainly was not NHL ready at that time. He played 206 games with an organization that had no depth. It's not like he cracked the Avalanche line up.

Sure he had a nice run with Mess and Dvo. He got hot and consequently scored about a fifth of all his points in those 12 games (if my math is correct) But why then did he never do it again?

Edge 11-19-2003 03:27 PM

He was hardly stuck in NY his rookie season. if i remember correctly his rookie season wasnt all that bad.

And the 27 games he played actually refute the whole "he shouldn't have played 300" viewpoint. If he only played 27 games that means he played them even later than his first two seasons.

Again the point is not that "a" prospect didn't pan out, it's the fact that none of "the" prospects this team has ever seems to pan out, despite the fact that many people around the league would have loved to have had them at young ages.

It's like the millionare guy who was just acquited. The head just happens to be missing. the one body part that just happens to be able to tell how the death went. his wife just happens to die years earlier, a women who is slated to testify in his wife's case just happens to disappear and never be found. cmon even the guys own brother caught on.

same thing here. when is pattern enough evidence? we arent talking about scrubs here.

We are talking about kids who were ranked high not only by CSB but by various publications, teams, etc.

Either ALL these kids had some serious flaws that not even god saw, or this team has just reached a new level of amazement.

i will leave you guys with one question: IF THE RANGERS BRAIN TRUST IS SO GOOD AT SCOUTING THAT THEY CAN TELL THAT A PLAYER WILL NEVER MAKE IT BEFORE GIVING LEGITIMATE CHANCES, THEN WHY WERE NONE OF THESE KIDS TRADED TILL AFTER THEIR VALUES HAD SUNK? FURTHERMORE WHY HAS THE TEAM NOT MADE THE PLAYOFFS SINCE MARK MESSIER WAS ONLY IN HIS MID 30'S?


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:30 AM.

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.