HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   New York Rangers (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=24)
-   -   Rangers Can't Afford To Make Rj Mistake (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=69701)

KING 04-11-2004 04:51 AM

Rangers Can't Afford To Make Rj Mistake
 
http://nypost.com/sports/18598.htm

BLACKBURN 04-11-2004 07:04 AM

So by the sounds of it no Umberger. Charachter is something you cant teach and if he dosent have it, id rather not have him on the rangers. I think it has been pretty obvious from the beginning that he has his sight set on Pittsburgh. Still, we aquired him for affectively nothing so why should we complain.

So what will our picks look like now including the 46th?

Our 1st (6th)
Toronto 1st
Montreals 2nd
Edmontons 2nd
Umerger compensation 2nd (46th)
Philly's 2nd
Colorado's 2nd

Drfat day should be fun :banana:

xander 04-11-2004 07:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BLACKBURN
So by the sounds of it no Umberger. Charachter is something you cant teach and if he dosent have it, id rather not have him on the rangers. I think it has been pretty obvious from the beginning that he has his sight set on Pittsburgh. Still, we aquired him for affectively nothing so why should we complain.

So what will our picks look like now including the 46th?

Our 1st (6th)
Toronto 1st
Montreals 2nd
Edmontons 2nd
Umerger compensation 2nd (46th)
Philly's 2nd
Colorado's 2nd

Drfat day should be fun :banana:

I think that colorado's 2nd is actually florida's 2nd (which colorado had previously aquired), so it's alot higher up in the round. :banana:

True Blue 04-11-2004 09:22 AM

This is a huge effin' mistake. Umberger is the better choice than the #46 pick, plain and simple. And some people question why some of us absolutely do not trust Jackass with anything that has to do with rebuilding.

Love this:

"So maybe this summer the Rangers will actually hire a full-time goaltending coach to replace part-timer Sam St. Laurent, not of course, that their finish at 27th overall in goals-against indicates they may need some support in that area.

"I don't know the inner workings there, but I don't understand why they don't have someone working with the goalies every day," Martin Brodeur wondered on Friday. "Not having a goaltender coach? Would a baseball team not have a pitching coach? Would a football team not have a quarterback coach? I don't understand it.""


We've only been saying this for how many years now? How could you have an 18 year old goaltender that you thrust into 18 straight starts and NOT have a full time goalie coach? Sather's response? Essentially telling Blackburn not to whine and to work through it himself. :help:

Fletch 04-11-2004 10:04 AM

Brodeur's had a lot to say..
 
about the Rangers this season - more than usual. He must be coming up on free agency and is almost due to be a Ranger.

And I don't know about Umberger. Vancouver did pass on the kid, in essence, and the Rangers do not need a 21 year old loafer at this point. I've never seen him play, so it's tough for me to blindly agree to that, but that's all I'm going on at this point.

Davisian 04-11-2004 10:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fletch
I've never seen him play, so it's tough for me to blindly agree to that, but that's all I'm going on at this point.

Exactly.. I don't know if he's worth his asking price or not, but going by the information we have, he seems more worried about getting his number than making an NHL team..

That could be waaayyy off, but I don't see any urgency on his part to sign. Of course, since he could become a UFA, maybe there is no reason for urgency, but that just tells me that he's looking for a payoff, not to be a cornerstone of a rebuilding franchise.

I know the Rangers have wasted more money, on bigger flops, but I don't mind them holding strong in this case. If they give him a bunch of dough for doing nothing yet, then what does that say to the other kids who have been working their ***** off in HFD or Jr's for the last couple of seasons, and have actually spilled some guts for the franchise?..

Kubera55 04-11-2004 10:54 AM

Eh, no urgency on either parties part, when you think about it.

If RJ wants a max deal, his best opportunity for that is to wait until he's a UFA and let the bidding war drive up his price. Why sign with the Rangers, even if they did offer the max? Sure, a little security during the lockout would be nice. But he's only 21. He and his agent have to know that someone's going to bid on him to play in the AHL next year, lockout or no. If he waits, he can presumably get match money, and he can pick his destination.

From the Rangers perspective, why sign him now? He's not going to play on the Wolfpack while they're in the playoffs and he hasn't played hockey in a year. So his development season is shot. Signing him to be the 'bird in hand' is nice, but not if it costs you a second round pick and you have to give him the biggest deal available. If you think he's worth the biggest deal possible, why not wait and outbid everyone else after he's a UFA, and get the 2nd round pick?

All that, and the Rangers are apparently not totally sold on the kids attitude (and clearly the Canucks weren't . . .) eh. I appreciate that the Rangers could get burnt. But I'm not exactly terrified on this one.

NYR469 04-11-2004 11:17 AM

agree 10000000000% on the fulltime goalie coach...and next year if blackburn and/or lundqvist are in hartford they need that coach in hartford more than ny, but there is no reason why the rangers can't afford to have a fulltime coach in both places

NYR469 04-11-2004 11:22 AM

on umberger, think of it this way. what incentive does either side have to sign a deal right now??

umberger won't sign a tryout deal meaning he can't play in the ahl playoffs, so after todays pack game he wouldn't play until next year...

whether a deal gets signed today or june 1st or after june 2nd, there is no difference for either side except the rangers can tell people to stop asking about it

and sather is all about taking advantage of loopholes. i'm 100% convinced that he plans to 'beat the system' by signing umberger after june 2nd so he can get umberger AND the system and then boast about how smart he is...and while there is no guarantee it will work, i think that negative comments are just to make it look like there was a dispute when people complain about a pre-arranged deal (big question is whether or not the 'genius' informed umberger of his little plan)

Barnaby 04-11-2004 11:24 AM

I hate to defend the Rangers scouting.... but I have to say that if they thought highly enough about Umberger, then they would have to get his name on a contract. If they felt he was an impact player, then they would find a way to get it done. There are obviously questions about his character. We dont need a guy like Daigle anywhere around this young team.

I also wouldnt be surprised if they tried to sign him after the deadline, thus getting the pick, and player.

Son of Steinbrenner 04-11-2004 01:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by True Blue
This is a huge effin' mistake. Umberger is the better choice than the #46 pick, plain and simple. And some people question why some of us absolutely do not trust Jackass with anything that has to do with rebuilding.

Love this:

"So maybe this summer the Rangers will actually hire a full-time goaltending coach to replace part-timer Sam St. Laurent, not of course, that their finish at 27th overall in goals-against indicates they may need some support in that area.

"I don't know the inner workings there, but I don't understand why they don't have someone working with the goalies every day," Martin Brodeur wondered on Friday. "Not having a goaltender coach? Would a baseball team not have a pitching coach? Would a football team not have a quarterback coach? I don't understand it.""


We've only been saying this for how many years now? How could you have an 18 year old goaltender that you thrust into 18 straight starts and NOT have a full time goalie coach? Sather's response? Essentially telling Blackburn not to whine and to work through it himself. :help:

how many times have you seen umberger play? how has he looked in practice the past 3 weeks? you must know if you think umberger is a better choice that the #46 pick.

do you realize that two teams have had problem with umberger and his agent. If Sather signs this kid and he is a bust than what.

hmm if larry brooks writes it of course you have to agree with it. Perhaps you don't remember that Blackburn was living with JD. do you have a original thoughts or do you just wait for brooks to write something

NYR2 04-11-2004 04:52 PM

You can't argue with what Marty said. It's ridiculous there is no full time goalie coach here. When the best goalie in the league has a full time goalie coach, that tells you something about how important it is.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Barnaby
I hate to defend the Rangers scouting.... but I have to say that if they thought highly enough about Umberger, then they would have to get his name on a contract.

I personally don't trust anyone in that front office, and part of it has to do with when they picked Jessiman over Parise. I just really think they should have picked Parise, and now the kid will most likely go on to be a great player in freakin NJ. Maybe I'm wrong, but you know the Rangers luck doesn't always go in their favor and they took a big chance on Hugh. It just always seems they have guys rated higher on their lists than everyone else. I've read that a lot when they've said they had so and so rated higher than he was. Sometimes I just wonder how good our scouting really is.

I'm such a pessimist lol.

True Blue 04-11-2004 04:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Son of Steinbrenner
hmm if larry brooks writes it of course you have to agree with it. Perhaps you don't remember that Blackburn was living with JD. do you have a original thoughts or do you just wait for brooks to write something

It's when you say things like this, that you point out just how ignorant you really are. It's things like this that expose you for the utter cretin you truly are.
Let me refresh what must be a hazy memory for you. We all know how much you love the selective memory and selective quoting. Since you have forgotten, let me refresh you. When Blackburn was a rookie, we were remarking how stupid it is to have an 18 year old w/o a goalie coach. When he was struggling and commented that he may need coaching, it was Sather who riduculed the notion that he needs a coach. Maybe you have forgotten that or are just choosing not to recall any of this. We all (except you as we all know, in your eyes Jackass is never wrong) ranted and raved. And Brooks wrote nothing about lack of a coach at the time.
The in Blackburn's sophmore year, he was pressed into starting 18 games in a row. And we once again remarked that the kid really needs a full-time coach. And once again Sather said that Blackburn should be able to get through anything on his own. One of the things that we focused on at the time was a comment that was made by Broduer when he said that one of the most important things in his career has been his coach. And once again we ranted and raved at the foolishness of being THE ONLY team in hockey w/o a full-time goalie coach. If Broduer was a vet remarking on the importance of a goalie coach, then who could Blackburn, a 19 year old, be without one? Have you choosen to forget this as well?
And now Brooks write a peice on it, and you go out and make yourself look like an idiot by criticizing the criticism of the need for a full-time coach and by essentially making even more of an idiot out of yourself becuase you just got nailed talking out of our a$$.
There have been 2 people who have made every effort to drag down the level of our little community here. You and Pasha. Next time you time you want to make a feeble effort to argue, I suggest you brush up on your facts.

xander 04-11-2004 05:03 PM

i think most of us here agree that it's rediculus that the rangers don't have a goale coach, there's no need for you to press that point any further. I think the question is, why do you think so strongly that umberger is a better choice than the 46th pick and what in your expirience with him has lead you to come to this conclusion?

nyr5186 04-11-2004 05:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xander
i think most of us here agree that it's rediculus that the rangers don't have a goale coach, there's no need for you to press that point any further. I think the question is, why do you think so strongly that umberger is a better choice than the 46th pick and what in your expirience with him has lead you to come to this conclusion?

The fact that Umberger was the 16th overall pick two years ago. I've personally never seen him play so I cant tell you from my own experience, but from everything I've read and heard about him he has great potential. That and the fact that the Rangers farm system has nobody on the horizon who's projected to be anything close to a top line center. We have depth, but not much top end talent. Despite Umberger's question marks, he still has more potential than anything you could probably pick up in the 2nd round of an average-at-best draft.

xander 04-11-2004 05:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nyr4life5186
The fact that Umberger was the 16th overall pick two years ago. I've personally never seen him play so I cant tell you from my own experience, but from everything I've read and heard about him he has great potential. That and the fact that the Rangers farm system has nobody on the horizon who's projected to be anything close to a top line center. We have depth, but not much top end talent. Despite Umberger's question marks, he still has more potential than anything you could probably pick up in the 2nd round of an average-at-best draft.

i think the more pressing issue is that the guy is refusing to play for anything less than a max contract. He's proved nothing to diserve that kind of money, and i think after 7 years of being run by overpaid malcontents that it would be in the interest of this organization not to let a 21 year old kid who hasn't played in a year dictate terms to them. If sather does it right (big if i know) then rebuilding should meen more than just bringing in youth, it should meen not letting the players run the show. If umberger thinks he can get a million a year on the open market then let him walk, i highly doubt that anyone's gonna pay an unproven kid who hasn't played in a year that kind of money. This team needs talent, but it also needs a new attitude, and it definatly doesn't need a 21 year old hold out who's yet to play even on the AHL level.

Burberry Manning 04-11-2004 06:09 PM

Sign the damn guy. Would you guys trade our first rounder this year for a 2006 early second rounder? Of course not. He is a 21 year old who is nasty at hockey and could possibly contribute as early as next season(lockout). Hell, if I was amazing and was thought to have such a bright future than I would be looking to get the best contract also. Why would I worry about making an NHL team instead of $$ when I KNOW that teams will be lining up to bid on me in a month or so. Obviously those teams think I am good enough to make an NHL club so what do I have to worry about. Think about it, the burden is on Sather at this point, RJ can just wait it out and have the best offer come to him. It's a smart business descision.

And I dont know what some of you guys are thinking with the whole "bad attitude" statements. He is 21 years old and has dominated every level of hockey he has played in, why wouldnt he be stoked and have a swagger about him? I sure as hell would. I embrace a change where we have players with personality and a swagger about them. Flamboyant personalities give an identity to a team and gives us fans a more personal way to connect with our team. When Fleury chicken-danced and McCarthy(i hate him) talked himself up I loved it it and it made me feel closer to the Rangers and added to my hatred of the Isles.

klingsor 04-11-2004 06:29 PM

I'm just wondering why Burke would have drafted a "selfish lazy" guy in the first place.

Since I've never seen him play (not that I'd have a clue as to how good an NHLer he'd be if I had), I can't judge his talent. The Canucks must've seen SOME potential or they wouldn't have drafted him that high.

True Blue 04-11-2004 09:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xander
why do you think so strongly that umberger is a better choice than the 46th pick and what in your expirience with him has lead you to come to this conclusion?

Have I ever seen him play personally? No, not him. However I can arrive at a few educated guesses. Umberger was a # 16 pick overall. While not always the rule, by and large #6 picks overall have done better than #46 overall. He already is 6'2". So he is still very young and already has good size. He currently projects as a 2nd line center or, if he excells as a first line player. He has played very well at all levels of competition. The only forward that qualifies as that, from all the Sather trades is Balej. At least the only forward that is in this country and has played very well against North American competition. I would say that that is another step into a possible projection that he has the potential to do well.
You say that holding out for a contract makes him undesirable? I say, who cares? You don't know that this is the sign of a prima-donna. Players like to get as much as they can. How many times did Messier exert pressure in his negotiations? Didn't Comrie hold out? He did, but I would still love to have him. Brendan Witt held out as well.
And lastly, how many times have the Rangers made mistakes by overpaying old and washed up veterans? This is what I would classify as a good financial risk as opposed to a poor one. It's not like paying him the $250k-$500k more that he wants would really make such an impact towards any kind of future cap or luxury tax.
If you're really rebuilding, how can you not sign this kid? How can you just allow a former top 16 pick in a draft, with size that is screaming NHL power forward in a few years and talent to boot, just walk away without even giving him a shot?

Son of Steinbrenner 04-11-2004 10:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by True Blue
It's when you say things like this, that you point out just how ignorant you really are. It's things like this that expose you for the utter cretin you truly are.
Let me refresh what must be a hazy memory for you. We all know how much you love the selective memory and selective quoting. Since you have forgotten, let me refresh you. When Blackburn was a rookie, we were remarking how stupid it is to have an 18 year old w/o a goalie coach. When he was struggling and commented that he may need coaching, it was Sather who riduculed the notion that he needs a coach. Maybe you have forgotten that or are just choosing not to recall any of this. We all (except you as we all know, in your eyes Jackass is never wrong) ranted and raved. And Brooks wrote nothing about lack of a coach at the time.
The in Blackburn's sophmore year, he was pressed into starting 18 games in a row. And we once again remarked that the kid really needs a full-time coach. And once again Sather said that Blackburn should be able to get through anything on his own. One of the things that we focused on at the time was a comment that was made by Broduer when he said that one of the most important things in his career has been his coach. And once again we ranted and raved at the foolishness of being THE ONLY team in hockey w/o a full-time goalie coach. If Broduer was a vet remarking on the importance of a goalie coach, then who could Blackburn, a 19 year old, be without one? Have you choosen to forget this as well?
And now Brooks write a peice on it, and you go out and make yourself look like an idiot by criticizing the criticism of the need for a full-time coach and by essentially making even more of an idiot out of yourself becuase you just got nailed talking out of our a$$.
There have been 2 people who have made every effort to drag down the level of our little community here. You and Pasha. Next time you time you want to make a feeble effort to argue, I suggest you brush up on your facts.

hmm living with a goaltender who watches him practice everyday must be bad for a young hockey player. should the rangers have a goaltender coach? i think they do but i understand why they didn't. Richter really didn't need one. Heck i bet with Richter around his first season and half as a ranger blackburn learned quite a bit.

i notice that you never saw umberger play but still don't trust ryan mcgill (your choice for future coach) mcgill has worked this kid for 3 weeks and perhaps has seen for himself what burke saw. umberger has no heart.
btw sather has been wrong about a few things while he has been here and i have called him out it. brooks lies everyweek to you in his column yet you still quote him. i'm sorry true brooks if i hurt your feelings. :naughty:

perhaps the rangers don't want another lundmark on there hands a useless young player that has no role.

Fletch 04-11-2004 10:14 PM

You know what TB...
 
I think at this point some people would take the #46 overall pick in this season's draft for a lot of former number ones over the last few seasons. One does need to question why Sather should shell out $1+ million for this kid aside from the reason that there are few prospects in the organization and it's only money. One also needs to assess why Vancouver was willing to give a teammate of his more money, who was a year younger, and you was a second round pick. Maybe Sather's willing to wait this out, get the #46 pick, and take a chance that nobody out there offers more than $800K, and Sather comes in and trumps them. As a GM, if you have any leverage, or think you have it, you don't want to lose it.

Fletch 04-11-2004 10:15 PM

SoS...
 
having Richter around and a full-time coach are two totally different things. If you're committing to keeping an 18 year old on your roster, you need to nurture and develop him, and that's a full-time job.

Son of Steinbrenner 04-11-2004 10:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by True Blue
Have I ever seen him play personally? No, not him. However I can arrive at a few educated guesses. Umberger was a # 16 pick overall. While not always the rule, by and large #6 picks overall have done better than #46 overall. He already is 6'2". So he is still very young and already has good size. He currently projects as a 2nd line center or, if he excells as a first line player. He has played very well at all levels of competition. The only forward that qualifies as that, from all the Sather trades is Balej. At least the only forward that is in this country and has played very well against North American competition. I would say that that is another step into a possible projection that he has the potential to do well.
You say that holding out for a contract makes him undesirable? I say, who cares? You don't know that this is the sign of a prima-donna. Players like to get as much as they can. How many times did Messier exert pressure in his negotiations? Didn't Comrie hold out? He did, but I would still love to have him. Brendan Witt held out as well.
And lastly, how many times have the Rangers made mistakes by overpaying old and washed up veterans? This is what I would classify as a good financial risk as opposed to a poor one. It's not like paying him the $250k-$500k more that he wants would really make such an impact towards any kind of future cap or luxury tax.
If you're really rebuilding, how can you not sign this kid? How can you just allow a former top 16 pick in a draft, with size that is screaming NHL power forward in a few years and talent to boot, just walk away without even giving him a shot?

hmm the rangers have made mistakes with money in the past so why not make more hmm?
yeah messier held out after the rangers won there only cup in he past 64 years but he didn't deserve to hold out. lets get your facts straight. i know you have no respect for messier but messier was promised a new contract if the rangers won the cup.
he projects as a second line center perhaps you would like to add source to that. how can you say that if you have never seen him play? :speechles
you whine about money spent and the new cba and future salary cap yet you don't mind wasting money on somebody that has no heart. we already have another young player like that. lundmark.

nyr5186 04-11-2004 10:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Son of Steinbrenner
hmm the rangers have made mistakes with money in the past so why not make more hmm?
yeah messier held out after the rangers won there only cup in he past 64 years but he didn't deserve to hold out. lets get your facts straight. i know you have no respect for messier but messier was promised a new contract if the rangers won the cup.
he projects as a second line center perhaps you would like to add source to that. how can you say that if you have never seen him play? :speechles
you whine about money spent and the new cba and future salary cap yet you don't mind wasting money on somebody that has no heart. we already have another young player like that. lundmark.

This drips of irony. How can you say Umberger has no heart when you haven't seen him play? If you want a source to find out about his potential, go to the Prospects Board and ask people who have seen him play. I'm willing to bet most would agree with TB's assessment.

Its one thing to complain about throwing big money and long term contracts at veterans with question marks because of the impending salary cap. Its another thing to refuse to give a top prospect the extra couple $100K it would take to sign him and then use the new CBA as an excuse. We're talking about pocket change here, not millions of dollars.

And when has anybody said that they dont have any respect for Messier? Leaving New York for more money might have left a bad taste in his mouth, but any sensible Ranger fan will forever be grateful to Messier for leading us to the Cup. Doesn't mean Neil Smith should curtail to all of his demands.

xander 04-12-2004 12:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by True Blue
Have I ever seen him play personally? No, not him. However I can arrive at a few educated guesses. Umberger was a # 16 pick overall. While not always the rule, by and large #6 picks overall have done better than #46 overall. He already is 6'2". So he is still very young and already has good size. He currently projects as a 2nd line center or, if he excells as a first line player. He has played very well at all levels of competition. The only forward that qualifies as that, from all the Sather trades is Balej. At least the only forward that is in this country and has played very well against North American competition. I would say that that is another step into a possible projection that he has the potential to do well.
You say that holding out for a contract makes him undesirable? I say, who cares? You don't know that this is the sign of a prima-donna. Players like to get as much as they can. How many times did Messier exert pressure in his negotiations? Didn't Comrie hold out? He did, but I would still love to have him. Brendan Witt held out as well.
And lastly, how many times have the Rangers made mistakes by overpaying old and washed up veterans? This is what I would classify as a good financial risk as opposed to a poor one. It's not like paying him the $250k-$500k more that he wants would really make such an impact towards any kind of future cap or luxury tax.
If you're really rebuilding, how can you not sign this kid? How can you just allow a former top 16 pick in a draft, with size that is screaming NHL power forward in a few years and talent to boot, just walk away without even giving him a shot?

Your comparing mark messier to rj umberger, are you nuts? Messier had earned some leverage, this kid hasn't earned anything. Theres a huge differance between an all time hockey great (or in the case of comrie and witt, a rising star and an established player) holding out and a kid who's never played pro hockey on any level. This kids overrating his worth when he's never played a minute in the NHL, that just reeks of primadonna. As much as i want to see talent on this team, i don't wanna see the players running the show, becouse if you look back at the last 7 years it's been that attitude, rather than a talent deficiency thats been the problem.
Maybe if umberger was a major can't miss prospect putting up big numbers you could make some consesions, but he's not. He's a talented offesive player, but almost every scounting report says that he's a defensive liablilty. This isn't Alexander Ovechkin, he's a good prospect but he needs alot of work. Not to mention the fact that he's lost a year of development now.
If umberger wants to be reasonable then i'm all for signing him, but if he wants to demand a millio per then he can walk. He's crazy if he thinks he's getting that after sitting out a year with the leauge looking at a new cba, no one's going to give it to him.
The team needs to be rebuilt in both body and mind, new talent, new philosphy. That new philosphy shouldn't include giving into the demands of players that haven't proven anything.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:40 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.