HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   New York Rangers (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=24)
-   -   Would the Rangers be interested in Kolzig? (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=78970)

Jasper17 05-19-2004 08:15 PM

Would the Rangers be interested in Kolzig?
 
I am not sure if they are interested in him, but if they are what would they be willing to offer the Caps for him?

Prucha73 05-19-2004 08:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Japser17
I am not sure if they are interested in him, but if they are what would they be willing to offer the Caps for him?

How about Duhnam?

in the hall 05-19-2004 08:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prucha73
How about Duhnam?

yeah thats as far as i go even, the only benefit is the saving of money for the caps

no interest in kolzig because he does not fit this team

Radek27 05-19-2004 08:54 PM

I would trade Dunham for Kolzig in a second

Park #2 05-19-2004 10:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Japser17
I am not sure if they are interested in him, but if they are what would they be willing to offer the Caps for him?

What sense would bringing in a 33 year old goalie who demands playing time be when you have a rebuilding organization with two young goaltenders needing time?
The Rangers, hopefully, wouldn't offer anything - even Dunham for Kolzig. KOlzig costs more and with the new CBA would do financial harm - nevermind continue to stunt the growth of the young goalies.

rnyquist 05-19-2004 10:51 PM

Ya we don't need a big contract goalie. And for the sake of arguement, we also don't need any big name vets or long contracts like Weight or Tkachuk, no matter how good they are

themaninorange 05-20-2004 12:35 AM

i think we're stuck with dunham...i can't see his trade vaule being very high, but if someone offers us a mid-round draft pick for him i wouldn't be opposed to taking that. is there any point to buying him out at this stage? if his contract is up at the end of next season we should just ride his contract out. we need to face the reality that we're not going to be very good next season either way, and as bad as dunham has been if he stays healthy, who knows, maybe he can put some kind of a decent streak together. if not, oh well. he's not going to be the difference between us making or not making the playoffs.

Prucha73 05-20-2004 12:38 AM

I think our goaltending problems will be solved when we finally hire a good full time goalie coach.

ddheyman 05-20-2004 03:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prucha73
I think our goaltending problems will be solved when we finally hire a good full time goalie coach.

I think that may be premature ... I would think you would need GOOD goaltenders before you worry about the coach ... if they suck it doesn't matter how good the coach is ...

Prucha73 05-20-2004 03:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ddheyman
I think that may be premature ... I would think you would need GOOD goaltenders before you worry about the coach ... if they suck it doesn't matter how good the coach is ...


Maybe the reason Dunham "sucks" is because he needs a goalie coach.

Slewfoot 05-20-2004 03:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prucha73
Maybe the reason Dunham "sucks" is because he needs a goalie coach.

Maybe he needs a defense ?

Blueshirt13 05-20-2004 03:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prucha73
Maybe the reason Dunham "sucks" is because he needs a goalie coach.

Dunham played miserably a great deal of the season on his own but a good portion has to be contributed to the defense or lack there of this past year.

Nashville played more of a defensive system in 00-01 because they were still building the franchise. He excelled that year and played wel for us in 02-03. Other than those two periods, he hasn't really done anything spectacular in his NHL career.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/player...s?statsId=1331

Radek27 05-20-2004 04:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blueshirt13
Dunham played miserably a great deal of the season on his own but a good portion has to be contributed to the defense or lack there of this past year.

Nashville played more of a defensive system in 00-01 because they were still building the franchise. He excelled that year and played wel for us in 02-03. Other than those two periods, he hasn't really done anything spectacular in his NHL career.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/player...s?statsId=1331

I just don't want Duham back at all. If we go with a vet goalie I want a guy who can and will steal games for us. If not then give the job to whoever plays best in camp from the kids we have. I really don't think Dunham will be back.

n8 05-21-2004 03:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Park #2
What sense would bringing in a 33 year old goalie who demands playing time be when you have a rebuilding organization with two young goaltenders needing time?
The Rangers, hopefully, wouldn't offer anything - even Dunham for Kolzig. KOlzig costs more and with the new CBA would do financial harm - nevermind continue to stunt the growth of the young goalies.

trade him to a would be contender? i'm sure we could get more for kolzig then we could for dunham. we'd just have to eat some salary like always.

Fletch 05-21-2004 08:40 AM

No freakin' Kolzig...
 
the Rangers are no better than the Caps were last season, and Kolzig was in nets for the Caps last season.

And why did Dunham suck last season? You know, unfortunately he came to the Rangers with the deficiency of not being a durable guy. He's a 45-55 game a year goalie, not 60-65. Sather played him to often, on occasion, and he couldn't handle the workload. Further, it wasn't easy in the Ranger nets. The defense in front of him sucked. Forwards routinely wreaked havoc in front of him. And the guy was knocked around all over the place with zero retribution from his teammates. He started out great, got overworked, got banged around, lost confidence, and here we are. To me, he's not that bad if you're willing to play a backup 30+ games a year.

True Blue 05-21-2004 08:56 AM

[QUOTE=Fletch]To me, he's not that bad if you're willing to play a backup 30+ games a year.[QUOTE]

Agreed, Fletch. That backup spot you mention would be perfect for a guy like Lundquist, IF (notice the BIG if) he can wow at camp. Otherwise, I would say that it would even be a good spot for Labarbera, however, I don't know if he is an NHL level goalie. I would, however, be willing to give him a shot, depending on how he did at camp. Blackburn needs a full year in Hartford, no doubt about it. So, you have an open cometition between Lundquist & Labarbera and if none work out, you can always find a veteran backup on waivers. McLennan comes to mind, however, I doubt that he would enter into a season w/o a contact.

kazo 05-21-2004 10:03 AM

A lot of people seem to be ready to write Labarbera off. I think that's a little premature. He's still only 24 and, as far as goalies are concerned, he's still a baby. Based on his performance in Hartford and the fact he has nothing more to prove in the AHL, I would give him every chance to win at least a backup role in NY.

With all the young goalies in this system, why-o-why do the Rangers not have a goalie coach?

Fletch 05-21-2004 10:55 AM

I agree kazo...
 
and have been saying the same (although I did mention that in the short period of time in which I saw him last night, he was a bit shaky and quite lucky shots didn't get through - perhaps, though, that time off affected him). He's improved markedly each year over the last few. He's seemingly worked hard to get to where he is now. If he has similar improvement next season, and continues to work hard, he may be a goalie in this league yet.

Brooklyn Ranger 05-21-2004 04:14 PM

I agree with Fletch about Dunham
 
Since Dunham is untradeable at the moment, might as well use him. It makes zero sense to buy him out because of the possiblility of a lockout. But since he's really not suited to playing more than 50+ games it becomes an absolute necessity to find a backup goalie who can contribute in a big way. That's an awful lot of responsibility to place on LaBarbera. He's played professionally for 4 years and this season was the first time he really played well, much less dominated play. There is no guarantee that he will get any better and there is also the possiblility that he has just had the best year of his career and will never repeat it.

The Rangers need a backup goalie that can handle playing behind a team of young, inexperienced players who are just starting out in the NHL. I really don't think that player is LaBarbera. He scrambles an awful lot, he goes down early on shots and then flops around. I honestly think that he would be eaten alive in the NHL, unless his teamates can play solid game that controls the puck and keeps it to the outside consistantly. And while there is hope that the Rangers will improve their game next season, no one can or should expect miracles overnight. Rebuilding is process that takes time.

It would be much better to find a solid, if unspectacular veteran backup goalie for next season. If Lundqvist ends ups beating him out for the backup job, then the backup can either be traded or waived. If Lundqvist (or by some miracle Blackburn) plays well enough during the season to be called up, same thing. But, relying on LaBarbera to both win the backup job and play well enough to keep it is a huge reach and is very risky.

nyr5186 05-21-2004 04:58 PM

One thing to think about Dunham. This is a guy who has more international experience than any other active American goalie. After having a miserable season in which he heard mock cheers everytime he stopped a 50 foot wrist shot at the Garden, he was left off the U.S. World Cup roster in favor of three under-26 goaltenders. I dont think anyone could've imagined him having a year worse than this. So if theres anything he does have going for him right now, its motivation to prove all his critics wrong. And just like Lindros this year and Nedved the past, I think Dunham will have a bounceback season next year. Add to that his nearly untradeable contract and low value, expect the starting job to be Dunham's to lose whenever training camp opens up again.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:02 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.